Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Dualization What is it and why do you want it?

  1. #1
    Samuel the Gabriel H. MisterNi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA.
    TIM
    C-IEE Ne (862)
    Posts
    1,131
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Dualization. What is it and why do you want it?

    I was reading through the "Type Changes" thread here and it there are two very obvious camps on whether type is ingrained or malleable. If type is inborn and thus set from birth then that implies there are 16 distinct and only 16 psychosomatic type due to the structure of the brain, VI-ability, ignoring cultural/ethnic/racial boundaries and whatnot.

    If type is malleable, then that implies your type isn't inborn and that you can change it through a concentrated effort or through sheer will. Although it's true that your brain doesn't fully develop until you're 25-30, the brain can restructure itself due to continued usage of specific parts of the brain or through trauma. Like most things in biology though, it's you use it or lose it. You can improve say Ne, if you're Ne-PoLR or Ti if you're Ti-PoLR, it would just take a lot of effort on your part.

    The truth, like most things in life, is probably somewhere in the middle. What do you think is the effect of your sociotype regarding nature vs nurture?



    Also, this brings into question the efficacy of dualization.

    For the inborn crowd, it's really simple. There are 16 types and for every one of those 16, there is an opposing "dual" for you whom you will be able to relate with on a comfortable psychological level and distance. Your "dual" would be the best theoretically possible relationship and every other relationship being ranked somewhere beneath that. A hardline stance and it makes the system of intertype relations forever the same for you.

    For the malleable crowd, the implications of being able to make a concerted effort to change your type are pretty large. Since Model A relies on a complete systemization of type relations according to your own type, any type changes would necessarily shift your intertype relations. For example: If you typed yourself INTp to begin with then the ESFp would be your dual. However if you went INTp => INFp, ESTp would be your new dual and ESFp would be your new semi-dual. Switching between look-alikes doesn't affect the system too much, but what if you confused yourself for your conflictor? Your whole world would've been turned upside down!

    Now it would seem to me that rationals would prefer the opinion that type is inborn, while irrationals would prefer the malleability of types since that implies suitable adaptation. This appears to be a growing rift among the Socion as rationals believe there is only one true dual type and irrationals would believe that you don't really have any "true dual" because you can change your type to accommodate one another.

    What's your take on the subject? Do you believe your type is set in stone with one type, one dual? Or do you believe that duality isn't all that it's cracked up to be and as long as both individuals are sufficiently adaptable then your dual may change? Is it somewhere in the middle? What do you think?

    IEE Ne Creative Type

    Some and role lovin too. () I too...
    !!!!!!

  2. #2
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,626
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Temperament (EJ, IJ, IP, EP) - inborn.
    Functional preference for a given temperament - mallaeble, but hard to change because people tend to involve themselves with others from their own quadra, and tendentially reject others. Thus most people have a stable type and a stable dual.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  3. #3
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ugh. Cyberspace ate my first post, so this one's going to be shorter.

    I do believe type is inborn. However, there's a lot more to interrelational compatibility than type. I am married to my Mirage, for instance, and couldn't be happier. My Father-in-Law is my Dual, but I can't imagine being married to him (provided he were quite a bit younger, and I was physically attracted to him); we get along quite well, of course, but there are a lot of things about him that really bug me at times and I'd have a really hard time overlooking them if I were married to him.
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  4. #4
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same level, whereby both have equal motive power in consciousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.

    Read it a few times to let it sink in. There's no "improving" your weak functions without dumbing your strong ones. Sorry about that. Love from Uncle Carl.

  5. #5
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same level, whereby both have equal motive power in consciousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.

    Read it a few times to let it sink in. There's no "improving" your weak functions without dumbing your strong ones. Sorry about that. Love from Uncle Carl.
    I think there is probably a inability to improve the dimensionality of a function without losing that capacity elsewhere. Imo, dimensionality is a good way to explain this.

    However, you can accumulate enough life experience with a area of life associated with that function to be proficient in it in many circumstances and can even be compelled by neuroticism to become highly proficient in a narrow area of life within that 2d or 1d function.

    Also varying levels of intelligence and other non personality related factors apply.

  6. #6
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,329
    Mentioned
    208 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The truth, like most things in life, is probably somewhere in the middle. What do you think is the effect of your sociotype regarding nature vs nurture?
    I believe that it's a combination of nature and nurture.
    I believe that various chemicals in the brain can influence our perceptions and processing of stimuli.

    I believe that one can learn rules/norms for a specific situation that would, in essence put the person at 2D for that particular situation. Then they can place themselves into another specific situation that calls for similar yet modified 2D rules/norms. After many many situations like this, they may learn how to be somewhat flexible in the rules/norms...depending on the situation at hand. Thus entering low level 3D.

    However, this process would be painful both physically (headaches, stress, tension) and psychologically (low self-confidence, self-recrimination, depression, etc).

    I believe that we can attend to different information, but it would be akin to stopping cold turkey after a lifetime of smoking...or breaking a lifelong habit. And since we're talking about the brain, and information, it would be multiple times harder than stopping from an action. It would be more like trying to stop the impulse from every popping up.

    So, while I think it might be possible, I doubt that it would be likely to happen...aside from going from 1D to 2D, and possible to 3D after many many years of hard work. But that wouldn't change the type, only the dimensional levels of related elements.

    What's your take on the subject? Do you believe your type is set in stone with one type, one dual? Or do you believe that duality isn't all that it's cracked up to be and as long as both individuals are sufficiently adaptable then your dual may change? Is it somewhere in the middle? What do you think?
    I believe that duals are merely people who attend to information that I don't, but that compliments my own information. Such that together, we could supply enough information to be akin to a full working brain. However, I think that this would be perhaps best suited for project work or a partnership where two people have the same goal (which may include raising children together).

    However, I also believe that one can form a relationship with other types. No matter the other person's type, there will still be a learning process and give'n'take on both sides. Some relationships, however, will require much more work than people are willing to do. It would help if the two people had common ground from which to relate, however, and a willingness to work through problems that WILL arise. But then..the same would be required of two duals relating to each other.

    I do not think that if one person increased from 1D to 3D..that their partner would automatically increase in same/different element. Though maybe one partner could assist the other in attending to certain types of information, helping them understand and utilize rules/norms, and helping through those specific situations. But that implies that the helper is already a 3-4D in that element.

    Much of this is conjectural, and highly unlikely to ever be pursued by any but the most motivated of individuals.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  7. #7
    ._. 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 hkkmr View Post
    I think there is probably a inability to improve the dimensionality of a function without losing that capacity elsewhere. Imo, dimensionality is a good way to explain this.

    However, you can accumulate enough life experience with a area of life associated with that function to be proficient in it in many circumstances and can even be compelled by neuroticism to become highly proficient in a narrow area of life within that 2d or 1d function.

    Also varying levels of intelligence and other non personality related factors apply.
    Sure, you can learn with it, but you can't improve what you're learning with this much. If it makes sense. I agree, to be clear if it doesn't.

  8. #8
    Memory of Tomorrow Reuben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Oh baby, baby, baby
    TIM
    No idea
    Posts
    1,928
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I know that no one here has actually read Tcaud's work because all of you are biased dipshits, but in Tcaud's political type theory thread, he did imply that it takes about 60 years for an average human being to be able to fully integrate, develop, or use their weak function, assuming their development is optimal. At 20, we learn to reconcile the role with the program, and at 60 we learn to reconcile the PoLR with the creative. At least, that is my interpretation of his interpretation of Carl Jung's work.

    I tend to be of the opinion that there are ways to trigger these effects without taking such a fucking long time, but it's also costly and it may lead to death. I'm not talking about a physical method btw.

    Aiss, what you quoted from Carl makes sense. And as you can see, it's fully reconcilable with weak-function strengthening, if say you had enough time to fully mature your ego functions that is.
    She is wise
    beyond words
    beautiful within
    her soul
    brighter than
    the sun
    lovelier than
    love
    dreams larger
    than life
    and does not
    understand the
    meaning of no.
    Because everything
    through her, and in her, is
    "Yes, it will be done."


    Why I love LSEs:
    Quote Originally Posted by Abbie
    A couple years ago I was put in charge of decorating the college for Valentine's Day. I made some gorgeous, fancy decorations from construction paper, glue, scissors, and imagination. Then I covered a couple cabinets with them. But my favorite was the diagram of a human heart I put up. So romantic!

  9. #9
    Samuel the Gabriel H. MisterNi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA.
    TIM
    C-IEE Ne (862)
    Posts
    1,131
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same level, whereby both have equal motive power in consciousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.

    Read it a few times to let it sink in. There's no "improving" your weak functions without dumbing your strong ones. Sorry about that. Love from Uncle Carl.
    Aiss, I'm disappointed in you for posting drivel like that. Jung is describing dichotomous interactions, not what happens in reality. What he's saying is that if you're using thinking 70% thinking, then you can only be 30% feeling. If you're 90% thinking, then you're only using 10% feeling. Is that real life? Thinking/logics is strongly correlated to the left hemisphere of the brain, while emotions/ethics is probably correlated to the right hemisphere. Are you really trying to argue that Jung said that you can only use one side of the brain at a time? Neuroscience and a general understanding of the brain has advanced tremendously since Jung and Freud were alive and it now seems that classical Jung is obsolete.

    Also, notice that Jung made no mention of overall mental capacity and capability. A dullard with an overwhelming logic preference will still be inferior to a brilliant ethical in terms of logical and reasoning ability. Jung made no mention of this, likely because research in human cognition wasn't around during his time. So in the future, please stop quoting dead obsolete information and use relevant stuff, thanks!

    IEE Ne Creative Type

    Some and role lovin too. () I too...
    !!!!!!

  10. #10
    Samuel the Gabriel H. MisterNi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA.
    TIM
    C-IEE Ne (862)
    Posts
    1,131
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    I believe that one can learn rules/norms for a specific situation that would, in essence put the person at 2D for that particular situation. Then they can place themselves into another specific situation that calls for similar yet modified 2D rules/norms. After many many situations like this, they may learn how to be somewhat flexible in the rules/norms...depending on the situation at hand. Thus entering low level 3D.
    Thank you for bringing up that point. The biggest problem with Socionics and the IE as a whole are that the IE are a 2D answer to a 3D problem. This is probably why there are several reality-based issues with socionics application. In its current state, it's just not robust enough to fully describe the human condition. At best, Socionics describes a small sliver of human personality, and an even smaller sliver on how human relationships work.

    IEE Ne Creative Type

    Some and role lovin too. () I too...
    !!!!!!

  11. #11
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    There seems to be an assumption that "we" (whoever the hell that may be) specifically want dualization.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    BC
    TIM
    Ti-LSI, 6w5, ISTJ
    Posts
    203
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reuben View Post
    I tend to be of the opinion that there are ways to trigger these effects without taking such a fucking long time, but it's also costly and it may lead to death. I'm not talking about a physical method btw.
    Brainwashing using drugs and group pressure?

  13. #13
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,626
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same level, whereby both have equal motive power in consciousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.

    Read it a few times to let it sink in. There's no "improving" your weak functions without dumbing your strong ones. Sorry about that. Love from Uncle Carl.
    Yeah, of course with type change you would necessarily obtain either a different creative or base function, along with a new PoLR. You don't trascend your temperament.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  14. #14
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    That's our friend, royal 'we'. It is pleased to make your acquaintance. You'll be seeing a lot of it.
    Its not my friend, lol.

Posting Permissions

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