Alpha ~ Dominant
Beta ~ Normalizing
Omega ~ Harmonizing
Sigma ~ Creative
Thoughts?
Interesting theory that might correlate with DCNH
Alpha ~ Dominant
Beta ~ Normalizing
Omega ~ Harmonizing
Sigma ~ Creative
Thoughts?
Is she LIE? C or D. Maybe C-LIEOriginally Posted by lavos
Her theory seems to correlate with dcnh. Its hard to tell though because dcnh is rooted in certain functional configuration and not in behaviour. Although it correlates strongly with behaviour.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Not sure if she is LIE, but she is probably C and Sigma. @Sol?
Last edited by lavos; 03-31-2018 at 05:18 AM.
yeah I think there's some overlap, it mainly has to do with DCNH being a quaternary split over group roles people voluntarily assume. in that sense she's talking about the same thing, but from I think a more specific perspective, perhaps one rooted in a LIE integral cultural standpoint, and less a more universal cognitive framework that DCNH aspires to... but I think they're fundamentally drawing on similar underlying perception of group roles falling into a fourfold split
She very well could be LIE.
Her comments about not wanting to drive the bus, but rather wanting to be prepared for an emergency, resonate with the way I felt for many years.
Gradually, I found myself running parts of the bus, or running the bus part of the time, and came to the conclusion that, while that wasn’t my main goal, it greatly helped in achieving my main goals.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 03-31-2018 at 05:38 AM.
Ummm... I need to check whole series first. Well, these systems (DCNH and this for example) are so closely related to Model G Ti- which seems to go against my own inclinations as it tears up present moment into categories while I'm much more of chain event guy.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
ESE
Of course there might be some overlap or correlations, partially. But she likely has no clear analytical approach to it. She is looking at some common behaviours and classifying them.
How would she classify an N-LIE? Would it be an "alpha" or "beta"?
DCNH/Socioincs is a very fine tuned analytical apparatus. It is talking about something very specific. That' why it is so powerful. So that's why I think she might not have spotted the same phenomenon. She is most likely looking at some general behaviour that only partially overlap.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Ha! I checked it bit further. I'm torn between σ and ω.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Well if it correlates with DCNH it's kind of bullshit by definition
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
She might be D in DCNH. Regarding the attitude towards certain characteristics.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
What's interesting is that she claims that the best partners for sigmas (~creatives) are other sigmas. And for omegas (~harmonizers) other omegas.
Looks like ω is characterized by many as ultimate losers in life. It also presents hierarchy (in which according to many means success): α, β, σ, ω. In essence this is very dominant driven perspective on things in which dominance is success. The whole thing gets very convoluted as there are many approaches depending on individual. It does not have much depth. It is just mainly gut responses towards hierarchy.
Like this:
Based on above: Lots of ω might be C maybe N maybe even D....I exists outside of those categories. Why hopelessness should come out of as violence? So one dimensional. Just emphasizes gut based categorization.
Last edited by The Reality Denialist; 04-03-2018 at 06:29 AM.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
That seems like another version of the theory, more focused on PUA / pill related crap, etc. I find the interpretation the woman made much more accurate, and she makes no mention of gammas. Dunno if it's her own contribution, but it seems it might be based on her own observations (which seems like she could have been observing the DCNH system).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote