Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 46

Thread: Dual-type theory: EM type dichotomies

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Dual-type theory: EM type dichotomies

    Been formulating them lately. They are quite revealing, and merit further study.

    The main list is at the Progressive Socionics forum. It contains additional details and discussion, and is worth reading. The main list will be updated before this one.

    All these apply to the EM type, and can be useful in determining your type. They are not to be used for IM type diagnosis.

    Notes on valued/unvalued:
    It's in principle like model A: you want and appreciate help with valued functions, and are (naturally) understanding of their importance. However, in terms of the EM type, valued/unvalued is a distinctly more familiar quantity which can be stated as simply "interested vs disinterested". We prefer the terms "valued/unvalued" however, because valuation in socionics refers to a definite principle of appreciation for information. (or in the case of energy metabolism, appreciation for data).


    Deep (Fe valuing) vs Shallow (Te valuing)

    Deep people are likely to have strong command of language and to be very articulate. Shallow people have weak command of language, often relying on popular catchphrases to get their point across. Deep people use nuanced phrasing; shallow people use strong words. Deep people are more outwardly reflective, and are more likely to listen. Shallow people are business-like and uninterested in the innermost experiences of other people. Deep people ask "What does it mean?"; shallow people ask "what can it do?"


    Adventurous (Se(T) valuing) vs Routine (Ni(T) valuing)

    Adventurous people like the extraordinary. They like to do unusual things, and go on fantastic trips and voyages. The more fantastic, the better. Routine people like to stay at home, preferably indoors or in a controlled environment. Although open to a change every now and then, they do not appreciate "drama" and will not tolerate it in their daily existence.


    Deliberate (Ni valuing) vs Spontaneous (Si valuing)

    Deliberate people order their actions to get a definite effect -- they do X for the specific purpose of doing Y. Everything is according to their plan.

    Spontaneous people act in response to an immediate stimulus: where they see someone in need, they help them. When they see an opportunity for pleasure, they take it. Very little execution involved, just action to take advantage of opportunity.


    Motivated (Fi valuing) vs Reliant (Ti valuing)

    Motivated people have a strong sense of motivation -- they search out opportunities on their own. As such, they are highly independent. Reliant people are less independent, but have stronger emotional ties.

    At extremes, the reliant can feel trapped and unable to see opportunity around them. They are like to rely on other people in these circumstances, relying on acts of kindness to get by. They may work at jobs they dislike for many years. The motivated, in contrast, may feel exceedingly alone and unloved.


    Accurate (strong T, strong S) vs Inaccurate (weak T, weak S)

    Accurate types have high to adequate manual dexterity. Inaccurate types have mediocre to poor dexterity and may have difficulty using simple tools such as a hammer or nail gun. Accurate types are handy; inaccurate types are better paying others to do the work. Inaccurate types also fare worse in poor economic environments, because they have difficulty competing (or even succeeding) in performing manual labor on a timely basis.

    People who are neither accurate nor inaccurate are like to have good technique with power tools, but not hand tools. They may have some artistic talent, but only in making misshapen objects.


    Restrained (Fe Accepting) vs Excitable (Fe Producing)

    Restrained individuals have an awareness of the emotional situation around them. They take care to control it and to shape it, lest it produce certain undesirable outcomes. Says the restrained individual, "emotions are viral and if not carefully regulated, will consume a population in negative impulses." Excitable individuals are very free with their emotions -- they may have explosive tempers. The restrained may complain that the excitable "wear their hearts on their sleeves" -- the excitable depend on the restrained to calm the emotional environment and put their minds at ease.


