Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 48

Thread: Dual-Type, DCNH, and Dichotomy Splitting

  1. #1
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Dual-Type, DCNH, and Dichotomy Splitting

    I am splitting this particular conversation from Tcaud's Dual-Typing thread because he asked to have it not derailed. I consider this important to discuss because it carries a (possibly perceived) major contradiction when trying to combine theories. My purpose is not to create confusion, but to replace confusion with understanding as these questions are answered:

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedrat360 View Post
    Dammit Crispy, I have told this to you more than once now. I'm going to make it very simple this time:
    There are dual core processors. You know how they work, right? They run two processes simultaneously. Then there are big single core processors. One big process. Right? Okay. So DHCN is like the big single core, dual type is the dual core. Get it? Now stop spreading chaos with this fool notion DHCN and dual type are the same thing.
    What this implies is that the DCNH type sits on top of both dual-types and is the same with both. This is intuitively fine as a real possibility until you introduce the concept of dichotomy splitting, or the reason DCNH was made in the first place.

    From Wikisocion Article on DCNH:
    First dichotomy: contact/distance. The first pole indicates the predominance of the need for contact, and the second the need to maintain distance. Into the contact category will fall clearly expressed extroverts as well as extroverted introverts. Distant will be clearly expressed introverts, but also introverted extroverts – those extroverts who avoid intensive contact. The scale of vertness is thus split into four gradations.
    Now lets look at Tcaud's Introverted spectrum using ONLY IM and DCNH:
    Tcaud is INTj in IM, and Creative Subtype in DCNH. According to DCNH that makes him an "Extroverted Introvert".

    Now if I'm understanding Tcaud correctly with the following quote, he believes himself to be a "Clearly Expressed Introvert":
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    *sigh*

    Crazedrat, is what Gulenko said about I-Es true for you? I'm not an -E so I wouldn't know.
    Here he is associating the Introversion - Extroversion spectrum with Dual-Type theory rather than DCNH, and coming out as a "Clearly Expressed Introvert" because he is INTj-INFp. This would be understandable if Tcaud was Harmonizing in DCNH and there would be no conflict in the spectrum.

    But if BOTH theories use the same spectrum, and they BOTH place Tcaud on different part's of the spectrum, I can only conclude three things:
    1. Both theories use the spectrum (Dual-Type extends from DCNH) and Tcaud is really Harmonizing Subtype/Clearly Expressed Introvert and the Dual-Processor Analogy works with little contradiction.
    2. Only DCNH uses the spectrum and Tcaud is an Extroverted Introvert. (Complicates processor analogy for Creative IXXx-EXXx types causing someones IM to be Extroverted Introvert and EM to be Clearly Expressed Extrovert, but does not completely void the analogy)
    3. Dual-Type and DCNH are incompatible with each other because they attempt to use the same dichotomy spectrum. In this case if Dual-Type theory is accepted, DCNH should never be used with Dual-Type. (The analogy fails)

    Can someone explain to me how these theories fit together in the analogy without causing contradictions in the dichotomy spectrums? If both DCNH and Dual-Type are used on top of IM, which is responsible for making people Extroverted Introverts etc?

    Once again I would like to stress that I am not out to cause confusion, and believing so would be he result of paranoia. These are my real concerns regarding the mashing together of theories with conflicting implications. If we can sort out these contradictions, Dual-Type will be A LOT more understandable.

    EDIT: Notepad messed with formatting, fixed most of it.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  2. #2
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is just a massive language game and it's completely meaningless.
    Showing I/E in one tense, and then in another tense, does not poke a hole in anything. Language issues like this show up in day to day speech all the time. It shouldn't be my job to unwind it for you, but since you're shouting about this on a public forum I have no choice. I'm obligated to cater to you now. So let's do it.

    With a DHCN brand of INTj-ENFj you have an example of an extraverted introvert. In this case extraversion is a shade added on top of a foundation of introversion. On its basic levels the type is an introvert. So you can think of this like a pyramid. The base of the pyramid has a big sign that says "introvert". Then, at the top, you climb up to "extraverted introvert". But there is no part of the pyramid that is simply labeled "extravert". Extraversion is not its own process for this type; extraversion only occurs following introversion. It's subordinated to introversion. Right? Good.

    Now with dual type you would have two completely different pyramids. One labeled introversion, the other labeled extraversion. If you're climbing one, you aren't climbing the other. They are completely distinct. There is no subordination happening. You are not an 'extraverted introvert', or an 'introverted extravert'. You are an 'extravert-introvert'. Each term is given equal value and is its own distinct process. Do you understand?

    The language issue comes about by not properly specifying the context of terms. In your case you don't understand the context and you approach it at face value. With socionics context comes from the metaphysics of the model being discussed. So when I describe to you the core differences between DHCN and Dual type, this alone should establish differences in context.
    Last edited by crazedrat; 09-04-2010 at 09:07 PM.
    INTp

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

    Default

    You are describing situation 2 in my original post.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    2. Only DCNH uses the spectrum and Tcaud is an Extroverted Introvert.
    Paraphrase:
    For INTj-ENFj
    16 Subtype DCNH
    Scale: (Introvert - Ext. Int. ) - Int. Ext. - Extrovert
    So parenthesis is the pyramid where a base introvert can fit. Makes sense.
    Dual-Type Theory
    Scale: (Introvert )- [ Extrovert]
    Parenthesis is where IM type can fit and boxquotes is where EM type can fit. Sort of makes sense.

    Now, you have shown that these two theories can work separately. I'm talking about when you mash them together, as tcaud has done by labeling himself Creative INTj-INFp. Why should the same DCNH "processor" be added on to both of the "dual-cores"? You could just as well use DCNH on both IM/EM types and be Creative in one and Dominant in the other.

    Here is what results from your original analogy: Tcaud is an IM extroverted introvert, EM extroverted introvert (These work), IM disorganized rational, and EM clearly expressed irrational (These conflict).

    Being an IM pJ and an EM pP is a weird combo that you would normally expect to not be possible. But if it is possible as you imply, why must the combos IM pP (Clearly expressed Irrational) and EM jJ (Clearly expressed Rational) be impossible by forcing the same DCNH on both IM/EM?

    It seems like the only feasible way to mash together DCNH and IM/EM is to have two separate DCNH types, one for each IM/EM type. The way it is done now simply makes no sense.
    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

    Ah, you see I didn't read your massive wad of text because I've already explained ^ That to you like 3 times now.

    Yes, that is true, but DHCN is not developed enough to identify an EM DHCN type. Infact DHCN is inherently flawed, so I don't see much point in trying. It doesn't even rightfully accomplish the single proces elaboration. That would require redefining all the functions. DHCN is more like a tweak people add on to their typing for variety.
    INTp

  5. #5
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If that is true than DCNH and Dual-type are clearly not ready to be merged. DCNH leads down to the path to 16 Subtype theory and is currently incompatible with Dual-Type. Since it only makes sense to consider either Dual-Type or 16 Subtype (and not both) to be the next step after finding IM type, using the same DCNH on both Dual-Types is a contradiction. When I first mentioned this to tcaud he insisted it works the analogy way and I can not understand why.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  6. #6
    ._. 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
    If that is true than DCNH and Dual-type are clearly not ready to be merged. DCNH leads down to the path to 16 Subtype theory and is currently incompatible with Dual-Type. Since it only makes sense to consider either Dual-Type or 16 Subtype (and not both) to be the next step after finding IM type, using the same DCNH on both Dual-Types is a contradiction. When I first mentioned this to tcaud he insisted it works the analogy way and I can not understand why.
    I recall tcaud said something about subtype altering information pathways rather than functions, which is a theory barely mentioned in English sources. If this is the case, it would make more than a little sense for EM and IM type to share a subtype, as some links between them may be enhanced as well. This is just speculation based on a single mention of it, though. FWIW I see DCNH as working like that, influencing information pathways in vital and mental ring rather than elements. Oddly enough, it seems to somehow fit with what I know of model X.

  7. #7
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Crispy, I think you're placing too much emphasis on the E/I dichotomy when it comes to DCNH types. While its probably true that the creative subtype of INTj may, more often than not be an extroverted introvert, there is nothing that says they will be a clearly expressed introvert. I dont see the "clearly expressed vertedness" in behavior as being an actual part of DCNH theory.


    On top of that, I think what Crazedrat is saying is that the two theories cannot be meshed together since they are two very different theories, and they are simply that, theories, created be two different people and not meant to be superimposed.
    Last edited by Typhon; 09-04-2010 at 10:53 PM.

  8. #8
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typhon View Post
    I dont see the "clearly expressed vertedness" in behavior as being an actual part of DCNH theory.
    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Dcnh

    The first pole indicates the predominance of the need for contact, and the second the need to maintain distance. Into the contact category will fall clearly expressed extroverts as well as extroverted introverts. Distant will be clearly expressed introverts, but also introverted extroverts – those extroverts who avoid intensive contact. The scale of vertness is thus split into four gradations.

    Second dichotomy: terminating/initiating.

    I understand terminating as the ability to finish what was started and a tendency towards regulation. Initiating, as the opposite tendency to initiate and to easily move on to something else, with corresponding disorder in matters and affairs. As you see, these are the concrete definitions of the usual dichotomy rationality/ irrationality. It would be incorrect to think that in the house of any rational reigns pristine order, that it clearly plans all, and that all irrationals throw everything to the side and are burdened by planning. In reality, two intervening gradations are frequently encountered between these extreme poles.

    In the terminating pole belong clearly expressed rationals and orderly irrationals. Initiating behavior is possessed by clearly expressed irrationals and disorderly rationals.
    Clearly expressed vertedness IS DCNH theory. DCNH is a theory of pronounced temperament. That's why it was made, and that's where most of the details about DCNH concentrate on.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  9. #9
    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 think you have valid points, Crispy. I am increasingly beginning to see tcaud's Dual-Type theory and DCNH as Gulenko describes it as competing theories. Both can't be true, at least in their current forms -- one or the other would have to be modified if they were to fit together, assuming I've understood them correctly.

    Still, I want to have a better grasp of tcaud's theory before arriving at any firm conclusions related to it.
    Quaero Veritas.

  10. #10
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's why I'm asking these questions
    I understand most of the basics of dual-type (still can't type myself tho :frown but I could never grasp how DCNH adds anything extra to a dual-type. It seems that dual-type alone either takes care of the dichotomy spectrum with the two types or it ignores the existence of the spectrum, but I can't tell which. If it ignores the existence then it's safe to say DCNH can be used separately on both IM/EM types.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  11. #11
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    That's why I'm asking these questions
    I understand most of the basics of dual-type (still can't type myself tho :frown but I could never grasp how DCNH adds anything extra to a dual-type. It seems that dual-type alone either takes care of the dichotomy spectrum with the two types or it ignores the existence of the spectrum, but I can't tell which. If it ignores the existence then it's safe to say DCNH can be used separately on both IM/EM types.
    Yes, and I think that if it incorporates the dichotomy spectrum, then it's more likely that Gulenko and tcaud are attempting to describe different facets of the same thing.
    Quaero Veritas.

  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 Aiss View Post
    I recall tcaud said something about subtype altering information pathways rather than functions, which is a theory barely mentioned in English sources. If this is the case, it would make more than a little sense for EM and IM type to share a subtype, as some links between them may be enhanced as well. This is just speculation based on a single mention of it, though. FWIW I see DCNH as working like that, influencing information pathways in vital and mental ring rather than elements. Oddly enough, it seems to somehow fit with what I know of model X.
    I discovered that for myself by contrasting my thinking with labcoat's. If you could point me to a Russian for it I'd be greatful.

    This discussion really isn't related to the topic though. Could this post please be spun off into a DCHN vs dual-type debate thread? (not that I think the quantity of types paper should considered canon)

  13. #13
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Tcaud which theory do you think is responsible for the introvert-extrovert and rational-irrational spectrums? DCNH, Dual-Type, or Both? Do you believe DCNH and Dual-Type theory to be compatible?

    As for turning this into a debate thread, I don't usually care what my threads turn into. The more variety of topics the better.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

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

    Default

    I'd like to make a point about ambiversion. If you contrast George W. Bush with Barack Obama, one clearly comes out the extrovert and the other you can't really tell. Bush is obviously an extrovert. He wasn't shown alone during his entire tenure. You look at Obama, it's kinda hard to tell.

    I think the reason for this is because crisis oriented people like Obama make a point of interacting with the public whether they want to or not, because they believe it absolutely critical. Take April as another example: she's extremely friendly, but she's nonetheless an introvert. She interacts with people because she wants them to feel included. People like April and Obama have a natural charisma which makes them seem ambiverted. I don't think that ambiversion, from a socionics perspective, actually exists.

    DCNH and dual-type are completely different systems. DCNH is essentially a set of parameters which modulate the functioning of the two types. (for example, whether the ring flows clockwise or counterclockwise).

    You guys should read up on Gulenko's blog. He explains a great deal of about DCNH and EM types. In fact, I believe he did recently explain the E vs I dichotomy at the EM level.

    Gulenko has been wrong before. In fact, a paper was translated a while ago in which several proposed traits of his were outright disproven. I think a lot of you need to learn how the academic world works... sometimes people publish hypotheses not because they believe they are correct, but because they could be correct and warrant additional discussion. Sometimes articles are published only to get a second opinion. Remember science journals were originally developed as a means of communication between professionals, not as "clearing houses" for academic work.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 09-05-2010 at 07:41 AM.

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

    Default

    Do you rather suppose socionic's four dichotomies are all bimodal? That is actually a likely possibility.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    Do you rather suppose socionic's four dichotomies are all bimodal? That is actually a likely possibility.
    No. Absolutely not.

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

    Default

    If they're not bimodal (and therefore in a spectrum formation) why is it that ambiversion can't exist?
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  18. #18
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    I'd like to make a point about ambiversion. If you contrast George W. Bush with Barack Obama, one clearly comes out the extrovert and the other you can't really tell. Bush is obviously an extrovert. He wasn't shown alone during his entire tenure. You look at Obama, it's kinda hard to tell.

    I think the reason for this is because crisis oriented people like Obama make a point of interacting with the public whether they want to or not, because they believe it absolutely critical. Take April as another example: she's extremely friendly, but she's nonetheless an introvert. She interacts with people because she wants them to feel included. People like April and Obama have a natural charisma which makes them seem ambiverted. I don't think that ambiversion, from a socionics perspective, actually exists.

    DCNH and dual-type are completely different systems. DCNH is essentially a set of parameters which modulate the functioning of the two types. (for example, whether the ring flows clockwise or counterclockwise).

    You guys should read up on Gulenko's blog. He explains a great deal of about DCNH and EM types. In fact, I believe he did recently explain the E vs I dichotomy at the EM level.

    Gulenko has been wrong before. In fact, a paper was translated a while ago in which several proposed traits of his were outright disproven. I think a lot of you need to learn how the academic world works... sometimes people publish hypotheses not because they believe they are correct, but because they could be correct and warrant additional discussion. Sometimes articles are published only to get a second opinion. Remember science journals were originally developed as a means of communication between professionals, not as "clearing houses" for academic work.
    Yes. It's sad to see this because you and I have to spend the extra time to correct these learned perceptions especially with those who don't have good use of Ti and just follow any old system that comes along, even when it's inaccurate.

  19. #19
    ._. 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
    I discovered that for myself by contrasting my thinking with labcoat's. If you could point me to a Russian for it I'd be greatful.

    This discussion really isn't related to the topic though. Could this post please be spun off into a DCHN vs dual-type debate thread? (not that I think the quantity of types paper should considered canon)
    I've first seen it mentioned on wikisocion, but it's no longer there - I've found it in cached pages. Apparently it's Filatova's subtype system, which I don't have any sources on. The idea of IM pathways being altered stuck in my mind alone, probably because it makes so much more sense this way, and because it is just a mention, I figured the sources weren't translated - this much is probably true.

    Anyway, here is the original fragment I thought of:
    A third socionist, Ekaterina Filatova postulates that there are many other subtypes besides the ones with just one of the Ego functions enhanced. Filatova claims that there can exist whole types as subtypes. For instance, an ILI Critic, who also exhibits qualities of an IEI Lyricist or an LSE Director. In the first instance, the ILI is extremely introverted; with an LSE subtype, the ILI treads the boundary between extroversion and introversion. Thereby, Filatova claims that there are four common subtypes:
    • one that has an enhanced leading function
    • one that had an enhanced creative function
    • one that has an enhanced left vertical pathway of his mental functions
    • one that has an enhanced right vertical pathway of his mental functions


    Filatova also states that an enhanced leading or creative function simply stimulates the pathway in favor of that function. Thus, an ESE with his leading enhanced would be an extreme ESE (outgoing and emotive), while an ESE with his creative enhanced would have some characteristics of an SEI, being more willing to talk about sensual experiences than an ordinary ESE.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    DCNH and dual-type are completely different systems. DCNH is essentially a set of parameters which modulate the functioning of the two types. (for example, whether the ring flows clockwise or counterclockwise).
    I also thought of DCNH in this way, but it's not really well-formed. Do you have more information on it written down somewhere?

  20. #20
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Does Filatova have a list of articles hidden somewhere on the interbutts?

    Also is that Filatova talking about DCNH or a different four subtype system? What is the effect of strengthening a left/right vertical pathway?
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  21. #21
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As I've said, I don't have more sources than that. I've googled a list of her articles though: . Doesn't she mention it at all in that new book of hers, by the way?

    This one isn't available online:
    7. Filatov ES Subtypes model "F" in the representation of the model "E" / / "Socionics, mentologiya and personality psychology", Kiev, 1999, № 2 (23).

  22. #22
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No she talks of subtypes in the individual profiles but she never explains anything about which subtype system it is. My best guess is the 2-subtype system.
    The book only has really good descriptions of functions, types and intertype relations, but doesn't go any farther than that.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

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

    Default

    She's talking about her theory of EM types. It's like dual-type theory except with eight EM types, and she has no model.

    She mentions it in a magazine interview that is accessible from typelab.ru.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    If they're not bimodal (and therefore in a spectrum formation) why is it that ambiversion can't exist?
    Try thinking about it.

  25. #25
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    She's talking about her theory of EM types. It's like dual-type theory except with eight EM types, and she has no model.

    She mentions it in a magazine interview that is accessible from typelab.ru.
    Couldn't have been 8 types. The furthest detail she mentions is "logical subtype" or "intuitive subtype" which means it could have been at most 4 but most likely 2 subtypes. At least in the book anyways.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Try thinking about it.
    I did. If it's not bimodal (meaning People are not JUST Introverted or JUST Extroverted) then there must exist ambiversion (People are MOSTLY Introverted or MOSTLY Extroverted on an E-I spectrum). Is there a third option I don't know about?
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

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

    Default

    She talks about accepting/producing in the book. She doesn't mention the big stuff.

    Gulenko's probably recommended that she wait on the EM type stuff until they have more information.

    I did. If it's not bimodal (meaning People are not JUST Introverted or JUST Extroverted) then there must exist ambiversion (People are MOSTLY Introverted or MOSTLY Extroverted on an E-I spectrum). Is there a third option I don't know about?
    Or the people who propose ambiversion have mistakenly correlated it with Jung's type system. True ambiversion is the trait of charisma for reasons that I already outlined.

  27. #27
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Charisma only counts for would-be Extroverted Introverts. Do you have a separate trait to account for would-be Introverted Extroverts? It surely can't be charisma as well right? Also I don't see how this wouldn't make the four dichotomies bimodal if what you are saying is true.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  28. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    Charisma only counts for would-be Extroverted Introverts. Do you have a separate trait to account for would-be Introverted Extroverts? It surely can't be charisma as well right? Also I don't see how this wouldn't make the four dichotomies bimodal if what you are saying is true.
    *sigh*

  29. #29
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Your lack of tact in answering questions leads me to believe you don't want people to understand your theory, as long as you do. In some cases I'm starting to think you just don't have the answers.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  30. #30
    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

    Personally I don't think they are the same thing. I'm pretty clearly not a Creating subtype and Harmonizing makes a lot of sense, but ILE is really the only EM type that works for me.
    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...

  31. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    Personally I don't think they are the same thing. I'm pretty clearly not a Creating subtype and Harmonizing makes a lot of sense, but ILE is really the only EM type that works for me.
    I just don't think Gulenko is that clueless. Now his initial error is what it is, but you see I made errors when developing the crosstype theory that... became dual-type theory, theory of individuation, the caste theory etc. When there is no trail to follow, you're going to make mistakes. Jung left something of a trail... but in a lot of cases we still have no clue what he meant, or whether he was right or wrong or whatever. (we know that he wrong about introverted intuition, obviously).

    Gulenko is a smart guy and he has reviewed my ideas. If he was wrong before, he's corrected himself by now. But I do think he figured out as early as 2000 that there was another type. This was apparently a source of great contention in the socionics community, because he was stepping outside the box Augusta had made for them.

  32. #32
    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
    Your lack of tact in answering questions leads me to believe you don't want people to understand your theory, as long as you do. In some cases I'm starting to think you just don't have the answers.
    More like you keep droning on about the same unimportant semantic issue.
    INTp

  33. #33
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's not a semantic issue, it's a contradiction issue. He claims you can't be ambiverted and therefore these is no Extroversion-Introversion Spectrum. The only way this is possible is for Introversion-Extroversion to be Bimodal, and you can be only one or the other. Since he says this is false as well, we have a problem.

    In reality he's dodging the spectrum because it is direct evidence that EM is Gulenko's extension of DCNH. He claims that Gulenko "realized his mistake" somewhere but I have yet to see a link showing this is the case.

    Labeling something an "unimportant semantic issue" is a good way to divert attention, so I must applaud your attempt to save Tcaud's reasoning. But these major holes must be filled at some time or another.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  34. #34
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Perhaps... he agrees with the spectrum, but by denying "ambiverted" he means that the halfway point is halfway all the time, as opposed to switching at will? There's also the option of -version being an enumeration of more than two elements... perhaps nine or something.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  35. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedrat360 View Post
    More like you keep droning on about the same unimportant semantic issue.
    Man let 'em go. There's no reasoning with these clowns.

  36. #36
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ask Gulenko if it makes sense that you are both EM INFp and Creative DCNH.
    When he says no, rationalize why he must be wrong and get back at me.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  37. #37
    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
    It's not a semantic issue, it's a contradiction issue. He claims you can't be ambiverted and therefore these is no Extroversion-Introversion Spectrum.
    DHCN has no relevance to the I/E dichotomy. It does not effect it in the slightest. To have a spectrum like you're imagining you would have to create an entirely new set of parameters distinct from the I/E dichotomy. That would exist in a DHCN-like system which accomplished what it set out to do, but DHCN is a failed attempt and that's ultimately why it was discarded.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    The only way this is possible is for Introversion-Extroversion to be Bimodal, and you can be only one or the other. Since he says this is false as well, we have a problem.
    It is bimodal in the simplest sense but there are multiple types. So there are multiple senses of the I/E dichotomy. Hence it is a semantic issue.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    In reality he's dodging the spectrum because it is direct evidence that EM is Gulenko's extension of DCNH.
    There is absolutely no connection between the two systems, and I have already explained this to you in elaborate detail. It is annoying you keep insisting on this failed idea even after I have totally and thoroughly debunked it.. you also acted like you understood at the time, which confuses me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    Labeling something an "unimportant semantic issue"
    And that is exactly what it is.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    is a good way to divert attention, so I must applaud your attempt to save Tcaud's reasoning.
    No, that's you ascribing motivations to fill in the gaps left by your stupidity.
    Last edited by crazedrat; 09-08-2010 at 10:18 AM.
    INTp

  38. #38
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well... I'm not one to call a semantic issue unimportant. People get into much worse conflicts when they push through without dealing with them.

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedrat360 View Post
    It is bimodal in the simplest sense but there are multiple types. So there are multiple senses of the I/E dichotomy. Hence it is a semantic issue.
    Translating this into my terms, that would be... an enumeration of more than two elements. I'd give it sixteen at most... one for every combination of IM temperament and EM temperament.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  39. #39
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    DCNH is composed of three dichotomies, two of which are the extensions of Extroversion/Introversion and Rationality/Irrationality and the third which is of consequence to the first two (Extension of Static/Dynamic I believe). It is wholly a temperament based theory, so it has very much relevance to the E/I dichotomy.

    Anyways the main thing that bugs me about Dual-Type theory, is that all of my interests, career/education choices, etc. that Tcaud would associate with EM theory match perfectly with my IM type. But when I try to tell him this, I get off-the-wall answers like, "If you study chemistry, there's a good chance you are EM-ENFp, because you learn about how the world bonds". REALLY? I thought that IM-INTj's were natrually interested in the sciences, but what I didn't know was that it was my ENFp EM that likes bondage. Explanations like these have kind of turned me off from asking about my EM type.

    I can only conclude that if Dual-Type theory works as you all say it does, I can be nothing other than an INTj-INTj. This usually would make no sense to me, because I am not Normalizing in DCNH, but your esteem of Dual-Type theory has inspired me into a leap of faith. This would also explain my confusion as to why I don't see a difference between IM and EM type, and why I considered IM type to be superior to EM type (and so thought EM was a subtype). I was wrong all along! I was just blind of my two types because they were exactly the same. Everything is so much clearer. I just wished I was as lucky and balanced as some of you, who have a dual EM type; you must feel so well-rounded
    Last edited by Crispy; 09-09-2010 at 12:35 AM.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  40. #40
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    Anyways the main thing that bugs me about Dual-Type theory, is that all of my interests, career/education choices, etc. that Tcaud would associate with EM theory match perfectly with my IM type.
    Same here. I originally thought of EM type theory as a split personality or secondary type, and on those grounds, typed myself as other things.

    Or perhaps Tcaud needs to give more emphasis to how he accounts for the fact that we are naturally interested in what we produce - that is, an LII will be interested in theoretical matters, whatever other interests he may have, because theoretical matters are what he produces.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

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
  •