Dual-types theory: LII-IEI

[tcaudilllg]

What is this type, and what is its function?

The LII-IEI is very versatile. With their strong Ti, they can understand most any principle they make the effort to study. Although Te EM brings them to grief, by using their programming skill the LII-IEI can make up for their own shortcomings.

All around this type there appear to be great, exciting ideas that for one reason or another go unrealized. Sometimes there are Te reasons for the inaction, but in other cases the cause is emotions. Fear of criticism hangs in the air as a blockade to the realization of ideas. To remove this fear is to permit the exchange of ideas.

By enabling the exchange of ideas, social potential is unleashed. By freeing the people of their fear of each other, they are permitted to perform their natural social functions.

The role of LII-IEI is to permit the intellectual growth of society by relieving criticism, and allowing people to be themselves. However, caution must be taken, because some roles are best left unperformed. Thus the LII-IEI must understand the ethics of the people around them to know how people will react in a given hypothetical scenario. It is the role of LII-IEI-Cs in particular to provide this understanding, so that LII-IEI-D can "uncork" various events in the history of technological growth and enable the fulfillment of good deeds.

Of course, the LII-IEI doesn't have to merely "uncork" the wellspring of ideas. They can fulfill these exciting possibilities themselves. But for them to act alone is highly inefficient because it ignores the function of the socion, to develop and implement ideas quickly. What might take an LII-IEI a year might be accomplished by a specialist in a few days, or even one. It is not the function of LII-IEIs to do great things but to free others from the hesitation to do them. To get society moving and exploring where fear had inhibited it. To encourage where it is needed, and to show courage when it is required. To observe those who could make a great idea possible, and when they are willing remove every obstacle to their performance. To see the future implemented, one person at a time.

[tcaudilllg]

Gul what's your opinion on fear and criticism, and do you feel a distinct compulsion to relieve it?

[JohnDo]

What is this type, and what is its function?

What we need is a list of LII-IEIs.
Suggestions:
- Carl Jung (maybe LII-ILI but for a psychologist IEI is more likely)
- Che Guevara (Gulenko typed him ENFj but that's definitely wrong)
- Bernard-Henry Levy (I don't know much about him, have to read more)
- Peter Parker
- Wesley Crusher

Would you please try to type those 5 people?

[tcaudilllg]

What we need is a list of LII-IEIs.
Suggestions:
- Carl Jung (maybe LII-ILI but for a psychologist IEI is more likely)
- Che Guevara (Gulenko typed him ENFj but that's definitely wrong)
- Bernard-Henry Levy (I don't know much about him, have to read more)
- Peter Parker
- Wesley Crusher

Would you please try to type those 5 people?

I suspect a bunch of them are involved in NLP.

From time to time I see candidates. I saw the professional page of one who was a psychologist, so I know a lot of them are into that. I've known one or two personally... carbon copies of myself, with some barely noticeable personality variations and more often than not a good deal of insecurity and difficulty adjusting.

Better to develop the model and then look for signs of the activity after the activity has been defined.

Definitely not Peter Parker. Not the actor of Wesley anyway. Not Che. Not Jung. I'd think EIE for Levy.

[JohnDo]

Definitely not Peter Parker. Not the actor of Wesley anyway. Not Che. Not Jung. I'd think EIE for Levy.

0/5... It's always the same... Talking about celebrities or fictional characters just doesn't make much sense...

[krieger]

Not the actor of Wesley anyway.

The actor isn't even INTj; more like ESxj. I think you could get away with calling the character INTj, but in combination with that actor it is a slightly awkward typing.

[tcaudilllg]

I'm actually thinking that Robert Hare may be one.



Notice his dour expression. It's typical of LII-IEIs because they try to conceal their excitement when talking about personality disorders -- because they really get a kick out of the feeling that they are "fighting evil".

Hare is a liberal LII-IEI. A conservative of the type would be more likely to discuss the mentality of good people, explain what a good person should be, that kind of thing.

[JohnDo]

Okay, I think I found a very good example of the type LII-IEI: Dr. David Banner. The Incredible Hulk was one of my favourite TV shows when I was a child. Probably because Banner is exactly the same type as I am...

[tcaudilllg]

LII-IEIs don't do nuclear physics....

[Krig the Viking]

It should be pretty apparent by now, JohnDo, that tcaudilllgian Energy Metabolism types are different from Gulenko's DCNH subtypes/energy types.

From what I can tell, tcaud, your EM types have more to do with one's interests and social role, while Gulenko's energy types describe a more immediate, personal behavioural energy. It seems to me that the tcaudilllgian types should be called something like "Social Energy Types", and Gulenko's perhaps something like "Personal Energy Types". Would you agree that that's accurate, or have I misunderstood something?

[tcaudilllg]

I think it's the same system but coming from two different perspectives. Gulenko sees things about EM types that I don't, possibly because he has a different EM type.

I don't see how you can differentiate between social interests and personal behavior.

When I finish my degree I may ask him about it.

[Krig the Viking]

I think it's the same system but coming from two different perspectives. Gulenko sees things about EM types that I don't, possibly because he has a different EM type.

I don't see how you can differentiate between social interests and personal behavior.

When I finish my degree I may ask him about it.

Wait, I thought you made a distinction between your "EM type" and Gulenko's DCNH subtype. Has that changed?

[Brilliand]

LII-IEIs don't do nuclear physics....

But can we trust the movie-makers to adhere to that?

[tcaudilllg]

But can we trust the movie-makers to adhere to that?

lol

Probably yes.

[tcaudilllg]

Wait, I thought you made a distinction between your "EM type" and Gulenko's DCNH subtype. Has that changed?

*sigh*

No. Nevermind.

[Trevor]

LII-IEIs don't do nuclear physics....

Who does then? EM NTs? EM STs?

[Krig the Viking]

*sigh*

No. Nevermind.

Ah, I see. You still think Gulenko's "Energy Types" are something distinct from his DCNH subtypes. I assumed it had become self-evident by now that Gulenko just gave the name "Energy Type" to his expanded 16-subtype DCNH theory; it appears I was mistaken.

I don't see how you can differentiate between social interests and personal behavior.

Then how do you differentiate between your EM types, and DCNH subtype?

[tcaudilllg]

Ah, I see. You still think Gulenko's "Energy Types" are something distinct from his DCNH subtypes. I assumed it had become self-evident by now that Gulenko just gave the name "Energy Type" to his expanded 16-subtype DCNH theory; it appears I was mistaken.


Then how do you differentiate between your EM types, and DCNH subtype?

Krig when I get my degree I'm going to ask Gulenko about it. I don't want to interact with him right now because 1) I don't want to embarrass him and 2) there isn't a lot I can do to help him anyway. But Gulenko is a decent guy who doesn't have any hang ups about working academically with other people... after they've proven themselves.

There may or may not be a measure of risk in it looking like the guy with the degree is being taught by the guy who doesn't have one...? Both of us are intellectuals but... seems like the rank matters.

Well I don't acknowledge the 8 sub and 16 sub variants at all -- only the 4 sub system. C seems to me the trait of non-interventionism, where D is interventionism. H is a light-hearted C, where N is a less rambunctious D.

[jughead]

Robert Hare had such a wide definition of psychopath, its ridiculous. Basically all corporations and slightly bad/evil people are psychopaths. I think hes distorted the definition pretty far to suit his own purposes. Evil is not the same as a psychopath. There's got to be some clarity, between the scienctific, medical, and the moral there.

[Krig the Viking]

Krig when I get my degree I'm going to ask Gulenko about it. I don't want to interact with him right now because 1) I don't want to embarrass him and 2) there isn't a lot I can do to help him anyway. But Gulenko is a decent guy who doesn't have any hang ups about working academically with other people... after they've proven themselves.

There may or may not be a measure of risk in it looking like the guy with the degree is being taught by the guy who doesn't have one...? Both of us are intellectuals but... seems like the rank matters.

Well I don't acknowledge the 8 sub and 16 sub variants at all -- only the 4 sub system. C seems to me the trait of non-interventionism, where D is interventionism. H is a light-hearted C, where N is a less rambunctious D.

Fair enough; you're entitled to hold whatever opinions you like. All I'm saying is that from what I've read, I don't think that's Gulenko's opinion.

You may have mentioned it before, but what's your degree in? And when's the big day (of graduation)?

[Trevor]

I have noticed that both tcaudilllg and JohnDo ignore my questions. Maybe it's EM-type related?

[Krig the Viking]

I have noticed that both tcaudilllg and JohnDo ignore my questions. Maybe it's EM-type related?

Tcaud does it more than JohnDo, but yeah, I've noticed it as well. It's not just you.

[Words]

This stuff is rubbish in my opinion. Well shoot me for sacrilege.

[tcaudilllg]

Fair enough; you're entitled to hold whatever opinions you like. All I'm saying is that from what I've read, I don't think that's Gulenko's opinion.

You may have mentioned it before, but what's your degree in? And when's the big day (of graduation)?

I finish my classes somewhere around the beginning of 2012. And my degrees will be in psychology and management.

[Krig the Viking]

I finish my classes somewhere around the beginning of 2012. And my degrees will be in psychology and management.

Coolbeans.

[JohnDo]

I have noticed that both tcaudilllg and JohnDo ignore my questions. Maybe it's EM-type related?

What questions? Repeat them, please...

This guy is an LII-IEI:

[Krig the Viking]

This guy is an LII-IEI: YouTube - Official Che Trailer HD

For the record, since we have newbies around who haven't seen our previous debates: I strongly disagree.

[JohnDo]

For the record, since we have newbies around who haven't seen our previous debates: I strongly disagree.

Ýou typed Che Guevara as IEI once. Do you still think so?

[Trevor]

What questions? Repeat them, please...

Hah, I already got my answers on another place.

[Krig the Viking]

Ýou typed Che Guevara as IEI once. Do you still think so?

Beta NF, certainly. I now think EIE is a strong possibility as well.

[JohnDo]

Not quite sure... The left guy might be an ugly LII-IEI from Russia. The right one might be an extremely good-looking LII-IEI from Argentina. Can't see him as Beta-NF...

[JohnDo]

Che Guevara = LII-IEI = Spider-Man.

Peter Parker is pretty clearly LII-IEI I think...



David Banner might rather be LII-ILI like Mr. Spock, even though Banner is obviously more emotional (not a Vulcan)...

[JohnDo]

Che Guevara's friend Camilo Cienfuegos clearly looks like an ESE to me...

[Krig the Viking]

IMHO:

Parker = C-LII
Spock = N-LII

Our understandings of how DCNH manifests in real life are so radically different, it's unlikely we'll ever agree in the majority of cases. Your understanding of Harmonizing, in particular, is almost entirely dissimilar to my own.

[JohnDo]

Our understandings of how DCNH manifests in real life are so radically different, it's unlikely we'll ever agree in the majority of cases.

We just have to use the same definitions:
1.) H-subtype = more introverted and more perceiving than usual
2.) "harmonizing" is a technical term and must not be understood like the colloquial term

[Krig the Viking]

We just have to use the same definitions:
1.) H-subtype = more introverted and more perceiving than usual
2.) "harmonizing" is a technical term and must not be understood like the colloquial term

I agree with 1). But I mostly disagree with 2). Gulenko named the IP subtype "Harmonizing" because that word best described it. Dominant subtype "commands, controls, or prevails over others", Creative subtypes are "marked by the ability or power to create", Normalizing subtypes typically "conform to or reduce to a norm or standard", and Harmonizing subtypes seek to achieve a "pleasing or congruent arrangement of parts", "internal calm", and "tranquility".

You want to avoid that last definition, because it clashes with your personal understanding of Harmonizing types, which from what I can tell is closer to Creative than Harmonizing.

[Aiss]

You want to avoid that last definition, because it clashes with your personal understanding of Harmonizing types, which from what I can tell is closer to Creative than Harmonizing.

That is my opinion as well. It's very hard to imagine JohnDo as H-LII, since he's acting much less like a Harmonizing type than an average LII here.

[JohnDo]

Gulenko named the IP subtype "Harmonizing" because that word best described it.

It's just the same problem as with the Reinin dichotomies. Everytime there is an issue without a name, a technical term is created by using a colloquial word. That's how every science works. You can't interpret technical terms by looking at the colloquial meaning. Neither in socionics, nor in any other science...

Dominant subtype "commands, controls, or prevails over others",

In other words: The 2nd type is ESFj, ENFj, ENTj or ESTj. No contradiction there...

Creative subtypes are "marked by the ability or power to create",

Creative subtype means the 2nd type is ENTp, ESTp, ESFp or ENFp. While "creative" is certainly a good description of Ne, I wouldn't call ESTp and ESFp "creative" types...

Normalizing subtypes typically "conform to or reduce to a norm or standard",

The Normalizing subtype has an IJ-subtemperament. In other words, the 2nd type is INTj, ISTj, ISFj or INFj. Gulenko's term "normalizing" rather sounds like and ISTj or ISFj, not really like an INFj and not at all like an INTj. That's why I think "normalizing" is probably not a very good name for this subtype...

and Harmonizing subtypes seek to achieve a "pleasing or congruent arrangement of parts", "internal calm", and "tranquility".

The problem is, "harmonizing" is a good word for Si, but not for Ni. Having ISFp or ISTp as 2nd type certainly leads to some kind of harmonization, INFp and INTp not necessarily. It certainly causes many mistypings that Gulenko chose the term "harmonizing" for this subtype...

You want to avoid that last definition, because it clashes with your personal understanding of Harmonizing types, which from what I can tell is closer to Creative than Harmonizing.

No. You mix up the terms "definition" and "description". The definition is "H-subtype = IP subtype". Gulenko's description is "pleasing or congruent arrangement of parts, internal calm, and tranquility, blah blah blah, blah blah blah"...

[Crispy]

It does seem more likely that Gulenko would begin the idea of DCNH through the splitting of dichotomies rather than an epiphany of four well described subtypes.

[Krig the Viking]

It's just the same problem as with the Reinin dichotomies. Everytime there is an issue without a name, a technical term is created by using a colloquial word. That's how every science works. You can't interpret technical terms by looking at the colloquial meaning. Neither in socionics, nor in any other science...

Yes, but words are not just randomly assigned, especially for a meticulously precise LII like Gulenko. He chose the word which in his opinion best described the subtype. But it's not just the name -- if you read his descriptions of the Harmonizing subtype, they describe the same thing as the colloquial usage of the word "Harmonizing" -- someone who seeks to achieve a "pleasing or congruent arrangement of parts", "internal calm", and "tranquility". The only reason you're even arguing about this is because your understanding of the Harmonizing subtype is different from Gulenko's, and you don't want to admit it.

Creative subtype means the 2nd type is ENTp, ESTp, ESFp or ENFp. While "creative" is certainly a good description of Ne, I wouldn't call ESTp and ESFp "creative" types...

Gulenko certainly doesn't say anything like that. His description of Se-Creative: "Strengthening function forms excitable behavior. This treats creativity as primary and instinctive. It gives nonstandard, rapid solutions during extreme, critical (for survival) situations."

Se is just as creative as Ne, only in different contexts. Ne is about creating new ideas, new concepts, it's big-picture and abstract. Se creativity is more here-and-now, finding new ways of dealing with the physical world, etc. To be "nonstandard" is to be creative, to come up with new ways of doing or looking at things.

The Normalizing subtype has an IJ-subtemperament. In other words, the 2nd type is INTj, ISTj, ISFj or INFj. Gulenko's term "normalizing" rather sounds like and ISTj or ISFj, not really like an INFj and not at all like an INTj. That's why I think "normalizing" is probably not a very good name for this subtype...

All I can say is that you must not know many EIIs and LIIs, or you've mistyped the ones you think you know. Not all IJs are extreme or pronounced examples of this behaviour, but all do it to one degree or another.

The problem is, "harmonizing" is a good word for Si, but not for Ni. Having ISFp or ISTp as 2nd type certainly leads to some kind of harmonization, INFp and INTp not necessarily. It certainly causes many mistypings that Gulenko chose the term "harmonizing" for this subtype...

As Gulenko describes it: "Strengthening function is responsible for the formation of asthenoneurotic behavior. This is primary, vital harmonization, connected to the value of solid comfort.
Strengthening function forms shut-off, self-submerged, up to autistic behavior. This is secondary harmonization in terms of a spiritual-mental plan.

"Both these models of behavior are equivalent, i.e. they are frequently developed together and strengthen each other. It is well known that for the meditation of the mind it is necessary to relax the body."

Ni Harmonizing focuses on a more abstract mental and spiritual harmony, but both Si and Ni subtypes try to create harmony. If you want to disagree with Gulenko on this, feel free, but you should then make it clear that you're proposing your own theory. Your understanding of DCNH is not the same as Gulenko's understanding.

No. You mix up the terms "definition" and "description". The definition is "H-subtype = IP subtype". Gulenko's description is "pleasing or congruent arrangement of parts, internal calm, and tranquility, blah blah blah, blah blah blah"...

I'm not sure what you're saying here. "Pleasing or congruent arrangement of parts, internal calm, and tranquility, blah blah blah, blah blah blah" is a paraphrase of the Merriam-Webster definition of the word "harmony", which you don't want to apply to the IP subtype.