Dual-type theory: ENFj-ENTp - miscellaneous notes

[tcaudilllg]

*DRAFT*

Fe:Ne

Ponders the meaning of existence; the meaning of choices made; interprets choices; makes people aware of the options they have, or insists that they have none; contests the prevailing meaning of a choice, or affirms that meaning.

Ni:Ti

Knows one's place in the scheme of things; can improve one's position over a span of time; observes logic as having evolved over time; thinking of the times; position at the time; ordinals in the performance of a process; contest of positions over a span of time (rivalty); one's position in time. (hands on a clock).

Te:Se

The work of forces; alignment of force; exchange of force; possession of might; the experience of possessing great strength; the experience of having might; the use of force to obtain; loss due to forces beyond one's control.

Si:Fi

Beauty on basis of attractiveness; relational conduct on basis of like/dislike; interdependence between people of similar values; conflict between persons who hold other values; subjective providence; drawing oneself toward people who offer assistance, away from those who don't.

Ti:Si

Position reliant on health; governing principle of conserved relational constants; movement to equilibrium; being in position to help others, or to make war on them; position of capacity to aid or hinder; contingency of positon on living in harmony with others.

Se:Fe

Message conveying one's will; changes in message indicating changes in will; perception of strength or weakness in others; signaling vulnerabilty; contest of competing messages; confidence in the meaning of things; importance of expressing self-confidence to others.

Fi:Ni

attraction/repulsion due to the path one takes relative to one's own; attraction/repulsion due to changes in course; changing course to increase one's likability.

Ne:Te

observance of an object's potential for work; the capacity to obtain needed resources as a factor of one's potential; loss of potential due to loss of holdings; potential for wealth; dependence of potential upon equitable exchange; the capacity to act flexibly to satisfy changing needs; potential as a determinate of acention to wealth.

[Phaedrus]

You're deluded, tcaudilllg. Deal with it.

[Ali]

question for you tcaudilllg, and by no means do I point it at you - it just popped up with your posts, thats all. Have you considered what someone with dissociative idendity disorder (multiple personality as it used to be known) would come under if tried to be typed with socionics ?

[tcaudilllg]

question for you tcaudilllg, and by no means do I point it at you - it just popped up with your posts, thats all. Have you considered what someone with dissociative idendity disorder (multiple personality as it used to be known) would come under if tried to be typed with socionics ?

It means losing to one of the archetypes, and having the subconscious take over in such capacity. What you end up with is a person who really doesn't care if they have confidence in a position or not, a sudden outburst of activity in search of the dualization they are lacking. I don't mean "go find your dual", either: I mean the acquisition of the stimulation required to empower the disempowered functions. If "Jane" can't get the Si she wants, then perhaps "Joyce" must. Without the Si, Jane may not be capable of feeding her imagination with ideals relevant for her day. Now it is very important to note that DID probably cannot be forced upon persons whom do not already have restrained dualization pathways. Guys fantasize about women they can't have, but if they didn't then they would be forced to grapple completely with the reality that their potential is limited. It would be akin to putting one's psyche through a blender and contorting, disfragmenting it, etc. Fantasy is important, because without it one loses hope that one can tame one's own unconscious and thus, becomes corrupted by it. If one loses hope, what else is left? DID, resulting as it does in a total loss in one's own hope, manifests as an involuntary self-corruption. (contrast with the corrupt type who is confident in the subconscious' superiority, and actually finds hope in it). DID means surrendering oneself to positions one is not confident in.... Think about that for just a moment, how violating an experience that must be. If I were to look down the road and observe that I could corrupt myself in that way, then all of a sudden not only would there be no guarantee of success... there would be no guarantee even of my own survival against adversity. I would have no confidence in myself even to do the minimum necessary to ensure my own survival. How indeed, with such understanding in mind, could I face the day? Such an observation, taken seriously, could not be reconciled to a perosonality built around self-confidence. The only option, therefore, is a personality split which conceals the unstable aspect of reality from the confident side.

[Ali]

. How indeed, with such understanding in mind, could I face the day? Such an observation, taken seriously, could not be reconciled to a perosonality built around self-confidence. The only option, therefore, is a personality split which conceals the unstable aspect of reality from the confident side.

Such a personality split either conceals it or comes to accept it (perhaps not from the same confidence as you suggest),perhaps even rationalizes it, but at some level of acceptance just the same.

