# Thread: Physiognomical proof of dual-type theory

1. ## Physiognomical proof of dual-type theory

Dual-type theory - Wikisocion
Visual Identification of Subtypes - Wikisocion

First I'd like to explain what a dual-type is if we look at Jungian dichotomies...
What is an INTj-INFp? The following graph will show it:

E......|----I
N----|......S
T...--|......F
p......|--...j

Very introverted, very intuitive, more thinking than feeling, more judging than perceiving. Another example: Which type is it?

E...--|......I
N......|----S
T----|......F
p...--|......j

That is an ESTp-ISTj.

Just for the record, I do not recommend to use MBTI tests or something like that to determine your dual-type. Those tests are not even reliable if you want to find your first type. Nevertheless, theoretically it would work like that if test results were 100% accurate...

Now what does this dichotomous approach have to do with a physiognomical proof of dual-type theory? Quite a lot I think because, interestingly, the shape of your face is not only determined by your first type and not only by your second type - it is determined by a combination of both types!

Why does an INTj-INFp have an oval face? Because the base function (Ni) of the second type is the demonstrative function of the first type.
Why does an ESTp-ISTj have a square face? Because the base function (Ti) of the second type is the creative function of the first type.

Ni is INTj's demonstrative function which is a vital, bold, strong function. According to the pattern I discovered, strenghthened vital functions cause a longish face, bold implies soft and strong implies mathematical. That's why the face of an INTj-INFp is an oval...

Can this correlation be explained by Jungian dichotomies alone? Does a person who is VERY introverted always have a longish face or something? No, that's not the case. An INTj-INFj, for example, has a roundish face because INFj's base function, Fi, is INTj's role function which is mental. Or does a person who is VERY introverted and RELATIVELY judging always have a longish face then? Yes, indeed. INTj-INFp, INTj-INTp, INTj-ISTp and INTj-ISFp all have longish faces because the base function of the second type, Ni or Si, is a vital function of the first type.

It obviously makes much more sense to remember that, for example, "a strengthened vital function causes a longish face" than to say: "People who
are very introverted and relatively judging (Ixxj-Ixxp)
OR very introverted and relatively perceiving (Ixxp-Ixxj)
OR relatively introverted and very judging (Ixxj-Exxj)
OR relatively introverted and very perceiving (Ixxp-Exxp)
OR very extraverted and relatively judging (Exxj-Exxp)
OR very extraverted and relatively perceiving (Exxp-Exxj)
OR relatively extraverted and very judging (Exxj-Ixxj)
OR relatively extraverted and very perceiving (Exxp-Ixxp)
have a longish face".

That's why we should talk about dual-types and functions and all the stuff...

Unfortunately, Tcaudillg is unable to confirm this pattern, even though it somehow is the physiognomical proof of the existence of two types in one person.

2. Originally Posted by tuturututu
Your theories are full of shit.
Any specific reason why this one is?

3. I have to finish subtyping those around me before I can start looking for evidence for this theory, but if it turns out true I'll be amazed.

4. I think this is a joke post derived from tcaudilllgs suspicions of John intending to steal his ideas.

5. Shhhh, damnit pirate you gave it away.

6. CheGuava, I have a question. Did you change some of the reinin dichotomy descriptions on wikisocion?

7. Is this a thread about model X or what

8. No it's the 16 subtype theory (As opposed to Model B 2 Sub-type or DCNH 4 Sub-type). I don't know the official "Model" name for it.

9. Originally Posted by thePirate
I think this is a joke post derived from tcaudilllgs suspicions of John intending to steal his ideas.
In a way it is. I could have called this thread "Physiognomical proof of two types in one person" because I do not really support the idea of an "energy type". But Tcaudillg probably just looks at the same phenomenon from a different perspective...

Originally Posted by polikujm
CheGuava, I have a question. Did you change some of the reinin dichotomy descriptions on wikisocion?
It is relatively easy to find out. Just click on "history" and you can see who changed a page on wikisocion...

Originally Posted by blaknet
Is this a thread about model X or what
If it was about model X I would have mentioned model X in the thread title.

10. Originally Posted by JohnDo
In a way it is. I could have called this thread "Physiognomical proof of two types in one person" because I do not really support the idea of an "energy type". But Tcaudillg probably just looks at the same phenomenon from a different perspective...
For the sake of clarity, it would probably be better if you used your own name for it. Even if your theory and tcaud's theory do provide different explanations for the same phenomenon (which is still an open question in my opinion, and which tcaud himself strongly disagrees with), they're still distinct enough that confusing the two by using the same name is just unsportsmanlike.

Let's see, you could call it "double-type" theory, or "two-type" theory, or something like "full subtype" or "complete subtype" or "16-subtype" theory.

Or even something like "Guevaran subtype theory" or "Doan subtype theory", to distinguish it from vanilla DCNH.

11. Complete, Guevaran, and Expanded Subtype theory all sound good.

There is a good chance you both are describing different phenomenon which, if true, questions the relevancy of one or both of the theories. However if it is found that they are describing the same phenomenon, then our understanding of socionics may be significantly expanded.

#### Posting Permissions

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