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.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by labcoat
- 
(as per tcaudilllg)