It means losing to one of the archetypes, and having the subconscious take over in such capacity. What you end up with is a person who really doesn't care if they have confidence in a position or not, a sudden outburst of activity in search of the dualization they are lacking. I don't mean "go find your dual", either: I mean the acquisition of the stimulation required to empower the disempowered functions.

My question of course is - could then an entj, disassociating with his personality (for coping or whatever reasons), be in that phase when seeing himself through the lens of socionics, find himself as coming out as an isfp. Or vice versa.

And it's not necessrily disassociative disorder either. It's the pop-concept of having the shadow personality turn up due to stress, etc - if this reugularly oscillates in the extreme, would not then one find himself coming out as an..

Or in terms of having social masks. You have a mask for work, a mask for society, depending on what survival mechanisms your being worked on..in an extreme case, would not then one find himself...

I'm essentially asking you for a basis of dual-type theory and a Relative, or statistical norm, as such - even if it is theorized as you see it. Have you considered it might be more-applicable for for cases where you take it on as a defense mechanism rather than a norm ? If not, then on what observation(s)/on whom/on how many people/ .. have you come to develop this theory..

Do you follow what I am trying to ask of you?

[tcaudilllg]

Stress happens, from a psychological standpoint, because one has been put in a situation under which one believes one must forgo personal fulfillment for a long period of time. People respond differently to stress. I respond by giving more time to the personal fulfillment side, and only meekly approach the demands which are encroaching upon me from outside. A stressful situation is an overbearing one, and I tend to put off confronting it until non-response becomes an immediate threat to future satisfaction. A situation is stressful, though, because it is imposed upon me without my really understanding how to approach it. (this because it is asking me to give up things that I believe I should have).

Your alter ego manages personal gratification, giving you the stimulus you need to anchor your ego. Without that stimulus you will begin having issues coping with your present situation. Most of us at that point say, "hey, I'm a hedonist", or "I'm a party person!" and go wild with other people who have the same needs for gratification. DID people are so estranged from their alter egos that they think they must be the "good boy" or the "good girl" and so, indulge themselves in NOT self-gratifying. It's as though the ego has assimilated the alter ego and made the choice between the angel and the devil moot: the person has clearly argured in favor of the angel. The problem happens when feelings of belief come to the fore: beliefs often cannot be reconciled with what is in essence a consensus society. The DID person feels themselves compelled to adhere to the consensus, yet their beliefs tell them that something isn't completely right. This is the stage for the seperation, finally manifested when the consensus appears to be moving beyond the threshold of tolerability, or has already moved to such and one's coping method has failed. Unable to rationalize the defense of their own persons in the face of a crippling situation, the alter ego itself finally has reason to differentiate itself, and to even take over. Most people's alter egos are poorly developed and incapable of managing even the most simplistic interactions, but perhaps the ego's absorbtion of the alter ego has the unintended effect of enriching it. Perhaps those private fantasies of people doing horrible things don't go unnoticed, and account for the manifestation of the alter ego as a person in its own right.

[kensi]

*DRAFT*

Fe:Ne

Ponders the meaning of existence; the meaning of choices made; interprets choices; makes people aware of the options they have, or insists that they have none; contests the prevailing meaning of a choice, or affirms that meaning.

Ni:Ti

Knows one's place in the scheme of things; can improve one's position over a span of time; observes logic as having evolved over time; thinking of the times; position at the time; ordinals in the performance of a process; contest of positions over a span of time (rivalty); one's position in time. (hands on a clock).

Te:Se

The work of forces; alignment of force; exchange of force; possession of might; the experience of possessing great strength; the experience of having might; the use of force to obtain; loss due to forces beyond one's control.

Si:Fi

Beauty on basis of attractiveness; relational conduct on basis of like/dislike; interdependence between people of similar values; conflict between persons who hold other values; subjective providence; drawing oneself toward people who offer assistance, away from those who don't.

Ti:Si

Position reliant on health; governing principle of conserved relational constants; movement to equilibrium; being in position to help others, or to make war on them; position of capacity to aid or hinder; contingency of positon on living in harmony with others.

Se:Fe

Message conveying one's will; changes in message indicating changes in will; perception of strength or weakness in others; signaling vulnerabilty; contest of competing messages; confidence in the meaning of things; importance of expressing self-confidence to others.

Fi:Ni

attraction/repulsion due to the path one takes relative to one's own; attraction/repulsion due to changes in course; changing course to increase one's likability.

