I'm having serious difficulty believing

[krieger]

...in a theory that claims tcaudilllg and tuturututu are identicals. How on earth do these two persons have anything in common in the first place?

[thePirate]

mistyping

[Creepy-male]

mistyping

This.

And it's not the theory, it's the individuals.

[Crispy]

I fink you added the same post 3 times

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Well, fwiw tcaud seems like an EIE to me.

Well, w/e type he is, where's the Ti? Only there as a seeking function from what I can tell - DS even?

Oh, without making any reference to my type per se, I don't think I've encountered an LII irl or the internet where I'm like... what are you talking about? Unfortunately there really is a communication barrier which if you're reading tcaud, I wish it wasn't there fwiw.

Dunno for sure though, he just seems overly dramatic without what I can find as 'structure' to his ideas, for want of a word - at least to me, or maybe it's something else not just type per se, would have to think about it some more.

[Jarno]

...in a theory that claims tcaudilllg and tuturututu are identicals. How on earth do these two persons have anything in common in the first place?

nobody resembles tcaudillg

[Krig the Viking]

Well, fwiw tcaud seems like an EIE to me.

Well, w/e type he is, where's the Ti? Only there as a seeking function from what I can tell - DS even?

Oh, without making any reference to my type per se, I don't think I've encountered an LII irl or the internet where I'm like... what are you talking about? Unfortunately there really is a communication barrier which if you're reading tcaud, I wish it wasn't there fwiw.

Dunno for sure though, he just seems overly dramatic without what I can find as 'structure' to his ideas, for want of a word - at least to me, or maybe it's something else not just type per se, would have to think about it some more.

To be honest, I've been feeling something similar for a while, although I was thinking more along the lines of IEI than EIE. I often find tcaud's writings extremely difficult to understand, in the same way that I find most Ni-based writing to be difficult to understand. That is to say, the ideas themselves are often interesting, but the way in which they're communicated is difficult for me to process.

I suspect he's got his "dual-type" backwards -- he's a Normalizing IEI, or "IEI-LII" in dual-type notation.

I don't normally like contesting other people's self-typings, as it often causes unnecessary drama. It would be nice to quietly and logically discuss somebody's type, without everybody getting all angry and defensive.

[Brilliand]

I can generally understand what tcaud is saying, though I don't see myself as having much in common with him.

[Absurd]

Tut is a wonderful individual. If someone says otherwise, I'm going to break their fingers.

[crazedrat]

No one is like Tcaud.

[silverchris9]

...in a theory that claims tcaudilllg and tuturututu are identicals. How on earth do these two persons have anything in common in the first place?

...people can be pretty darn different and still be the same type. In fact, type similarities tend to be internal similarities rather than external. If you could live in both of their heads, I bet they'd seem more similar.

I suspect he's got his "dual-type" backwards -- he's a Normalizing IEI, or "IEI-LII" in dual-type notation.

Interesting. So you see the notion of a "dual-type" as essentially the same thing as the DCNH subtypes? Or perhaps a particularly extreme manifestation of subtypes?

Personally, I think tcaud is an IEI. He has very Ni-seeming moments, but to my mind they are fairly infrequent. I think LII makes a lot of sense, although IEI does as well. I guess that's why they call it a dual-type!

[xerx]

From listening to him speak in tinychat, a rational logical type seems like a pretty good possibility. He's quite straightforward and uncharismatic. LSI is not a bad suggestion at all imo.

ditto to silverchris' comment about internal vs. external type similarities.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Krig the Viking]

Interesting. So you see the notion of a "dual-type" as essentially the same thing as the DCNH subtypes? Or perhaps a particularly extreme manifestation of subtypes?

Well, as far as I know tcaud himself sees them as two different things (i.e., you could have both a DCNH subtype and a dual-type), but no matter how much I sift through tcaud's writings on the matter, they just seem like the same idea viewed from two different angles, to me.

I should note that I'm not 100% certain that tcaud is IEI; it's just a vague impression that's been in the back of my mind for a while. I don't have any logical reasoning or evidence to back it up, so it's an opinion I hold very loosely.

[Aiss]

I suspect he's got his "dual-type" backwards -- he's a Normalizing IEI, or "IEI-LII" in dual-type notation.

That'd be interesting, seeing as EM type is supposed to have more influence over interests and career than IM - which would suggest many people identifying with their clubs mistype.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Yeah, Ashton. Fuck that shit.

Tcaud is LII. Not IEI. His jerky, awkward Se-polr is quite evident when he speaks.

[Trevor]

Hmm...interesting how everyone speaks about tcauds type. Why no one questions my selftype? Might it be because you agree with it?

[Aiss]

No, they just don't care.

[Trevor]

[Brilliand]

Well, as far as I know tcaud himself sees them as two different things (i.e., you could have both a DCNH subtype and a dual-type), but no matter how much I sift through tcaud's writings on the matter, they just seem like the same idea viewed from two different angles, to me.

As I view it, dual-types attach each function position to the corresponding function position, whereas DCNH emphasizes a particular function position - so an LII-IEI-Dominant would be focused on his Te(Ne) function.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Crispy]

As I view it, dual-types attach each function position to the corresponding function position, whereas DCNH emphasizes a particular function position - so an LII-IEI-Dominant would be focused on his Te(Ne) function.

