Dual-type theory: Crosstype Listing, and a New Model

[tcaudilllg]

From my crosstypes site:

Over the past several months I have managed to rework the crosstype/undifferentiation theory into a form which is consistent and complimentary to socionics information metabolism theory. With this advance the theory attains increased structural rigor, reliability, and validity.

The new model interprets crosstype phenomenon as a synthesis of two personalities in the same person, a master and a slave. The master personality is believed to accept information on behalf of its influence on the slave.

Each of these personalities is defined by a socionics type, progressing in order from a dominant base function to a recessive function of determination in an indefinite predetermined cycle. As with socionics, each of the functions is observed to play a role in the personality's observation relative to their position in the cycle. The slave type is viewed as interpreting information in the context of the master's functioning, progressing alongside the master in the function cycle.

MASTER 

[Base] -> [Creative] -> [Role] -> [Place of Least Resistance] 

 ||		||			||		|| 
 \/		\/			\/		\/ 

SLAVE 

[Base] -> [Creative] -> [Role] -> [Place of Least Resistance]

Because the potential for influence on the slave is the guiding principle by which the master determines its observations, the slave can be said to be a system of action which the master exercises absolute control over: by accepting observations, the master personality compells the slave to act. These actions create the environment observed by the master personality.

[Base] -> [Creative] -> [Role] -> [Place of Least Resistance] 
       |             |         |
 ||    |   ||        |   ||    |   || 
 \/    |   \/        |   \/    |   \/ 
       |             |         |
[Base]_|  [Creative]_|  [Role]_|  [Place of Least Resistance]

The master-slave principle of personality allows us to arrive at 240 possible combinations, including the 16 non-crosstypes as identical master/slave personalities. From the remaining 224 we observe the crosstype spectrum of personality.

In the context of this improved model I have revised the crosstype listing.
(notice I no longer speak of crosstypes in this list, but rather "specialized" types) I use the standardized type descriptors posted on Wikipedia.

http://www.armleg.com/psychorelative/viewtopic.php?p=3

Something worth point out, too, is ENTp-ISTj: Investigator of Invention. The function order for this type (mental track) is:

Ne -> Ti -> Se -> Fi
Ti -> Se -> Fi -> Ne

What I mean to suggest by this is that there are master-slave pairings that, to the uncritical eye, are indistiguishable from Model A. I'm not saying that Ashura Augusta was this type definitively, but the possibility does seem plausible.

The following is an analysis of the functions in this model: what they do, how they interact, and how function ordering influences their manifestation. (much is taken from Model A; in fact, Model A fits right in as half of it.)

First, an abstraction of the relationship between acceptor and producer:

Acceptor Master: a point of choice between observations of information,
contingent upon the information's influence on the acceptor slave.

Acceptor Slave: an energy released at the behest of the acceptor master.

Producer Master: a byproduct of the acceptor slave that is observed.

Producer Slave: an energy released by the information processed by the
producer master.

Next, a discussion of the specifics of each stage in the function cycle, and how the stages relate to each other.

Base Master: the beginning of the function cycle; chooses information
to perceive contingent upon its influence on the energy produced by the
base slave.

Base Slave: produces energy from the information chosen by the base master.

Creative Master: observes information created by the work of the base slave.

Creative Slave: releases energy with information created by the creative
master.

Role Master: accepts a role contingent on the opportunity to influence
the role slave.

Role Slave: releases energy in the capacity of the role master.

PoLR Master: observes a new reality created by the work of the role slave.

PoLR Slave: a reaction response to the observation of the PoLR master which
transforms reality.

Suggestive Master:
function is uncertain of where awareness of energy comes.

Suggestive Slave:
function is uncertain of why it is releasing the energy it is.

Estimative Master:
function has little understanding of its own observations or its influence.

Estimative Slave:
function has little understanding of the energies it releases.

Personal Knowledge Master:
a false acceptor; only one candidate for observation will be considered.

Personal Knowledge Slave:
an energy that exists only by the continued support of its master.

Determination Master:
observes information created by the work of the personal knowledge slave:
an observation of one's personal influence on the world.

Determination Slave:
a reaction response to the observation of the determination master.

The following is a psychic model of interaction between the master and the slave.

Base Master:
a latent energy is acknowledged as present within an object or objects.

Base Slave:
a specific latent energy is released into the flow of time.

Creative Master:
a latent energy is created within an object or objects. This energy is always
created from an existing energy, per the Law of Energy Conservation.

Creative Slave:
a latent energy is released whose character is independent of the base master.

Role Master:
a latent energy is acknowledged as a factor of role.

Role Slave:
a latent energy is released whose nature is dependent upon the role of the
releaser.

PoLR Master:
the creation of a latent energy is observed as an immediately apparent aspect
of reality.

PoLR Slave:
a latent energy is released into the flow of time whose presence is immediately
apparent.

Suggestive Master:
Indiscriminantly perceives information elements from across the psyche, including
its subjective quarters.

Suggestive Slave:
indiscriminantly transmutes psychic information into activity.

Estimative Master:
indescriminantly transfers information into the psyche.

Estimative Slave:
indescriminantly transmutes information into psychic activity.

Personal Knowledge Master:
observes individual consitutent elements of a definite kind within a subjective
psyche.