Ne:Te

observance of an object's potential for work; the capacity to obtain needed resources as a factor of one's potential; loss of potential due to loss of holdings; potential for wealth; dependence of potential upon equitable exchange; the capacity to act flexibly to satisfy changing needs; potential as a determinate of acention to wealth.

i've already pondered these such scenarios long ago. Metaphysics?? how do you label what they mean interpersonally vs globally....you almost need another dichotomy.

[Ali]

Do you follow what I am trying to ask of you?

*sigh*

Most people's alter egos are poorly developed and incapable of managing even the most simplistic interactions, but perhaps the ego's absorbtion of the alter ego has the unintended effect of enriching it. Perhaps those private fantasies of people doing horrible things don't go unnoticed, and account for the manifestation of the alter ego as a person in its own right

Your really just making this up as you go along. Your own alter-ego theory now is it? Besides the point however.

I respond by giving more time to the personal fulfillment side, and only meekly approach the demands which are encroaching upon me from outside. A stressful situation is an overbearing one, and I tend to put off confronting it until non-response becomes an immediate threat to future satisfaction. A situation is stressful, though, because it is imposed upon me without my really understanding how to approach it. (this because it is asking me to give up things that I believe I should have).

Of course. Your basically describing how you avoid dealing with the stressing circumstances, and/or avoid the confrontation. You do not konw how to respond. One may wonder why such a description is missing, ( do you find yourself pushing to not think about it clarice? ) - One may wonder, how you respond when you actually Do come under the confrontation of stress.

To get back to what I've been saying:

could then an entj, disassociating with his personality (for coping or such other reasons as i described afterwards), be in that phase when seeing himself through the lens of socionics, find himself as coming out as an isfp

and if this regularly oscillates...

What is then your basis of dual-type theory? Could it be the result of rationalizing what I'm describing? How much does it rest on your personal observation of yourself? How much does it rest on seeing people not in 1)unhealthy condition AND 2) in close pshychological contact ? Do these questions poke strongly on your dual-type theory framework, and is it difficult for you (subjectively) to admit it - to your self (not accusing, asking) because that would mean having to accept that everything you have believed in is wrong?

For what it's worth, the kind of crises your going through, and the Way you are approaching it, and the way you put forth arguments, the way you structure it, the linguistics of your typing, the way you retreat respond, cling to a framework of your understanding and then abandon it Completely when it fails you, and then cling to the other framework you've been mulling about,these are all STRONGLY reminiscent of a little unhealthish intj. I've seen this on extremely close psychological contact over a number of years, and My NiFe screams it.

Or maybe that's just me.

And. For your own confusions about being an intj or an enfj - have you been in close psychological contact with an enfj - in the Real world? Or are you just going by your theoretical understanding. This might seem funny or retarted, but as Infp, I actually seriously considered being an ISTP for reasons of my own which were strongly - deludingly - clouding my judgement.

Your so cute

[Ali]

Without the dual-type context to your draft however, it's not bad the descriptions..

[tcaudilllg]

Dual-type is just a further specialization in the context of type. It describes how people use their energy and how people form ideas by observing relations between aspects. Dual-type exists because if you parse a persons' use of aspects, then you find that the aspects don't always follow the function order of a type. You can have Se in between Ne and Ti, for example, in the dialog of an ENTp. Jung says that's not allowed: N follows T or F, but never S. It makes sense, too, because the purpose of rationalization is to make judgements about irrational phenomena. Upon extremely close scrutiny of the relationship between those elements that shouldn't be there, I realized that the errant aspects were always describing something happening in the context of the elements used. That's what dual-type theory is about, and it has nothing at all to do with DID or XXXX "super personalities".

[Ali]

. Dual-type exists because if you parse a persons' use of aspects, then you find that the aspects don't always follow the function order of a type. You can have Se in between Ne and Ti, for example, in the dialog of an ENTp. Jung says that's not allowed: N follows T or F, but never S. It makes sense, too, because the purpose of rationalization is to make judgements about irrational phenomena.

I follow that, of course, its one method of explaining what happens when aspects don't follow the function order of a type. And you may have got it spot on.

it has nothing at all to do with DID

I was presenting that by way of analogy as an example

Upon extremely close scrutiny of the relationship between those elements that shouldn't be there, I realized that the errant aspects were always describing something happening in the context of the elements used. .

Now, I'm not criticising, here, im simply asking how much of the finding-persons-use-of-aspects-not-following-----and-subsequent-theory is based on observations of yourself .. and (if they were mostly, solely, or even no) under what conditions were they observed under extremely close scrutiny - ie, the manifestations of these in circumstances were there psychological circumstances (stress, depression, social setting etc) which could have caused them to occur (in such a way as shown by the dual-type theory). It really is thar simple. Can you please directly answer that?