That is very interesting, and it seems to be the only way DCNH and EM could coexist. I would like to see Tcaud's approval of this quote if it fits.

[Crispy]

In support of the "INTj's don't need to understand eachother to be INTj's":

"In fact INTjs are so weird that they do not just appear weird to people who don't know them, but to other INTjs as well."

[717495]

If Se = life, then tcaud is LII.

[Crispy]

You're a dick poli

[Creepy-male]

One of the facts that you might have noted is his dramato-heroism in the context of this revolutionary future of Socionics. Although that doesn't indicate IEI, at least it indicates that he's not LII, but most likely Beta.

This is the crux of the matter. It's really not fitting with how Alphas operate. Seriously, just look at Alpha Quadra forum, there's always a feeding frenzy and then everyone moves on.

We aren't the Quadra that responds to being marshalled or rallied in any way, nor will we really attempt it on others on any large scale (managing a group to try and achieve something specific and concrete is different; I do this when it's needed, and I know an ESE who does it too, in her own hopelessly misguided EJ way )

Plus, his writings are far too abstruse and convoluted for Ti ego to even begin to make sense. When a Ti ego is unclear, it's because they've indulged in excesses of parsimony (like Slater's spiritual/physical mental/emotional thread) and failed to recompose the results of Ti's analytical functioning, not something I think one could begin to accuse tcaud of being guilty of.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[silverchris9]

This.

And this.

Oh, wait, actually I meant that I think he isn't an IEI. That was a typo. . My b. But there are reasons to doubt his LII typing. I think I shall be undecided!

I think most try to type tcaud as INFp, if only because INFp is the trashbin Sociotype where all the undesirable "not MY type" people get tossed.

Offended-face. (but it's kinda true... sigh.)

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[tcaudilllg]

Well, as far as I know tcaud himself sees them as two different things (i.e., you could have both a DCNH subtype and a dual-type), but no matter how much I sift through tcaud's writings on the matter, they just seem like the same idea viewed from two different angles, to me.

I will resolve this shortly.

[Creepy-male]

This.

And it's not the theory, it's the individuals.

+1

Socionics really is more a cognitive theory about how people process and pay attention to different information than it is a complete characterization of their personality.

[krieger]

...people can be pretty darn different and still be the same type. In fact, type similarities tend to be internal similarities rather than external. If you could live in both of their heads, I bet they'd seem more similar.

I know, I've been saying this to people for the last few months. You could have been parotting me. The thing is, when applied to two persons as far apart as tcaudilllg and tuturututu (I pick these two because they are on opposite ends of a scale with people on both sides that call themselves my identicals but don't immediately seem that way to me), this principle reveals something so unsatisfying about the socionics theory that it creates something of a crisis. If socionics describes something that manifests on a level so far removed from anything directly observable, how can we type anyone at all? And if socionics does manifest on a level of direct observables, why can't we easily name the similarities between tcaudilllg and tuturututu?

[crazedrat]

Well, as far as I know tcaud himself sees them as two different things (i.e., you could have both a DCNH subtype and a dual-type), but no matter how much I sift through tcaud's writings on the matter, they just seem like the same idea viewed from two different angles, to me.

No, it's really not. THe DCNH model elaborates on a singularity. Dual type, having simultaneous processes, allows the model of somewhat imperfect, conflicting systems. DCNH is still stuck in a perfect singularity.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[tcaudilllg]

That's makes perfect sense, I don't understand either this relativism that types can't be told from outside.

@sliverchris: There are describable traits that make a type, which let little room for confusion, unless the person doesn't understand them. Yes, the causes are internal, but the effects are external. This is how typing is done, how otherwise?
If you like pancakes, there's no need for someone to analyze your brain to tell that.

See you don't understand the theory. You don't understand information metabolism.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Crispy]

16 may just not be enough types as originally thought. That's why peoples are trying to master subtype systems. Just assume they are both INTj, determine their subtypes in as deep a system as you need to explain the differences. And if that doesn't work they are probably different types altogether.

[Aiss]

16 may just not be enough types as originally thought. That's why peoples are trying to master subtype systems. Just assume they are both INTj, determine their subtypes in as deep a system as you need to explain the differences. And if that doesn't work they are probably different types altogether.

Yes, but you need to stop at some point. Everyone is unique, the whole idea of typologies is finding patterns. And looking at different aspects of personality, we can get different number of types, even. I suppose tcaud is well beyond 256 types now, but what chance does he have of getting to know at least one person of every type? JohnDo was at 256 last time I've heard. I think it becomes nitpicking without any use at some point; socionics only goes so far. There is information processing, probably adequately dealt with by socionics, and ways our personality has been formed, for example described by Enneagram, different "styles" related to career or whatever, etc.

Oh wait, you have tritype with wings in your sig. I suppose I shouldn't spoil your fun playing with blocks.

[Crispy]

Yes I rather enjoy my boxes. Don't be fooled though, I don't really take enneagram as seriously as socionics at all. Enneagram is like some mystical witch doctor medicine to Socionics' Western Cancer Fighting Technology.

EDIT: Also yes I did feel tritype-wings to be excessive and it made no sense theory wise. I just saw the kool kids klub doing it and was all like I'm in!
I rather like Tcaud's and JohnDoes attempted expansions of the theory because it is my belief that Socionics has the potential to go even farther. It's the closest thing we have to a universal theory.