Personal Knowledge Slave:
actualizes an information element as activity within a subjective psyche.

Determination Master:
transfers an information element from a subjective psyche to the objective psyche.

Determination Slave:
tranlates a subjective psychic activity into the domain of the objective psyche.

Finally, the specifics of function manifestations as they relate to the function order.

Accepting:
a possible sequence of progressions is reckoned.

Produced:
a new timeline emerges that is not necessarily dependent on the old one.

Release:
the course of history is immediately changed; however, its flow is contingent
upon the master function's will.

Accepting:
a latent energy is perceived within an object or objects.

Creative:
an energy is sealed within an object or objects.

Release:
a specific latent energy is released from within an object or objects,
influencing chronologically subsequent phenomena.

Accepting:
a quantity is acknowledged by the acceptor.

Produced:
the producer observes an increase in the magnitude of one or more quantities.

Release:
the quality of a selected force is increased, possibly upsetting a pre-existant
balance of powers.

Accepting:
the presence of a relationship is observed between fields.

Produced:
a ground for interaction is created between fields.

Release:
a specific interaction is engaged between certain fields.

Accepted:
a static state of stable occurance is observed.

Produced:
a static of occurance emerges.

Release:
a specific energy is transmuted into an immediately apparent field static.

Accepting:
a bind is acknowledged between the accepter and the acceptee by which a produced
energy exchange attribute may be shared.

Produced:
a form of energy exchange is attributed to an object or objects.

Release:
an opportunity to share a specific binding energy is shared between two or
more objects.

Accepting:
the presence of an internal field characteristic is acknowledged.

Produced:
an internal static of character is established within a field.

Release:
a persistent energy static is created of definite strength and character.

Accepting:
The acceptor chooses a specific subjective experience to acknowledge.

Produced:
A subjective perception is observed by the producer.

Release:
a targeted subjective perception is created of precise appearance and
character.

In the context of dual-Model A types, we can see that there is a continuous transformation of content between the master and slave personalities. It's comparable to the theory of relativity's postulation that energy may be transformed into matter, and vice versa; indeed, relativity could be thought of as a perception of this very process of transformation.

Let's look at how the functions manifest with respect to function order, starting with

Notes on the production of :
Although production is accomplished by the sealing of an existing
energy within objects, the function itself is experienced as the perception
of a possibility. How can this be? The relationship between perception and
sealing lies in the phemenological interrelation of either: to perceive a
possibility, one must be intimately aware of the energies which underlie it.
The act of sealing these energies within an object is the act of
intimation with them. As the energies are sealed, they are apprehended in the
mind as visualized manifestations of occurance. Thus they are realized as
possible even as they are removed from the flow of time, and thus made
difficult to attain. Only by the action of an slave function may a sealed
energy be released.

Base Master:
a latent energy is acknowledged as present within an object or objects.

Base Slave:
a specific latent energy is released into the flow of time.

Creative Master:
a latent energy is created within an object or objects. This energy is always
created from an existing energy, per the Law of Energy Conservation.

Creative Slave:
a latent energy is released whose character is independent of the base master.

Role Master:
a latent energy is acknowledged as a factor of role.

Role Slave:
a latent energy is released whose nature is dependent upon the role of the
releaser.

PoLR Master:
the creation of a latent energy is observed as an immediately apparent aspect
of reality.

PoLR Slave:
a latent energy is released into the flow of time whose presence is immediately
apparent.

Suggestive Master:
the presence of latent energies are observed, although their sources are
uncertain.

Suggestive Slave:
a latent energy is released of uncertain character.

Estimative Master:
a latent energy is created within an object or objects whose nature is poorly
understood.

Estimative Slave:
a latent energy is released from within an object or objects; its nature is
poorly understood.

Personal Knowledge Master:
a latent energy is believed inherent to an object or objects.

Personal Knowledge Slave:
a latent energy is released into the flow of imaginary time; there may be
argument against its objective existence.

Determination Master:
a latent energy is created within an object or objects whose nature is
beyond dispute.

Determination Slave:
a latent energy is released into the flow of time; its nature is beyond dispute.

EDIT 03/05/07: Added descriptions of manifestations.
EDIT 04/16/07: Added psychic interaction model and made numerous corrections

[snegledmaca]

How are the slave and the master "fused"?

[tcaudilllg]

The master always acts to have the maximum possible impact on the slave. Impact on the slave is the criterion by which an accepting function accepts data. Because there will be three immediate consequences to be considered (impact on slave, master producer, and slave producer), the decision must be well considered: the slave action must have the maximum benefit for the producer, especially because it is difficult to forsee what the producer slave will create. (thinking three steps ahead is difficult for anyone)

[mikemex]

What the hell am I then?

[ENFperator]

Lol, a "specialized" S/M type theory.

[krieger]

I'm back to revising my understanding of socionics, so don't read too much into these questions. What exactly do the arrows in your diagrams mean? Does the creative function succeed the base only as a 'stage' in cognition, or does it build forth directly on the base's conclusions (eg. without actual seperation of real world data into the creative function's information aspect and it's inverse)..?

I feel I should warn you that there are some (informal) materials that indicate that use of the creative function is a step back on the cycle rather than forward, in one half of the types (the result group: INTj, INFj, ENTj, ENFj, ISTp, INFp, ESTp, ENFp).