[tcaudilllg]

I follow that, of course, its one method of explaining what happens when aspects don't follow the function order of a type. And you may have got it spot on.



Now, I'm not criticising, here, im simply asking how much of the finding-persons-use-of-aspects-not-following-----and-subsequent-theory is based on observations of yourself .. and (if they were mostly, solely, or even no) under what conditions were they observed under extremely close scrutiny - ie, the manifestations of these in circumstances were there psychological circumstances (stress, depression, social setting etc) which could have caused them to occur (in such a way as shown by the dual-type theory). It really is a simple. Can you please directly answer that?

Well then I leave you to peruse the forum archives for my posts from between 2006 to mid 2007. You will get your answer from there.

[Ali]

oky thus intj. gd enough for me. apologies if i have managed to irk you.

[tcaudilllg]

*THIS IS A DRAFT*

-Ni:-Ti

PROGRESSIVE FORM

The observance of a maladjustive course projection concerning matters of one's position, vs. one's readiness to chart one's own course apart from this projection.

The current trend is unsustainable; our positions are deteriorating. In the face of this deterioration, we offer this plan to get back on track. This plan will be effected by improving our position over the long term, taking definite steps to secure the position at every point. Should one of us fall behind, we will make the changes necessary to pick them back up, moving as a united front.

NEOCONSERVATIVE FORM

The readiness of an actor to advance their position over time vs. the existing projection; the formation of a new projection which accounts for the ambitions of this actor.

Change is happening: things are not going as we planned, and our positions are changing because each of us is in a different position to respond to the change which is occuring. Over the long term it appears that the situation will be thus, that actor A will be declining as actor B rises; for actor C, we see no change.

LIBERAL FORM

The difficulties associated with remaining in one's current position over an interval vs. the benefits of moving into a different position; planning a change in one's position.

Things are looking bad for me; but I won't let them get me down. I'm getting back on track. I've noticed that John and Jane are in a difficult situation also, so maybe we can work something out. No matter what happens, I can't let this get me down... I just can't.

THEOCONSERVATIVE FORM

The advent of involuntary changes in one's position

The holy book says that God makes weak of the strong and strong of the weak. I wonder what will happen to me... is this really what God has planned for me? If so, then I will have to make the best of it, I guess. Perhaps if I keep His word and do good works, I will earn his favor and he will help keep me strong.

COMMUNITARIAN FORM

[tentative]
Despite our best efforts, our conditions continue to deteriorate. We believe that the root of the deterioration lies in our continued reliance on system B. Instead, we propose the use of method A where system B is ineffective. By complementing system B with method A, we believe we will obtain the flexibility needed to respond to situations of type C. We believe that effective use of method A will allow us to respond effectively to the situation we are now in, and to turn it to our favor.

INDIVIDUALIST FORM

Dammit, what am I doing wrong? Ah, this is hopeless: no matter what I do, this process B is always moving something into my way just as I try to reach point D. However, by the rules of the process, if I try moving to C when process B moves A to D, then the next move of the process will be from D to C. Then at that moment I will be free to move to D. I will change my own process to accomodate the rules of the existing situation, exploiting them and reaching my goal.

LIBERTARIAN FORM

I've got a long journey ahead of me. There are a lot of dangers ahead, and who knows what could happen on the way, so I'm going to come prepared. Come what may, I will press onward to my goal.

EMPIRICIST FORM

[tentative]
The institution of method A creates challenges for all of us. We can respond effectively to the existence of method A by implementing systems C, D, E, and F.

Under the new system, methods C and E do appear to be useful; methods B and F are not, and together accounted for a decline in performance of 23%.

As system A progresses with respect to B, B declines with respect to A. C remains constant.

[tcaudilllg]

The previous Ni:Ti post was primarily related to Fe:Se, I realize. I need one which works with Ni:Ti.

The progressive experience of such seems like this: there is a malignant chain of conserved causality at work making history a bitch. For everybody. The desire to break the chain is due to a malignancy of personal meaning given one's participation in the chain. To give oneself meaning, one is implored to seek the breaking of the chain, whether or not it is possible. In any case, meaning is asserted by contesting the causal chain, and one is always trying to conceive of a plan to break it and thus find meaning in one's existence.

The opposite view is that the chain must be accepted for what it is, and one's meaning must be found in terms OF the chain. You were the catalyst which caused this for others, which in turn influenced their decision to do this, etc. What's done is done and you must accept the meaning of your life. You must take responsibility.

The progressive sees the conservative view of such as totally abhorrent and a capitulation to idea that man is powerless before his own history. By altering one's state of readiness to respond causally, the progressive argues, a new causal chain can be created.

[tcaudilllg]

The causal chain has two parts, situation and mechanic. The mechanics are simply matters of what causes what: the rules of cause and effect as the cosmic differentiation process (or god, if you prefer) has defined them. The situation is the arrangement of objects which possess these causal characteristics in relation to each other. When an object works upon an adjacent object, the changes incurred by that object affect its relations to other objects, in turn triggering more work. This is the causal aspect of time.

A computer program is a direct analogy. However, until it is run it is only mechanistic in nature, a preprogrammed set of patterns to iterate one after the other. Running the program invokes its temporal side, in that it must manipulate situational data by means of the patterns available. The situation controls the patterns selected; the patterns selected alter the situation. This is Ni:Ti in relation to Fe:Ne, the programmed aspect of reality.

Political Viewpoints on Ni:Ti

The progressive sees Ni:Ti from the point of view of the program counter, the immediate situation or present. However, debugger is an even better analogy, because the progressive sees the immediate situation as full of bugs due to bad data. Changing the data will change the course of the program's processing, perhaps yeilding a better result.

The liberal sees Ni:Ti from the user's point of view. The liberal appraises the effectiveness of the program for their needs, its usability, its interface. If they dislike it, they will recommend changes. They will give it data as their needs require. Ultimately, however, they recognize that the program can only do so much for them, but nonetheless they expect it to behave correctly.

The individualist sees Ni:Ti from the programmer's point of view. If the routines you are using aren't up for the job, write new ones. Simple as that.

The communitarian sees Ni:Ti from the pseudocoder's standpoint, accounting for all the inputs and outputs; what the program's expected function will be; and on what systems it can be expected to run. Communitarians define what the program will do.

The libertarian sees Ni:Ti from the standpoint of the program. When run, it will perform its task with whatever it is given, as it has been programmed to perform.

The empiricist sees Ni:Ti from the standpoint of the program distributor. The empiricist runs benchmarks on the program; tests it for stability; and makes as many copies of it as necessary. If the empiricist comes across bugs in the program, it will not attempt to solve them but will instead give detailed instructions for working around them. (by recommending against giving it certain types of data).

The theoconservative sees Ni:Ti as from the standpoint of the hardware on which the program runs, its various quirks and gizmos. The hardware can only run the program to the limits of its own capability, and must rely on the data given to it. If the data is difficult for it to manage, then it must struggle to cope with it successfully.

[tcaudilllg]

+Fe:+Ne is variously:
- the common message selections are meant to convey
- the meaning of avoiding the mistakes of the past

+Ne+Ti, exerted, says "if X causes Y and Y is a negative outcome, then I had better not select X when given the choice." This conscious alteration of choices based on knowledge sends a signal that 1) a detrimental causal pattern is known to exist and 2) a new era has begun on basis of this pattern's avoidance. History fails to repeat. Once this era has begun, continued avoidance of said causal determinant is indicative of social stability and modernization.

[tcaudilllg]

NEOCON FORM

Formal description: specific internal statics of internal statics fields related by specific internal dynamics of internal static fields

Informal description: experiences of potential relative to others related by common meanings

"I can do something for X, which means I should. If I can do something, then I must."

Neoconservative @+Fe:+Ne takes for granted that one will do what one is capable of. It will not attempt to rise beyond its own capability. The choice selected arises in the context of the accepted causal chain: causality is supreme, and one must act in its shadow. The current financial crisis, and the response to it by the Bush Administration, illustrates this thinking clearly: a chain of causes is set of in a certain context; once the chain has started, it cannot be stopped; one must allow the chain to continue unabated until its course has run, repairing the damage done at each instance. The problem is that in a given cultural context, the chain may never end unless the context itself changes.

In the context of the "repair" mentality, it is easy to see why neoconservatives argue that a social safety net is unnecessary: people are basically good, given that they want to repair negative damage caused by events. People do not need to be compelled to help one another because they are naturally disposed to. The progressive counter-argument is that people are indeed helping each other via the safety net, and that the safety net is not a system but an agreement of protocol for giving anonymous persons a hand up.