    Formulaic (Te Accepting) vs Arithmetic (Te Producing)

    Formulaic people are talented mathematicians -- they are attentive to and willing to learn the ins and outs of complex mathematical formulas. Their skill is directly attributable to their even-dimensional Te: they are attentive to the demands of the problem and the specific reasons that it must be solved in a definite order. They see the "big mathematical picture", and observe that problem X can only be solved by method B at point C. At any given point, there are available operations and illegal operations, depending on the problem encountered. Arithmetic people want to be given the problem for purposes of direct application: they want a calculation, not a formula. Similarly, they care little for algebra and even less for unknown quantities. They have exceedingly little patience for such exercises, and would prefer the data precomputed for immediate application. Herein lies the fundamental difference between formulaic and arithmetic thinking: the formula solver focuses on discovering unknown quantities, while the arithmetic person focuses on manipulating known quantities. The arithmetic will always ask "why do we have to do it this way?", to which the formulaic will answer "because otherwise you cannot solve for X."

    Tolerant (Accepting Fe) vs Argumentative (Producing Fe)

    Argumentative people tend to assume that people will not argue with their opinions. As such, when they meet another argumentative type person, they are like to clash if that person does not agree. Tolerant people avoid arguments -- they observe how one opinion is an outgrowth of another and will avoid talking about a new opinion that is an outgrowth of a controversial opinion, knowing all too well that their new opinion will return, again, to that old flamming horse. They can predict an argument before it occurs, and gently sidestep around it even if it is offered. They are known for their composure. Argumentative types, in contrast, are temperamental and prone to violent emotional outbursts. When dared to debate, the Tolerant will lead the argument back to its genesis, if only to make the point that there is no point in arguing about it because epistemological truth is elusive. Yet the Tolerant are resigned to the existence of arguments because they understand that they are the product both of environmental Si conditions and human choices in the context of these conditions, and are thus unavoidable. Rather, the Tolerant will appeal to a change in conditions and a change of heart which can bring about the end of argumentation. For this same reason, the Tolerant are remarkably receptive to the hateful, having an understanding that the negative emotions which surround them are not wholly of their own making, and upholding the omnipresence of choice which can lead to a new beginning and an end to tension.

    The Argumentative are driven by the fact that they cannot tolerate negative emotions and are resentful against those who create the conditions which engender them. They believe they have been wronged somehow, or that others have been wronged, and that those who have perpetuated the wrong must be convinced of their wrongdoing. The Tolerant will appeal to a shift in the world and a shift in attitude; the Argumentative will appeal to a shift in self and a rethinking of how one relates to others. The Tolerant say the problem is from without; the Argumentative, from within.

    Aggressive (Se Producing) vs Harmonious (Se Accepting)

    Aggressive people have a tendency to believe that people will go along with whatever they want to do. They are often surprised when people resist, and feel the need to push back. To resist being pushed in a direction does, in a sense, serve to exert control by restraining the potential of the environment. As such, the pusher may feel controlled whether there is intention to control them or not. The aggressive see the world as those who push, and those who are pushed. It is not plain to them that there is a middle ground, where people have free will. The harmonious expect to encounter inertia -- they have an acutely physical mind. They see Newton's 3rd Law all around them amid forms too myriad to reckon -- "every action has an equal and opposite reaction". But because they see this truism so clearly, they are tacit in their application of force. Rather, they will choose to let people do as they may, and seize the initiative when it presents itself. They see the multiplex of forces, each person compelled by another person or force, in turn compelled by another person or force ad nauseum. They do not believe in free will per se, but rather try to eliminate hesitation where that hesitation impedes their own potential. (and where a person's non-hesitation represents an obstacle to them (as in, for example, applying for a job they intend to compete for), they may try to encourage it). They put their faith not in coercion, but encouragement: observe the natural harmony of the universe, they advise, and let it become what it aims to be. Yet the future is not wholly predetermined: although potentials are limited there is still yet a choice of paths, and how you advise with respect to these may shape the future that emerges. Aggressive people only see one path ahead, and will push toward it with all their determination and against all odds.

    A key goal of the harmonious individual is to bring people together. By refraining from pressure, the harmonious enable the closing of emotional distance between them and other people. This creates opportunities in and of itself, for themselves and the people with whom they close distance.

    Nonfictionalist (Ne accepting) vs Fictionalist (Ne producing)

    Ne EM is the function of imaginative intake. Where Ne IM conceives of imaginary scenarios, Ne EM apprehends scenarios created by others. Both make use of the visual-spatial sketchpad, but they use it differently. Ne IM "outputs" imagination, Ne EM accepts it as "input".

    Fictionalist types apprehend distinct units of Ne -- they see each virtual realm as something completely distinct and separate from each other such real. Nonfictionalists, in contrast, see every idea as somehow connected to every other idea, either directly or indirectly. Imagination, says the nonfictionalist, speaks to a void in the opportunities of the time, and exists as an outgrowth of the unfulfilled desires of a people to be something greater than circumstances afford. The nonfictionalist may spend a considerable amount of time ruminating not on the events in an imaginary setting, but on what characteristics of the age they reflect. Fictionalists are essentially fanciful people, where nonfictionalists are more literal.


    Concrete (strong Fe) vs Abstract (strong Te)

    Concrete people make a point of using definite nouns which describe real places and real things. Abstract people prefer using abstract nouns which have vague meanings. Concrete people avoid using symbols where abstract people favor them. There is a notable difference in multilingual skill between the two types: concrete people rarely excel at using different languages because they have a deep attachment to the first language they learn (which they use for inner speech). Abstract people rely on inner speech less to characterize their thoughts (relying, again, on symbols) and as such have far less attachment to their first language and far greater skill at using other languages. Where the concrete resist using any language other than their first for purposes of inner speech, the abstract are content to think in any language that takes their fancy.

    Alternative name for this dichotomy: monolingual vs multilingual.

    Notes: the apparent reason for the concrete individual's attachment to their first language lies in their determination to have only one linguistic representation for each object. Be aware of many objects, they advise, but only have a single representation for one so as to avoid confusion and missed messages. By spending as little energy on per word communication as possible, matters may be discussed with maximum efficiency and work may be minimized. The abstract take the opposite view, desiring that as much work be done as possible as often as possible, with an eye to producing opportunities for more varied work.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 09-06-2010 at 04:14 PM.

  2. #2
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm confused. . .I relate to both the Fe-valuing and Fi-valuing dichotomy.
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  3. #3
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Deep (Fe valuing) vs Shallow (Te valuing)
    omg, PiC

    Would you call me shallow according to this?

    My views:
    "Shallow" refers to Dynamic (Ni, Si, Te, Fe) information, "deep" to Static (Ne, Se, Ti, Fi). Ti/Fe values means that factual convictions are held on a remote and deep (interpretation dependent) level. Te/Fi values means that factual convictions are held on a close and shallow (interpretation invariant) level.

  4. #4
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Is function valuing different in EM types, seeing as Se-valuing is being contrasted with Ni-valuing?

  5. #5
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    From what I know of the model, it isn't. Must be a typo. Should probably be Se vs. Ne.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Explanation: as in Model A, ego and superid functions are valued, and superego and id functions are not valued.

    Labcoat: I was using the pop-culture definition of "shallow" -- people who don't think a lot about either their own lives or others' lives. As an example, consider anime. You've got two camps: people who take the story for what it is, and people who take it for what they interpret it to be. While posting at a ROM hacking forum, I was frequently accused of "over- analyzing" by the Te valuing programmers, who tried to avoid making any assumptions of interpretation and just "stuck with the facts". Deep people over-analyze a lot... though there are different ways to over-anaylze: a person can analyze the Bible just as deeply as a fiction book.

    I had to expand the valuation concept to account for the differences between adventurous and routine. Programmers are not adventurous -- they do not like the exciting life. They want everything routine and controlled. But they do value Ni, just not the behavior associated with valuing Ni and Fe together.

    My views:
    "Shallow" refers to Dynamic (Ni, Si, Te, Fe) information, "deep" to Static (Ne, Se, Ti, Fi). Ti/Fe values means that factual convictions are held on a remote and deep (interpretation dependent) level. Te/Fi values means that factual convictions are held on a close and shallow (interpretation invariant) level.
    I see what you're saying. I agree. You're not Te valuing and you aren't shallow. Many if not most artists are shallow -- they use their art to express what they can't put into words, let alone fully grasp of themselves or others.

    I don't think the existing valuing system works very well, particularly because you can choose to use a valued function with a non-valued function, and we have very little information on what the meaning of that is. I'm deliberate, but I don't usually have an idea of what's going to be accomplished by my plan -- I leave it to others to shape that detail as they see fit. When I do set out a goal, I often find myself rethinking it again, and again.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 04-25-2010 at 07:38 PM.

  7. #7
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You're not Te valuing and you aren't shallow.
    FTR: I thought I was. One of the things in which we are most different is that I focus far more on operationalization than you do. To you, everything is a philosophy project. I try to a larger extent to make things practically work.

    Look back into some of our old conversations in which I defended the INTj-ENFp typing: I have been explaining the difference like this all along.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    FTR: I thought I was. One of the things in which we are most different is that I focus far more on operationalization than you do. To you, everything is a philosophy project. I try to a larger extent to make things practically work.

    Look back into some of our old conversations in which I defended the INTj-ENFp typing: I have been explaining the difference like this all along.
    You can't get away from the effects of function pairing. Ne with Fi is always about potential and opportunity, with Fi as the goal. INTj-ENFp, to wit, is always talking about theories of motivation and opportunity. You, on the other hand, are always discussing theories of ideas. I'm pretty sure that's where your interest in limiting/empowering and static/dynamic arises from. I don't see the Fi in those.

    ...Or actually, are you arguing that the functions are causal limiters and enablers of potential? I have a huge difficulty processing Ti under the external dynamic belief element. I pay a lot of attention to dichotomies, but not so much to causality because I can't keep it all in. It's like a jumble.

  9. #9
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You, on the other hand, are always discussing theories of ideas.
    I'm an alpha NT. The main type isn't exactly irrelevant to that issue. I focus far more on psychological issues than on anything else hence INTj-xNFx.

    I'm pretty sure that's where your interest in limiting/empowering and static/dynamic arises from. I don't see the Fi in those.
    They are dichotomic labels. They don't focus on what things are and how they work so much as they focus on what we can call them and how we can deal with them. That's how they conform to the Te valuing paradigm.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There appear to be three type dichotomy systems that I can see:

    • Accepting vs producing element forms
    • Strong vs Weak
    • Valued vs Unvalued


    Here's Fe considered in terms of accepting/producing:


    Restrained (Fe Accepting) vs Excitable (Fe Producing)

    Restrained individuals have an awareness of the emotional situation around them. They take care to control it and to shape it, lest it produce certain undesirable outcomes. Says the restrained individual, "emotions are viral and if not carefully regulated, will consume a population in negative impulses." Excitable individuals are very free with their emotions -- they may have explosive tempers. The restrained may complain that the excitable "wear their hearts on their sleeves" -- the excitable depend on the restrained to calm the emotional environment and put their minds at ease.

  11. #11
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yo tcaud, you never answered my question!
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WorkaholicsAnon View Post
    yo tcaud, you never answered my question!
    I need more specifics.

  13. #13
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,470
    Mentioned
    169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    I need more specifics.
    specifics such as?
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WorkaholicsAnon View Post
    specifics such as?
    Why you think you are a little of both.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Added another dichotomy, Formulaic/Arithmetic.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 04-29-2010 at 03:33 AM.

  16. #16
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,098
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The only ones I could make a definite decision on were Routine and Formulaic
    What does that say for my EM type? (Is EM type the second one in your sig?)
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  17. #17
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Added another dichotomy, Formulaic/Arithmetic.
    I'm definitely more formulaic. I remember very well in my school days helping my more arithmetically oriented classmates with math and it was rather frustrating because their thought process was so different from mine. I couldn't wrap my head around their way of thinking and likewise they couldn't wrap their heads around my way.

    Also definitely more restrained than excitable.
    Last edited by The Exception; 04-29-2010 at 06:22 AM.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  18. #18
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,098
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    He meant he added it to the end of his original post.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by warrior-librarian View Post
    I'm definitely more formulaic. I remember very well in my school days helping my more arithmetically oriented classmates with math and it was rather frustrating because their thought process was so different from mine. I couldn't wrap my head around their way of thinking and likewise they couldn't wrap their heads around my way.

    Also definitely more restrained than excitable.
    Restrained and formulaic always go together, as do arithmetic and excitable.

  20. #20
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Restrained and formulaic always go together, as do arithmetic and excitable.
    apparently deep=reliant and shallow=motivated as well

    and apparently adventurous types can't be spontaneous and are always accurate.
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Azeroffs View Post
    apparently deep=reliant and shallow=motivated as well

    and apparently adventurous types can't be spontaneous and are always accurate.
    No, you're misreading it. Learn the difference between valued/unvalued and strong/weak.

    You should understand that there is a general problem of understanding how function pairs relate and what the meanings of those relationships are to information metabolism. In the meantime, it will ill afford you to ignore the fuzzier points. Just try to make sense of them with the data provided (as we do), without wild extrapolations. It is understood that the failure to reckon the quality difference between T and F forms of say, Ne is a problem, but it simply cannot be resolved until more information is produced. However, I intuit that my assertions in this thread thus far are entirely correct, because the alternatives are inconsistent.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 04-29-2010 at 08:24 PM.

  22. #22
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Azeroffs is right. Te valuing always coincides with Fi valuing. I think of it as misleading to separate the two notions and just refer to both as "Te/Fi valuing".

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Tolerant (Accepting Fe) vs Argumentative (Producing Fe)

    Argumentative people tend to assume that people will not argue with their opinions. As such, when they meet another argumentative type person, they are like to clash if that person does not agree. Tolerant people avoid arguments -- they observe how one opinion is an outgrowth of another and will avoid talking about a new opinion that is an outgrowth of a controversial opinion, knowing all too well that their new opinion will return, again, to that old flaming horse. They can predict an argument before it occurs, and gently sidestep around it even if it is offered. They are known for their composure. Argumentative types, in contrast, are temperamental and prone to violent emotional outbursts. When dared to debate, the Tolerant will lead the argument back to its genesis, if only to make the point that there is no point in arguing about it because epistemological truth is elusive. Yet the Tolerant are resigned to the existence of arguments because they understand that they are the product both of environmental Si conditions and human choices in the context of these conditions, and are thus unavoidable. Rather, the Tolerant will appeal to a change in conditions and a change of heart which can bring about the end of argumentation. For this same reason, the Tolerant are remarkably receptive to the hateful, having an understanding that the negative emotions which surround them are not wholly of their own making, and upholding the omnipresence of choice which can lead to a new beginning and an end to tension.

    The Argumentative are driven by the fact that they cannot tolerate negative emotions and are resentful against those who create the conditions which engender them. They believe they have been wronged somehow, or that others have been wronged, and that those who have perpetuated the wrong must be convinced of their wrongdoing. The Tolerant will appeal to a shift in the world and a shift in attitude; the Argumentative will appeal to a shift in self and a rethinking of how one relates to others. The Tolerant say the problem is from without; the Argumentative, from within.

  24. #24
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Restrained (Fe Accepting) vs Excitable (Fe Producing) (...)
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Tolerant (Accepting Fe) vs Argumentative (Producing Fe) (...)
    How are these two different?

    Also, do you still dual-type people? That thread seems dead with a few posts unanswered. If you don't, is using these dichotomies a good idea to find out your type? To be honest I'm getting an idea of EM type out of them, but it might all be misconceptions.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    How are these two different?

    Also, do you still dual-type people? That thread seems dead with a few posts unanswered. If you don't, is using these dichotomies a good idea to find out your type? To be honest I'm getting an idea of EM type out of them, but it might all be misconceptions.
    They aren't. However, restrained/excited starts from a beta Fe point of view, while tolerant/argumentative starts from an alpha Fe perspective. A beta Fe EM type is more obviously restrained/excited, while an alpha Fe type is more obviously tolerant/argumentative. They are two halves of the Fe coin.

    Yes, you can use the dichotomies to find your EM type. I do still offer dual-typings, but at the moment this is my overriding concern.

  26. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by warrior-librarian View Post
    I thought the dual type and the EM type were the same thing or am I misunderstanding this and they are different things?

    Based on dichotomies, its pretty clear EII is my EM type.
    The dual-type is the IM type and the EM type considered together.

  27. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What the accepting/producing dichotomies seem to be adding up to, is a solid description of J/P at the EM level.

  28. #28
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This may be way off, but it seems to me that dichotomies focused on valuing elements contrast these as both strong and valued - which would result in clear preference on dichotomies relating to ego elements and weak to no preference for id elements, where you're good at one but value the other. Does it make sense?

  29. #29
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,098
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Is an INTj EM type considered tolerant or argumentative?
    Is an INTp EM type considered tolerant or argumentative?
    I think I just might be LII-ILI
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  30. #30
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    Is an INTj EM type considered tolerant or argumentative?
    Is an INTp EM type considered tolerant or argumentative?
    I think I just might be LII-ILI
    Tolerant types have accepting Fe; argumentative types have producing Fe. Accepting functions are the odd numbered ones; producing functions are the even numered ones.

    So LII would be considered tolerant since for an LII, Fe is in the 5th position.
    An ILI would be considered argumentative, Fe is in the 4th position.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  31. #31
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So it's a convoluted and ineffectual way of saying Rational vs. Irrational...

  32. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    So it's a convoluted and ineffectual way of saying Rational vs. Irrational...
    If I may say so, I think that EM rational vs irrational is the dividing line between psychoanalytic family techniques and analytical psychology techniques. The psychoanalysts have always appealed to the choice of the individual and reflection on environmental conditions which force their attitudes. The analytical psychologist, in contrast, argues that any real change must come from within and that this change must be actively compelled -- that is, the choice must be forced.

    Psychoanalysis is EM rational, analytical psychology is EM irrational. In the language of influence, EM irrationals are "movers", while EM rationals are "shakers". EM rationals offer the choice, and the environmental change, which shakes the foundation. EM irrationals act on the potential to push it over.

  33. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Added another dichotomy, Aggressive vs Harmonious.

  34. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Added dichotomy, Fictionalist vs Nonfictionalist.

  35. #35
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    interesting stuff!

  36. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    interesting stuff!
    Yeah I was kinda at a loss for this one until I remembered the conversations I used to have with my mother about console RPGs. I'd describe something a character said that I thought was profound and then she'd respond by linking that to something that a philosopher had argued a century ago.

    My mother is an LII like myself so I wondered what could have been responsible for the divergences in perspective. Now I know.

  37. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Updated with dichotomy "concrete vs abstract".

  38. #38
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Deep (Fe valuing)
    I listen very well.

    Routine (Ni(T) valuing)

    Spontaneous (Si valuing)

    Motivated (Fi valuing)


    Accurate (strong T, strong S)

    Restrained (Fe Accepting)

    Arithmetic (Te Producing)

    Tolerant (Accepting Fe)

    Harmonious (Se Accepting)

    Nonfictionalist (Ne accepting)

    Abstract (strong Te)

  39. #39
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am: Deep, Routine, Spontaneous, Reliant, probably neither Accurate nor Inaccurate, Restrained, possibly Formulaic, Tolerant, I think Harmonious, Fictionalist, Abstract.

    Consequently, other than "Harmonious", which I wasn't sure of anyway, all of the other dichotomies seem to be consistent with LII. Not sure what that means, if anything.
    Quaero Veritas.

  40. #40
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,098
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Krig don't be so coy. It means you're an INTj-INTj like me!
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •