DCNH application for Dual-type theory

[tcaudilllg]

Probably the unemployment office.

I think that these theories of personality are relevant enough to ideal career placement that they warrant use as a job hunting tool. They are the counter-part to Big 5: Big 5 is not your friend unless you are a manager. Else it is your enemy because it is a means of discriminating between employees. Companies have too many aces already. It's time to balance the field in favor of the employee, by giving them the ability not only to know what they are good at, but the motivation to hone and sharpen their skills to get the jobs that are out there.

Still, I think that employer and employee don't necessarily have to have an adversarial relationship. Why not bring the two together by matching prospective employers with qualified employees?

[1981slater]

You know, when I started to read about MBTI, Socionics, etc, I was amused by the fact that I typed my relatives and their types matched their jobs: "ISTj inspector", "ESTj director", "ISTp craftsman", "ENTp inventor" lol!!!

In my opinion, what you support happens since the prehistoric age, but nepotism tends to allocate positions to people that may not be good enough for them.

Nevertheless, using Socionics in the human resources field would definitely enhance companies.

[JohnDo]

That's probably true. With only 16 types it is impossible to tell what careeer someone should choose. That's probably the biggest advantage of using more types. For intertype relations 16 types seem to be enough...

In my opinion talents and and interests are determined partially by the 1st type (maybe 70%), partially by the 2nd type maybe (30%). Do you still think that it's not 70:30 but 0:100, Tcaudillg. That talents and interests are determined by the 2nd type alone as you claimed once? That's obviously wrong because you can read a lot about talents and interests in ordinary type descriptions from Gulenko, Filatova, Lytov...

Have you ever created a list with talents and interests of all the 16 types?

Example of how it should work, theoretically:

LII: logical systems (mathematics, natural sciences etc)
IEI: personal problems (medicine, psychology etc.)
LII-IEI: socionics (a logical system ro solve personal problems)

[woofwoofl]

I've been thinking a hell of a lot about this myself

The biggest thing I've noticed was with tcaudilllg typing as LII-IEI; I noticed a certain thing of him wanting to go about pushing things forward in a certain grand, massive, crusading manner which feels more Beta NF than Alpha NT to me, yet LII is a rather solid typing; Yaaroslav, another LII, and if I were to dual-type him, LII-EIE, kinda comes off that way to me too. I don't spot this in all LIIs of course...

I don't see any hard-and-fast way of approaching dual-typing, so if I ever feel like doing it (a bit rare for me; I have nothing against it at all, I just like to keep things loose usually; less effort, more wiggle room for analog people), I take the DCNH and fork it into whatever one of two functions I find appropriate; this becomes the first "function" of the second "type". I then choose one of two functions to be the "creative function", and there you have it!


tcaudilllg and Alexsei do dual-typing the most Aleksei has me at SEE-SEI, by the way, which makes a shit ton of sense to me, though I don't know if I'm absolutely on board with it (not that I mind much, it feels like splitting hairs at that point to me anyways)...


I'll make a table for you using IEI, I hope this makes things easier:

[EyeSeeCold]

^ I disagree that J/P determines DCNH. Fe/Te sub as Normalizing and Ni/Si sub as Creative makes no sense. D = Je, C = Pe, N = Ji, H = Pi and types are distributed as Ji+Pe and Pi+Je, so it's DC/NH or DH/CN - but not DN/CH.

Also, Tcaud holds Dual type to be something different than DCNH. If you think they are co-existential then you aren't using Tcaud's dual type theory.

[EyeSeeCold]

Also, Tcaud holds Dual type to be something different than DCNH. If you think they are co-existential then you aren't using Tcaud's dual type theory.

Any idea why it differs? Not unless dual-type has an "edge" over DCNH could one make such a claim. An observable edge. Otherwise, it renders it the status of just another subtype theory.

Dual type is about EM, or Energy Metabolism as opposed to Information Metabolism. Dual/Cross type theory concerns both IM & EM.

Here are a few explanations by the man himself:
here
here
and here

and a quote:

I recently came to understand that our EM type is the cast for our self-image: we use our IM functions in such a way as to befit our reflective self (the self others think of us as) and meet others' expectations, while using our EM functions to fulfill our self-concept. We are bound to our IM types by criticism; we are bound to our EM types by desire to be "us".

[woofwoofl]

^ I disagree that J/P determines DCNH. Fe/Te sub as Normalizing and Ni/Si sub as Creative makes no sense. D = Je, C = Pe, N = Ji, H = Pi and types are distributed as Ji+Pe and Pi+Je, so it's DC/NH or DH/CN - but not DN/CH.

Also, Tcaud holds Dual type to be something different than DCNH. If you think they are co-existential then you aren't using Tcaud's dual type theory.

It's a system of "Accepting/Producing" subtypes, so I have the P functions all together as a lump sum of sorts; same with J functions. Fe-IEI would mean there's more of a focus on Judging functions, Ni-IEI would mean there's more of a focus on Perceiving functions, and though "I" and "E" would be implied in the subtypes, I see no reason at all for that to mean anything, let alone for that to hold hard and fast.

Everything would spread out like branches and limbs from a tree, more or less

I do notice you place far, far more importance on the concept of temperament than I do...

I've been thinking a hell of a lot about this myself

The biggest thing I've noticed was with tcaudilllg typing as LII-IEI; I noticed a certain thing of him wanting to go about pushing things forward in a certain grand, massive, crusading manner which feels more Beta NF than Alpha NT to me, yet LII is a rather solid typing; Yaaroslav, another LII, and if I were to dual-type him, LII-EIE, kinda comes off that way to me too. I don't spot this in all LIIs of course...

Yeah, they're both LIIs who seem to act weirdly on board. I wonder if it's the same case with Maritsa. EII-EIE goes I suppose... How do you determine which is the IM type and which the EM? I mean, there's bound to be some overlapping behaviours, and both is claimed to have impact on intertype relationships.

I'm not exactly how tcaud and Aleksei do it, but I use dual-type as an extended subtype of sorts; DCNH is just another intermediary step for me

Cool! I'm gonna try this and see if it works for me. Do you mean that there are correlations between DCNH and dual-type? I was under the impression that there wasn't suppose to, and that they are 2 separate theories. Is dual-type the sub-type of DCNH?

As far as I'm concerned, yes, and strictly so

What are the characteristics of an SEE-SEI? What is your DCNH typing?

I've got myself down as SEE-SLI; like I said, it feels like splitting hairs at this point, but I'd expect it to mean "earthy/physical SEE who can cook good food and get along with Alphas"

I'd rather hairs get split along those lines than for crazy stuff to happen like the typing of Maritsa as an EIE of any sort... I've seen angry EIIs, it's not pretty, it's no fun at all to witness it, let alone be on the business end of it, and it falls in line exactly with what happens with her. I got to chat with Fi-EII Hydrangea; all else aside, I strongly think Maritsa's the same type as her.

When superficialities can be safely exported to subtypes, then the raw mechanics of things like Reinins, as well as things that are drawn from them like the Gulenko cognitive styles, etc., can be much better allowed to work their magic

Wow, you guys even have a correlation table for this? Amazing! Thanks so much for this info!

You're welcome! I whipped that one up myself; once I found the "table" function and how to apply it, I've been going nuts

Any idea why it differs? Not unless dual-type has an "edge" over DCNH could one make such a claim. An observable edge. Otherwise, it renders it the status of just another subtype theory.

Dual type is about EM, or Energy Metabolism as opposed to Information Metabolism. Dual/Cross type theory concerns both IM & EM.

Here are a few explanations by the man himself:
here
here
and here

and a quote:

I recently came to understand that our EM type is the cast for our self-image: we use our IM functions in such a way as to befit our reflective self (the self others think of us as) and meet others' expectations, while using our EM functions to fulfill our self-concept. We are bound to our IM types by criticism; we are bound to our EM types by desire to be "us".

Given what I looked at so far, it seems we're taking entirely different paths, yet reaching more or less the same destination

[EyeSeeCold]

It's a system of "Accepting/Producing" subtypes, so I have the P functions all together as a lump sum of sorts; same with J functions. Fe-IEI would mean there's more of a focus on Judging functions, Ni-IEI would mean there's more of a focus on Perceiving functions, and though "I" and "E" would be implied in the subtypes, I see no reason at all for that to mean anything, let alone for that to hold hard and fast.

Everything would spread out like branches and limbs from a tree, more or less

I do notice you place far, far more importance on the concept of temperament than I do...

Yeah, you're right. I'm the real deviant here, but I just don't think the theory's proposer(Gulenko was it?) intended them to be interpreted that way. I think I'll go research some more for my benefit.

Given what I looked at so far, it seems we're taking entirely different paths, yet reaching more or less the same destination

Maybe, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions. It seems too complex a system to not accept it holistically.

[tcaudilllg]

Hunter, all I have to say is "enjoy the KoolAid!"

[EyeSeeCold]

I do notice you place far, far more importance on the concept of temperament than I do...

Oh yeah dude, I gotta point out that it's not temperaments but orientations. I don't mean for example IP but Pi, Introverted perception or Field Dynamics. Temperaments are for energies and orientation is about data or information you concern yourself with.

What is your DCNH and dual-type, ESC?

Undefined.

[tcaudilllg]

Woofwoofl imagine for a sec a few people:

• Person 1 is an LII. He has a strong interest in how things are controlled. He also has some skill in biology, as a cell is essentially a control system for the mechanization of energy. He enjoys tinkering, experimenting, and holding out hypotheses based on the known rules. He loves the feeling knowing whether a possibility is true or false. He is very grounded, however, and very responsible -- he is not given to flights of fancy which do not have demonstrable use, whether for himself or others.
• Person 2 is an LII also. He is also interested in how things are controlled, however unlike Person 1 he is much more investigative, not particularly interested in tinkering all day long. He doesn't like failure because he knows it's expensive. He has a reputation for never failing a hypothesis (or at least, very rarely). This because he carefully reasons the experiment in his head for hours, and hours, and hours -- it is not hypotheses that Person 2 contrives, but comprehensive theories that seem to have a validity all their own. Where Person 1 is something of a scatterbrain who tinkers for the sake of tinkering, Person 2 aims to eventually succeed by piecing together Person 1's failures, like a puzzle.

Both of these people are LIIs interested in biology. Yet one prefers to reside in the domain to Ti, and the other in Ne. One prefers to nurture Ti for its own sake, the other to explore Ne for hours in the name of Ti's elevation for a very specific purpose. The EM type is the same -- both are LSI EMs working in a lab testing cell cultures -- but they have very different approaches to the work.