[tcaudilllg]

What the hell am I then?

Well let's see. Starting at ENFp, right?

You don't VI with Jung, so INTj is out. ISTp is also out because you don't have the... how to say, eloquence of the XXXp group.

ISTj is possible (inspector of psychology)...

ENTj is plausible, too.

ISFp is highly unlikely....

ESTj is a possibility.

Which do you think? Which of the 16 types do you find yourself trying to influence with your thought? What do you perceive others as trying to influence?

You say you're an inventor: ENFp-ENTp Inventor of Psychology? (or seeker of psychology?)

I'd like to know as much as you because with such a large spectrum VI can be nearly perfected.

Does the creative function succeed the base only as a 'stage' in cognition, or does it build forth directly on the base's conclusions (eg. without actual seperation of real world data into the creative function's information aspect and it's inverse)..?

The creative function observes the effects of the slave base; it does not build on the base's conclusions directly but instead responds to the work of the slave. (which responds to the master base's chosen observation) I perceive the master base as selective in what it chooses to observe, based on the potential for positive influence over the slave.

It's actually quite intuitive. I don't know why people are asking so many questions about it....

[mikemex]

I might be ENTp and ENFp at the same time, although ENFp is definetly the dominant part. People perceives me as serious and logical, which would suggest ISTj as well.

For example, the main page compares socionics types with Oldham's personalities. I identify much more with the inventive personality, rather than the vigilant which is associated with ENFp:

VIGILANT

1. Autonomy. Vigilant-style individuals possess a resilient independence. They keep their own counsel, they require no outside reassurance or advice, they make decisions easily, and they can take care of themselves.
2. Caution. They are careful in their dealings with others, preferring to size up a person before entering into a relationship.
3. Perceptiveness. They are good listeners, with an ear for subtlety, tone, and multiple levels of communication.
4. Self-defense. Individuals with Vigilant style are feisty and do not hesitate to stand up for themselves, especially when they are under attack.
5. Alertness to criticism. They take criticism very seriously, without becoming intimidated.
6. Fidelity. They place a high premium on fidelity and loyalty. They work hard to earn it, and they never take it for granted.

INVENTIVE

1. Status. Individuals of the Inventive personality type are highly competitive in pursuit of success and prestige. They want very much to be outstanding in some way, to gain recognition, even fame and glory.
2. Idealized self-image. They develop highly idealized images of themselves with which they identify and which they love. The person is his idealized self and seems to adore it.
3. Subdued demeanor. Persons of the Inventive type are energetic, but phlegmatic in temperament. "They can be quiet, rather private, subdued in demeanor, and have artistic interests and aesthetic sensibilities."
4. Attention. Individuals of the Inventive type have a tendency to behave in such a way as to attract attention. They can be subtle show-offs, but show-offs nonetheless.
5. Openness to culture. The Inventive person has unusual thought processes, values intellectual matters, and judges in unconventional terms. He or she is aesthetically reactive and has a wide range of interests.
6. Intelligence. "Intelligence will typically be emphasized in their self-images and social dealings." They put great stock in their ideas and demand that others do likewise.
7. Competence. The faith of those of the Inventive type is in their ability to improvise something, and they display an unusual talent for rising to the expediency of a situation. Their focus is on competent excellence in performance.
8. Innovation. The Inventive type maintains an independent view and is the most reluctant of all the types to do things in a particular manner just because that is the way things always have been done. They are inventors and innovators.
9. Cleverness. They are mentally bright and quick-witted. For those of the Inventive type to be taken in, to be manipulated by another, is humiliating; this offends their joy in being masters of the art of oneupmanship.
10. Self-consciousness. Persons of the Inventive type look to others for approval. They are very conscious of how others treat them and highly sensitive to criticism and negative evaluation.

What's the concept of your theory, anyway?

[machintruc]

Crosstypes would cause :

- crossrelations (ESFx + INTp = dual-contrary)
- crossquadras (ExTJ = gamma-delta), and other crossquaternions, like crosstemperaments (Ix = rigid zombie ?) or crossclubs (like xF and Nx)
- cross-reininian-dichotomies (ENTx would be an optimistic questim-declatim)
- and cross-subtypes... do they exist ?

[SlavaPHP]

Idealized self-image. They develop highly idealized images of themselves with which they identify and which they love. The person is his idealized self and seems to adore it.

This is why INTj's hate to be labeled or told what they are... because who they are is a theory to them.

[raisonpure]

Id-Cross: Definitely not.
Super-id Cross: Maybe.
Super-ego Cross: Yes.
Ego Cross: I relate to the strengths of the Neutravert. Otherwise... I don't think so.

I identify more with IxFx: The Strategist than INFx: The Composer.

I could be either xxFJ: The Conductor or xxFP: The Harmonizer, but I need examples of the differenced between "Observation of the internal possibilites afforded by the facts underlying external emotive decisions" and "Observation of the internal possibilites afforded by the facts underlying external emotive activity ". Would you be able to write profiles for them? Or provide an explanation on their fundamental differences?

[Exodus]

Crosstypes would cause :

- crossrelations (ESFx + INTp = dual-contrary)
- crossquadras (ExTJ = gamma-delta), and other crossquaternions, like crosstemperaments (Ix = rigid zombie ?) or crossclubs (like xF and Nx)
- cross-reininian-dichotomies (ENTx would be an optimistic questim-declatim)
- and cross-subtypes... do they exist ?

I love this question.

[tcaudilllg]

Crosstypes would cause :

- crossrelations (ESFx + INTp = dual-contrary)
- crossquadras (ExTJ = gamma-delta), and other crossquaternions, like crosstemperaments (Ix = rigid zombie ?) or crossclubs (like xF and Nx)
- cross-reininian-dichotomies (ENTx would be an optimistic questim-declatim)
- and cross-subtypes... do they exist ?

Yeah exactly. I'd love to get this model to a point of enough understanding that for example Smilingeyes could go at it. Because if my hunch about it is correct, he's a "crosstype" himself, ideally suited for.
(that said, your intuitions are very valid and are lining up with my perception of the model precisely. I'm just saying that there are details that I myself am not clear on yet.)

Now one thing I think should be born in mind about "crosstypes" is that the slave personality seems not to metabolize information at all, but only manipulate it. Like the "ghost in the machine" or "philosophical zombie" concept in cognitive psychology. It's like there is one half of you that metabolizes ("makes sense of") information, and another half that directs the metabolized information towards an end.

This seems to be the origin of career-related interest. Oyyburger, for example, says she rates as INTj-ISTp, "crafter of analysis", and her art does encourage analytic attention. She is also a professional, from what I understand. This is particularly significant given that I, like many INTjs I know, cannot draw a straight line for my life. The influence of and accounts for her artistic professionalism.


Regards the model, this is what is settled thus far:
- The master is the observer/processor; the slave is the actor/releaser.
- The master always observes information created by the slave.
- The slave always acts as directed by the master.
- There are four opportunities for direction of the slave per function cycle, one for each accepter function of the master. (base, role, suggestive, personal knowledge)
- The slave producer cannot be controlled by the personality because it is directed by the master producer, which observes the outcome of the slave's work.
- All psychic energy experienced by the personality follows the cycle of observation/action by the master/slave.

I'm beginning to realize that the functions behave differently depending on whether they are exercised by the master or the slave, and on what their position is in the cycle. For example, accepting slave always releases energy, master producer always congeals/seals it. (the action of the sealing appears to be the mechanism by which observes the potential. This accounts for the absence of the possibility from the flow of time, even though it was foreseen.)

I suspect that assembling the crossclubs/quaternions/temperaments will reveal a lot of the goings-on in many fields of research. Remember wym123? He was INTj and yet he had not problems with Einstein... INTj-ENTP sounds like a good match. The XNTx rationals seem hardwired to discuss the concept of relativity in space and time.

[Exodus]

Despite all this, the biggest problem with your system is the number of types: can you really distinguish all of them? It allows too much room for BS typings, ones which are immune to analysis and thus criticism. Have you even observed them all?

[tcaudilllg]

Despite all this, the biggest problem with your system is the number of types: can you really distinguish all of them? It allows too much room for BS typings, ones which are immune to analysis and thus criticism. Have you even observed them all?

I've observed a decent fragment. I'll prepare a VI resource. The VI traits are very consistent and precise, and easily confirmed via linguistic analysis.

In the meantime, I've produced (most) of an analysis of the different roles functions may play depending on their positions in the personality, and what each of them do. (it's posted above)

EDIT: actually I think I will need assistance with regard to preparing the VI resource... wait, nevermind, I'll use imageshack.us.

[Exodus]

Despite all this, the biggest problem with your system is the number of types: can you really distinguish all of them? It allows too much room for BS typings, ones which are immune to analysis and thus criticism. Have you even observed them all?

I've observed a decent fragment. I'll prepare a VI resource. The VI traits are very consistent and precise

Of course they are--when you're the only one identifying them.

[tcaudilllg]

That was rather uncalled for....

This is a thread for the discussion of the master-slave model of personality. I'm not going to engage in a (futile) debate on its merits. If hotelambush were actually considering the VI possibility at all, he would be looking for evidence. To the degree he (and others similarly persuaded) leave it to me to prove my hypothesis without putting forward effort to validate it themselves, I am under no obligation to produce evidence until I see fit.

Anyway, you want VI? In leu of a better solution (which I'm working on), I'll oblige you.

ESTp-INFp VI (male, Denis Diderot):
http://content.answers.com/main/cont...is_Diderot.jpg

ISTp-ENFp VI (female, Tilda Swinton):
http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.ya...humbsucker.jpg

INTp-ESFp VI (male, Ari Fleischer):
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/ro...fleischer.html
(female, Rosario Dawson)
http://www.askmen.com/specials/2005_...rio_dawson.jpg)
(male, Stanislaw Lem)
http://www.lem.pl/cyberiadinfo/engli...egazraster.jpe


And I'll bet you every single person with those facial characteristics have similar prose. Diderot was an ardent materialist, as would be expected by ESTp. But he was also a talented writer who easily provoked emotion in others. Swinton expresses a deep concern for the psychology of her characters in her acting. (this is evident from her interviews) I don't have to tell you about Ari Fleischer.

[somethingsomething]

^ Could you maybe explain the VI in words? As in how they say estps have a wide nose base, etc. That kind of stuff?

[tcaudilllg]

^ Could you maybe explain the VI in words? As in how they say estps have a wide nose base, etc. That kind of stuff?

A picture is worth a thousand. But I'll try.

The XXXp set have very distinctive eyes. They seem to be staring at something far away, yet very intensely. An aura of elegance surrounds them; they seem outwardly very at peace with the world. They are highly emotionally responsive: your very thought seems capable of producing an emotional effect in them; they are very sensitive to body language. It is impossible to hide anything from them: if something is bothering you, they will not only notice it, they will ask you about it.

They are extremely adept historians. They perform a range of functions that are strongly related to history and culture. Their dualities are specifically oriented around these purposes. They may seem more like angels than people at times. The archetype of the "Apollo man", the radiant sun god, fits these people well.

Why is this? Because, specifically, whatever they produce helps them. They are their own duals, from a standpoint evolutionarily perfect. Their focus is always on producing content for the metabolism of their duals, which they themselves can benefit from. For this reason they always seem at peace with everything they do.

I'd like to say, I do need help matching people to types... there are so many.

[krieger]

[tcaudilllg]

I've updated with an indepth analysis of with respect to Model-A and the dual model. As for , I'm having trouble pinning it down to a single form of phenomenon. The most likely candidate at this point seems to be "the observation, postulation, or activation of limits of energetic accumulation."

[krieger]

In your new model the 'pure' types are considered to be as rare as any of the other type combinations, correct? Do you see yourself as a pure INTJ? What about the other members of this forum?

Also what type are you considering for Smilingeyes?

[tcaudilllg]

In your new model the 'pure' types are considered to be as rare as any of the other type combinations, correct? Do you see yourself as a pure INTJ? What about the other members of this forum?

Also what type are you considering for Smilingeyes?

Am I a "pure" INTj? That's a very good question. I don't really know what else to say save that I seem to have more trouble with math than some INTjs... this because I have difficulty removing the concept of a letter being "a" from the linguistic form of the article "a". (and the greek letters are absolute killers). Some INTjs seem to find this easier...? Certainly Stephen Hawking has no trouble with it, neither did Max Planke or James Clerk Maxwell.

On the other hand, I have no problem with naming the variables of a programming algorithm by more intuitive names. Naming the variables with names that "make sense" allows me to structure them with after I perceive them. There seems to be a connection between and in my experience. (?) I'm not sure why I'd have so much difficulty with math otherwise...

It's not just that I'm not good at math; I don't really want anything to do with it besides the basic arithemetic. If I had my way I'd abolish mathematical symbology all together and replace it with multi-letter variable names. I'll shut up now because I can really get heated over the mathematics clique....

Despite my mathematics aversion I'm pretty into relativity, from the perspective of how it sees the universe. I've got a natural inclination to know as much as possible. In fact, I put knowledge above my own health. I could see my hidden agenda being "health by which to know."

I use socionics a lot... in fact most of my thought these days is geared towards it. Calling me a "psychorelativist" isn't a bad idea. I was spun around like crazy by relations in my childhood, and I still find them getting in my way today...! Agh. But the bottom line is I need a way to organize a chaotic world... much more than most INTjs from what I can tell. Or at least, most INTjs don't organize the world on the basis of psychology.

I'm the kind of guy who will go to the store and buy a type of cheese (and there are tons) just to know what it tastes like. I don't do a very good job at concentrating on a sensation... rather, I go with what it seems to taste like and I otherwise don't really bother much with it.

I believe that the world is utterly composed of the socionics information elements. Utterly. The elements exist without end and personality, too, has always existed, even if we are not aware of all of its forms. One looks at the evolution of the mind, and, through socionics, its ability to process the information elements. Where do we say that intuition evolved? The answer is, we don't know because we don't know from where intuition comes. More likely, proto-intuition has existed from time immemorial. And proto-sensation. And proto-logic. Jung says fusions of the functions are archaic, and fusions of parts of functions -- parts, now -- are likewise archaic. That means the functions are very ancient indeed: they have existed in one form or another since the dawn of the nervous system, at least. Who is one to say that God does not exist, that the world itself is not anciently intelligent? Withdrawing all religious connotations, one very well realizes that the fact of analysis itself justifies the existence of God.

I believe humans are the best manifestation of God yet attained... I believe that the socion functions as a great providence that keeps intelligence organized. What I want to know more than anything, before ...my perceptions fail indefinitely... is how information elements unite to craft reality. I want to know the secrets of our psychorelativistic universe....

That is my dominant mode of thought, and that is the basis of my motive. Although I do think something can be done with this great knowledge... something that will justify the misery of the people who circumstance afforded little in life. Some period crafted of human will and ingenuity of absolute, utter bliss. By some trick of the mind I once experienced a vision of such a period... a white light translucent in the center, from which shot waves on which the light could be seem reflecting in perfect dark... darker than the eye can perceive. And a great chorus of voices in the light... and from my perspective a sense of joy that welled up, plateued, and then welled up higher, and higher....

It is very unlikely humanity will perish altogether... I think the socion is strong enough to defeat any foe. God cannot be denied the fulfillment of his own redemption. I suspect that it is possible, as surely as I experienced that vision by means of my brain, by my perception, to render it to others... to recreate that experience. I think that vision is the ultimate destiny of humanity and the justification of our lives.

