Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: I believe in IM-EM dual-types

  1. #1
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default I believe in IM-EM dual-types

    Tcaud's not as crazy as we thought. It's just the next step past DCNH.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  2. #2
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It just makes sense

    I dunno, I just think it makes a lot of sense that people develop cognitive interest and thinking styles that are not inherent to their type, by way of adaptation to their environment. If we assume that functions are the ways in which the brain actively perceives information, as opposed to static traits (which is one consequence of the incorporation of IM theory vs. Jungian functions), then it becomes obvious that people could "use" functions in a manner that is not necessarily in line with their inherent dispositions.
    Last edited by Gilly; 09-03-2010 at 04:49 PM.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  3. #3
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If it's the next step past DCNH, doesn't that mean you believe it's a subtype and not a dual type, and hence an extension of IM and not EM?
    My understanding is that Tcaud views it as not an extension of DCNH, but a separate theory.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  4. #4
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's not a subtype. You could make a subtype system which used the 16 types for further distinction.. you would be committing a syntax error but we let that fly with the current subtype system anyway. But that is not the same as dual type. A dual type is its own distinct process. Dual types can conflict with one another, just like two people can conflict with one another; hence we have intertype relations.
    The dual type system tcaud uses really just assigns a type to either side of the object / subject dichotomy. So the fundamental assumption is there is some minor level imperfection in the information flow between the two.. like disconnection or conflict. Which makes sense really, people have tons of internal conflicts which can't be described with the 'perfect' socionics system in place.
    So you have a type for the material observations a person makes, their conclusions, the qualities of the information itself. That's the EM. Then you have a type for processing, the way a person guides information, how they connect the dots in their mind, etc. That's the "IM" or "IC" type.. I really just think of it as the subjective type.
    Last edited by crazedrat; 09-03-2010 at 07:36 PM.
    INTp

  5. #5
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,931
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    If it's true that people can "develop" cognitively, in regards to something other than information processing, then how is it Socionics?

    And why would an individual have a type, akin to a Socionics type, rather than merely be strong in certain functions? Your interests and quirks are things that are developed by what you process, and they affect the way you live your life, but they don't affect how you process information cognitively.

  6. #6
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean View Post
    If it's true that people can "develop" cognitively, in regards to something other than information processing, then how is it Socionics?

    And why would an individual have a type, akin to a Socionics type, rather than merely be strong in certain functions? Your interests and quirks are things that are developed by what you process, and they affect the way you live your life, but they don't affect how you process information cognitively.
    Lol nothing but you getting confused by semantics. Anyway, there are consistencies in the information you observe.
    INTp

  7. #7
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedrat360 View Post
    I really just think of it as the subjective type.
    If EM is the objective type and IM is the subjective type:
    Outside observers would far easier recognize (and possibly VI) people's EM types and would have no information to go on for IM type until they know them for awhile. Is it true that EM is much more easy to type for the average person? Does this mean that VIing people for IM type is impossible?

    EDIT: deleted and releted; lol hivemind
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  8. #8
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    If EM is the objective type and IM is the subjective type:
    Outside observers would far easier recognize (and possibly VI) people's EM types and would have no information to go on for IM type until they know them for awhile.
    Umm... No they wouldn't. A persons subjective dispositions, especially the information processing type, show fourth through VI and can be felt immediately.
    INTp

  9. #9
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So IM and EM are exhibited in equal amount from the individual and finding out both should take similar amounts of effort? If this is so, then they should be considered separate types (IM/EM).
    But if IM is significantly easier to find then it's hard to call EM anything but a subtype.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  10. #10
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    They are separate types, and I am assuming they're shown equally because I have no reason to think otherwise. We type peoples subjective elements all the time on this board.. Infact socionics is very geared toward the processing side of things. Most peoples sociotype on this board is their IM type.
    INTp

  11. #11
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If career and interests are the domain of finding EM type, would an INTj-ESFp be a horrible scientist? Or is it more likely that they be good scientists, as long as they are researching new ways to party?
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  12. #12
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Crispy - considering how crazedrat describes it, would you say it matters more to you when typing others what kind of information they perceive, or what kind of information they produce?

  13. #13
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,931
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    How would this, for example, add to what can already be explained through the IM elements and functions (why would EM elements be of any relevance?):

    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?"

  14. #14
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I myself am not immune on the idea of EM types fwiw.

  15. #15
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    @Crispy - considering how crazedrat describes it, would you say it matters more to you when typing others what kind of information they perceive, or what kind of information they produce?
    I would probably be typing them by the information they produce (what they say) because I can not yet read minds. If that's how it works, all my current typings are EM typings.

    EDIT: lol I just realized why Gilly made this thread. What a rapscallion.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  16. #16
    ._. 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 Crispy View Post
    I would probably be typing them by the information they produce (what they say) because I can not yet read minds. If that's how it works, all my current typings are EM typings.
    Except it seems that IM type is responsible for creating information and EM for accepting it... so what interests us is information we're attuned to (EM-related), how we do it depends on what we can do with this information (IM-related). Or at least that's my impression.

  17. #17
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean View Post
    If it's true that people can "develop" cognitively, in regards to something other than information processing, then how is it Socionics?

    And why would an individual have a type, akin to a Socionics type, rather than merely be strong in certain functions? Your interests and quirks are things that are developed by what you process, and they affect the way you live your life, but they don't affect how you process information cognitively.
    It IS information processing. But there is a difference between what we process in a natural, instinctive manner, and the way we consciously interpret reality.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  18. #18
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,115
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    It IS information processing. But there is a difference between what we process in a natural, instinctive manner, and the way we consciously interpret reality.
    What? I'm not following. How is it possible to think other than naturally? You can think about things in a deliberate way, but I don't see how you could train your brain to process in a different manner. It just does what it does, it's hardwired.

  19. #19
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    Except it seems that IM type is responsible for creating information and EM for accepting it... so what interests us is information we're attuned to (EM-related), how we do it depends on what we can do with this information (IM-related). Or at least that's my impression.
    So that means that typing people by what they say etc. is for IM type. That part makes sense. So if IM is the observable type, does that mean EM is the introspective type? What can you qualify as evidence of a certain EM type that you CAN'T qualify as evidence of a certain IM type? That's my biggest confusion as there doesn't seem to be much that IM type can't explain.

    As of now, I can attribute all of my interests and career goals etc. (this is how you type EM, correect?) to my IM type with no problem. There's only three reasons this could be:
    1. I am INTj-INTj
    2. I am INTj-XXXx and I have mistaken my interests / career goals for INTj when they are really of a different EM type.
    3. EM type has little to no effect on interests and career goals.

    Which of these is most likely true?
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  20. #20
    jughead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NC
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    883
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    its hardwired would be IM and the software would be more akin to EM. DUh
    The more you do a thing the better you get at it, the structure of your brain changes etc blah blah.

  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 jughead View Post
    its hardwired would be IM and the software would be more akin to EM. DUh
    The more you do a thing the better you get at it, the structure of your brain changes etc blah blah.
    Can you cite this understanding?

  22. #22
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,931
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Can you cite this understanding?
    Quote Originally Posted by jughead View Post
    its hardwired would be IM and the software would be more akin to EM. DUh
    The more you do a thing the better you get at it, the structure of your brain changes etc blah blah.
    .

Posting Permissions

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