I see that vision as the ultimate manifestation of utopia... a road that knowledge of the socion will light the way toward.


In summary... I'm most likely INTj-ENFp. Considering that my approach is directly opposite that of Freud's psychoanalysis, I think that makes sense. (conservative = psychoanalysis, liberal = psychorelativism...) I definitely have similarly grand designs once I get my degree....



Now the other members of this forum...

Gillgan: ENTp-ENFj - Teacher of Invention. He can illustrate anybody's idea to anyone. He can grab hold of a possibility and follow it farther than the creator himself could in the same amount of time. He could make a mint describing socionics to people, and I mean it.

Oyyburger: INTj-INTp - Critical Analyst. We discussed this on socionix; she said this was her type. release as role, so it makes sense. She also has a lot of quirks that seem strange... or maybe it's because she critically analyzes them.

UDP: working on this one... he's Descartes' type if that means anything. "I think, therefore I am." Someday he's going to surprise me with some divine insight from the maelstrom heart of reform that I think is absolutely amazing....

Clover: ISFp-INFp Lyrical Mediator I believe....

labcoat: I'd like to see some VI....

Rick: ENFp-ISTj Inspector of Psychology most likely... I could be wrong.

wym123 (remember him?) was INTj-ENTp.

I suspect Jonathan is ENTj-ENFp Psychological Enterpriser. His prose reminds me of Tony Blair's and my psychology professor's. I can't help but wonder if his VI is similar... I don't think I've seen it.

Smilingeyes: ESTj-ENFp Psychological Director. (but I've not done much analysis of him, really)

[Exodus]

this because I have difficulty removing the concept of a letter being "a" from the linguistic form of the article "a". (and the greek letters are absolute killers).

wtf?

[krieger]

Getting pictures on my computer is going to be a bit of a hassle. I'll see if I get around to it.

This incarnation of the theory reminds me of an intuition I've had not long ago;

If dynamic types (EJ, IP) are seen are reactive modes of behavior... (as implied by the sexual attitudes)

and static types (IJ, EP) are instigative modes of behavior...

then a person logically can not get by using either one of said attitudes.

I have always believed that the 'unconscious' attitude - as in the one identical to ones dual's attitude - was the one that acted complementarily as the attitude opposite on the reactive/instigative scale. If this dogma is done away with however, one would end up with a theory in which every person has two types: a static type and a dynamic type.

This could be a different interpretation of your theory, although it would limit the number of possible type combinations.

(note also how reactive and instigative attitudes must logically alternate constantly, as a decision to act is immediately met with the question of how to act, which is an obstacle demanding to be reacted to.)

BTW; - isn't it the ENFj's that are known to be concerned with global issues and the struggle between good and evil? From that particular narrative alone my guess of what your type is would have been INTj-ENFj, for what it's worth.

- despite that you label them as highly similar types I see very little similarity between Jonathan and Smilingeyes. Jonathan's style is all about doubting, double-checking and doubting some more; where as Smilingeyes leaves no questions unanswered with his incontestible paradigms. I'd expect this to somehow be reflected in what types they are.

[tcaudilllg]

...Well uh... huh. Uh I really don't see a connection between and in my thought.... No, that could not possibly be. implies ? I'm really not seeing it, I swear. I don't think it's possible simply because I always end my mental track with , that is, with a conclusion of some sort. No way, I could not be an ENFj slave-type. No way possible. No way, I never consider field relations in my conclusions. One thing always implies something else. (with emphasis on )

There are 240 types, period.

...I'll take that back. I think I am INTj-ENFj....

I really don't think Jung noticed this. He just called it "archaism" without paying a lot of attention to it. But he didn't have the benefit of socionics, either.

[tcaudilllg]

So if I'm the ENFj... then I guess that makes you, labcoat, the ENFp...?

Now about that unconscious attitude....

The ego block of a dual type has two components, the master block and the slave block. The base master always has dominion over the slave master; absolute dominion, in fact. The slave is going to effect the information pool that the creative master will eventually transform. So the slave can influence the creative master's productions at the behest of the base master.

The creative slave acts in direct consequence to the transformation induced by the creative master. This can never be predicted, ever. Looking over the psychology of many characters I've experienced in literature, movies, (videogames), etc. -- and indeed from some biographical standpoints -- I assess that these "consequential slaves" are the functions of downfall and mistake; that it is not the subconscious functions themselves that trouble one, but rather the actions one makes that they did not intend, yet arise invariably in consequence of their own information processing. These are, more than anything else, the "unconscious attitude" that bedevils one.

I think Jung's attitude toward the "unconscious" was more along the lines of conflictor functions, weaker, inferior functions. ...I'm rather skeptical he ever envisioned anything like this dual-type model, simply because such a thing is a system as much of action as of psychology. But I've noticed you seem to think the master type is a reactor, and the slave a "proactor". Perhaps we differ on this point?

[krieger]

Well, yes, according to that flighty intuition I had we'd differ there. But it was just that; a flightly intuition, not anything set in stone. It would work only when the slave personality was opposite in static/dynamic, so the number of possible types would be cut in half.

The best way I can explain it is using smilingeyes' mechanical/mathematical socionics system;

According to MM socionics combinations of functions can be defined in atomic sentences on an object subject relation as interpreted by a person of the type that holds said functions:

ISTj, for example, becomes:
I am subject at the moment,
Object-of-thought is object and has clearly defined capability [x].

This roughly translates to: I act, right now, based on a piece of certain knowledge that I hold about a certain object. (possibly myself, which in turn would mean: I do x because I can.)

So that summarizes the ISTj mentality.

Now the important thing is that the ISTj is a static type. For the dynamic types the object/subject relation is inversed. ESTj, for example, means:

I am object at the moment,
Object-of-thought is subject and acts in clearly defined way [x].

Which translates into: I am forced to react, right now, by an object the actions of which I presume to have clearly defined knowledge of.

(I should add to this that according to smilex the now vs. the future is actually another way of defining well-defined/not-well-defined in regard to perception, which was otherwise difficult to put into words.)

What intuition told me was this: If I choose to act out of my own volition, I am immediately met with the problem of how I should act. The problem logically can not be solved from a purely 'proactive' mentality, so there MUST be a reactive mentality to complement the proactive one.

So this line of thinking is based on two things:
- smilingeyes' intuition that socionical type strategies work roughly this way, (which is also implicit in the sexual attitudes descriptions)
- my own intuition that I describe in the paragraph above.

Is the complementary personality fixed relative to the main one, or independant of it? That would be a topic for speculation.

About the type suggestion; INTj-ENFp makes an awful lot of sense... (although I don't have an obsession with knowledge at all, beyond that I am very eager to find ways of putting worded knowledge into formal terms to combat my uncertainty (or rather to end fruitless discussion amongst people))

[tcaudilllg]

Here's what I'd like to know: who, based on this model, do you think is most suited to accomplish the unified field theory Einstein sought; that is, to continue his work? It seems to me to have a psychological element; I would even argue the information elements are key. Would it be the INTj-ENFp, or the INTj-ENTp UPD seems to represent? Or should both work together? Certainly a better understanding of the relationship between energy and mind is an important step along the pathway to that utopian dream I mentioned above. I should ask, what is your opinion of that dream?

I will say, it may have been influenced by Tolkien's description of Illuvatar in The Silmarillion, although I was also studying Gnosticism at the time.


That said, you are under this model uniquely suited to continue Jung's work. (if you so chose) That's a problem, don't you think? Regarding the need on one hand to increase efficiency against an increasingly hostile global environment (and our eventual need to propagate into space, as a species), and the need to respect individual desire and ambition on the other.

On the HA for INTj-ENFp:
There appears to be a difference between from an IM standpoint and from an IE (information exertion) standpoint. As an exerted element, releases potential for knowledge, discussion. It is not the goal in itself, but a consequence of it. What you want is, basically, healthy discussion. And healthy knowledge, too. For example, widespread consideration of the 4 lines may not be the most healthy topic for public discourse in this day and age. I get the impression we should... wait for someone of... sufficient Jeffersonian character to disclose that difficult revelation. (if you know what I mean) ...That doesn't mean I won't continue researching it; it's an interesting topic. But I get a lot of negative feedback from people when I ask them about it. (non-INTjs at least) What do you think...?

[krieger]

OK to begin I must place a small objection; there is VERY little chance I am of a type that has the same accepting-master + accepting-slave combo as UDP. As much as I like him for his own talents and peculiarities, I rarely understand- or identify with a word he writes on these boards. Sorry - no offence to UDP - but this is the truth; his way of thinking is so foreign to me that I have long doubted he was an 'identical' at all, and I think his attitude towards me is not much different.

Here's what I'd like to know: who, based on this model, do you think is most suited to accomplish the unified field theory Einstein sought; that is, to continue his work? It seems to me to have a psychological element; I would even argue the information elements are key. Would it be the INTj-ENFp, or the INTj-ENTp UPD seems to represent? Or should both work together? Certainly a better understanding of the relationship between energy and mind is an important step along the pathway to that utopian dream I mentioned above. I should ask, what is your opinion of that dream?

I don't quite understand why you're asking me which of the two types is better suited for the task, as I know next to nothing about either the problem or the two types. I guess I could speculate that such a theory might involve a connection between what we in socionics would call the 'internal' and 'external' shapes of information, eg. feelings and intuitions versus facts, to the end of uniting which an xNTx-xNFx might be uniquely suited. But like I said this is pure speculation.

About the socionical utopia; I think on that topic we agree. Where socionics can help to improve human lives, it should be employed to do so. It's hard for me to envision the 'how' and 'what' of the task, though.

That said, you are under this model uniquely suited to continue Jung's work. (if you so chose) That's a problem, don't you think? Regarding the need on one hand to increase efficiency against an increasingly hostile global environment (and our eventual need to propagate into space, as a species), and the need to respect individual desire and ambition on the other.

I'm sorry, but I'm not following. What is the problem exactly..? What exactly do you mean by 'continuing Jung's work'; are you talking about his investigations into psychological symbols, or his typology?

There appears to be a difference between Extraverted Thinking from an IM standpoint and Extraverted Thinking from an IE (information exertion) standpoint. As an exerted element, Extraverted Thinking releases potential for knowledge, discussion. It is not the goal in itself, but a consequence of it. What you want is, basically, healthy discussion. And healthy knowledge, too. For example, widespread consideration of the 4 lines may not be the most healthy topic for public discourse in this day and age. I get the impression we should... wait for someone of... sufficient Jeffersonian character to disclose that difficult revelation. (if you know what I mean) ...That doesn't mean I won't continue researching it; it's an interesting topic. But I get a lot of negative feedback from people when I ask them about it. (non-INTjs at least) What do you think...?

There can never be harm in reasearching it... As for disclosing; it would probably be better to try it on a small scale before going global. Beyond that I don't know what to say.

[Joy]

This thread should be moved to the "Non-socionic Type theories" forum.

[Exodus]

Here's what I'd like to know: who, based on this model, do you think is most suited to accomplish the unified field theory Einstein sought; that is, to continue his work? It seems to me to have a psychological element;

Yes, intelligence.

[UDP]

UDP: working on this one... he's Descartes' type if that means anything. "I think, therefore I am." Someday he's going to surprise me with some divine insight from the maelstrom heart of reform that I think is absolutely amazing....

Sorry I've not read your thread sooner... and much obliged for such lofty expectations from me. I would hope to fulfill them; it does seem I am looking for some divine insight...


I think last you said I was INTj-ENTp or something like that, but I am not sure (what that means, or much else). If there are questions that would be good for me to answer, I would not mind doing such.

[UDP]

OK to begin I must place a small objection; there is VERY little chance I am of a type that has the same accepting-master + accepting-slave combo as UDP. As much as I like him for his own talents and peculiarities, I rarely understand- or identify with a word he writes on these boards. Sorry - no offence to UDP - but this is the truth; his way of thinking is so foreign to me that I have long doubted he was an 'identical' at all, and I think his attitude towards me is not much different.

Here's what I'd like to know: who, based on this model, do you think is most suited to accomplish the unified field theory Einstein sought; that is, to continue his work? It seems to me to have a psychological element; I would even argue the information elements are key. Would it be the INTj-ENFp, or the INTj-ENTp UPD seems to represent? Or should both work together? Certainly a better understanding of the relationship between energy and mind is an important step along the pathway to that utopian dream I mentioned above. I should ask, what is your opinion of that dream?

I don't quite understand why you're asking me which of the two types is better suited for the task, as I know next to nothing about either the problem or the two types. I guess I could speculate that such a theory might involve a connection between what we in socionics would call the 'internal' and 'external' shapes of information, eg. feelings and intuitions versus facts, to the end of uniting which an xNTx-xNFx might be uniquely suited. But like I said this is pure speculation.

About the socionical utopia; I think on that topic we agree. Where socionics can help to improve human lives, it should be employed to do so. It's hard for me to envision the 'how' and 'what' of the task, though.

We may both be INTj, but yes, there is something very different about our approaches. The energy pattern of your posts seems different than my own, and Tcaus. I have no idea where I stand in relation to anyone else, honestly.

But I have not read enough on this crosstype theory to say much more than that at this time.

[krieger]

From the standpoint of the rational type, the other might easily be represented as an inferior kind of rationalist--when, that is to say, he is judged by what happens to him. For what happens to him is not accidental--here he is the master--instead, the accidents that befall him take the form of rational judgments and rational intentions, and these are the things he stubles over. To the rational mind this is something almost unthinkable, but it's unthinkableness merely equals the astonishment of the irrational type when he comes up against someone who puts rational ideas above actual and living happenings. Such a thing seems to him scarcely credible. As a rule it is quite hopeless to discuss these things with him as questions of principle, for all rational communication is just as alien and repellent to him as it would be unthinkable for the rationalist to enter into a contract without mutual consultation and obligation.

Looks like Jung would have me as an irrational type....

I think when Jung spoke of a person type he was refering to the slave type, not the master.

*edit* actually.. no. I'm just not animated by extroverted judgment it seems.

In his definitions section Jung seems to make a distinction between abstract and concrete use of a function, which looks like it might correlate with master/slave usage.

[FDG]

From the standpoint of the rational type, the other might easily be represented as an inferior kind of rationalist--when, that is to say, he is judged by what happens to him. For what happens to him is not accidental--here he is the master--instead, the accidents that befall him take the form of rational judgments and rational intentions, and these are the things he stubles over. To the rational mind this is something almost unthinkable, but it's unthinkableness merely equals the astonishment of the irrational type when he comes up against someone who puts rational ideas above actual and living happenings. Such a thing seems to him scarcely credible. As a rule it is quite hopeless to discuss these things with him as questions of principle, for all rational communication is just as alien and repellent to him as it would be unthinkable for the rationalist to enter into a contract without mutual consultation and obligation.

Looks like Jung would have me as an irrational type....

I think when Jung spoke of a person type he was refering to the slave type, not the master.

Honestly I find the part you quote the centerpiece to understand rational-irrational types relations. Functioning J-P pairs are a mere casuality that happens with the coincidence of beliefs of the rational with the coincidence of happenings of events in the irrational life. The conversation that Jung mentions has happened in many instances throughout my lifetime in closer interactions with rational types. The funny part of the matter is that without the conversation we would never have thought about the difference, since in order for a relationship to develop, there must be the condition I referred to in the first part of my post, and thus by virtue of action the J would have recognized the P as J and the P would have recognized the J as P.