Tcaud\\'s Dual-typing thread

[tcaudilllg]

I'm similar. The study of information and how the human mind processes it can be applied anywhere information and human minds exist, which is basically every field of study that there is.

The problem, of course, is finding a way to make money while doing this.


Much the same as C. S. Lewis, actually: fantasy and/or science fiction novels (with a more Tolkien-esque emphasis on world-building), some kind of non-fiction on theology, and maybe a book on socionics, once I feel like I have a thorough and complete enough understanding of the field.

I previously considered a career playing bass guitar in an alternative rock band, but that was a secondary interest.

Hmmm... If it helps, I'm politically conservative, and tend to agree with the American Tea Parties on most things -- a preference for smaller government, personal responsibility, Judeo-Christian values, liberty, support for the military, etc. In general, I think the government should leave people alone as much as possible.

On the other hand, I'm also a strong supporter of the monarchy in Canada, so my positions aren't entirely identical with any American group.

What is your approach to character design, and scenario writing?

Based on what you've told me, it's F over T. Have you tried using the EM dichotomies?

[April]

Tcaud, how does DCNH play into your dual-typings? For instance, I would consider myself a Creative subtype, but you type me as EII-LII. Would this dual-typing suggest that I'm a Normalizing subtype?

[xerx]

- your sociotype

ILE (self-type).

- what you are good at

Research, computers.

- what kinds of work you enjoy / career

SPACE EXPLORER!!!!!!, research, computers, craftsman, dancer.

- your hobbies

Research, computers.

- whether you enjoy athletic sports

I do.

- what you are notably bad at / careers you think you would fail in

Councilor, therapist, male escort, salesman, craftsman, dancer, 12th Imam, body builder.

- what you try to avoid doing.

?? I don't know.

- what a romantic relationship most means to you. Your criterion for leaving / recognizing when a relationship isn't working out.

?? I don't know.

- what's your political ideology?

I don't have a political affiliation and I don't see the point since all such constructs cannot encompass the breadth of human society, and therefore seem inherently futile. I also don't not have one, since the rejection of such would be dangerous. I'd support any laws that maximize the material and spiritual welfare (including religious) of the participants, as well as increase the creativity of the society as a whole, to allow it to make additional scientific discoveries.

I like studying all the different types of social systems (including political, religious and economic) and imagining myself as a part of them, which is way fun and less boring than applying them.

[Krig the Viking]

What is your approach to character design, and scenario writing?

I start with an idea for a story. Then I create a world for the story to take place in (whether it be a whole planet, or just the setting of one person's life), and try to think of the sorts of people that should exist in that world. I try to think of what such people would be like. Socionics helps with this, because at this point I can assign a sociotype and build on it. I create a history for the character, to understand how he will see the world and react to things. Then I set the plot in motion, and try to realistically depict how these characters would react to what happens around them.

Obviously, major characters would receive more development than minor ones. One problem I have is that I get bogged down fleshing out all these details, and my interest fades before I actually get around to writing.

The other method I use is just to start writing and see what happens, making everything up on the fly. I tend to use that approach for comedy writing.

Based on what you've told me, it's F over T. Have you tried using the EM dichotomies?

I did, but I wasn't sure if I understood them correctly, which is why I wanted your input.

[The Exception]

Tcaud, how does DCNH play into your dual-typings? For instance, I would consider myself a Creative subtype, but you type me as EII-LII. Would this dual-typing suggest that I'm a Normalizing subtype?

I'm kind of wondering the same myself because Tcaud proposed LSI for my EM type. I'm wondering how he came to that conclusions because I find little in my thoughts and behavior that resembles an LSI. I don't think I'm normalizing subtype either.

[tcaudilllg]

I know what you guys, but you need to understand something:

Gulenko published that paper JohnDo linked to prematurely. Although I'm not sure about the 8 subtype system, the 16 subtype system he describes DOES NOT gel with DCNH.

It's easy to see where he got confused. Filatova had introduced a prototype EM system where some functions were strengthened over others. She's an EII, which would rather neatly explain why she didn't perceive the relevance of the iron law to her system. Either that, or she did perceive it but chose to go with a simpler model because she wanted to make a difference then and there, without having to wait for the model. Interpreted one way, Filatova's system quite neatly dovetails with Gardner's multiple intelligences. (this assuming that Gardner's intelligences aren't influenced also by the IM type, which is probably not correct)

In any event, Gulenko appears to have tried to reduce information metabolism to various strengths and weaknesses without introducing new models. This is probably the reason for his mistake: he confused skill with usage frequency, even though they are separate dimensions of strength. Usage frequency does not presage skill, not at all. (if you've got the wrong idea when doing something, doing it over and over again will not improve your performance).

According to "Man as a System of Types" (available on his website), Gulenko realized his mistake.

Actually wait... we need to have a debate over Gulenko's subtype theory, and its relation (if any) to the EM type.


Warrior librarian: what you have heard is wrong. Your DCNH type has no bearing on your EM type. LSI EM just means you are an able theoretical physicist.

[Crispy]

According to "Man as a System of Types" (available on his website), Gulenko realized his mistake.

I don't see where he realized his mistake. He proposes two types but it sounds like the second type uses the "extension of DCNH" format. Here he goes on about introverted extroverts and extroverted introverts:

Double extroverts, introverts double visible very well. Most people are ambivertami, which are divided into introverted and extroverted extroverts introverts. With them the matter is more complicated.

Here are some patterns.

If, for example, bright extroverts, like those introverts behave in different communication distances is largely the same (active extroverted and introverted passively), the behavior ambivertov steps. Quite a sharp boundary lies between them long-range and short-range.

Talking to the introverted extrovert, feel like a man gradually inwardly revealed, the initial barrier is destroyed. Since extraverted introvert is the opposite. As the rapprochement with him more and more tangible bump on the inside "wall", for which your access is closed forever.

Does dual-type theory classify IXXx-EXXx as extroverted introverts and EXXx-IXXx as introverted extroverts as well? I thought that concept was strictly related to DCNH and had nothing to do with dual-type theory. If both DCNH and Dual-Type theory use an Introvert-Extrovert 4-part scale (And I would assume both use scales for the other 3 dichotomies), why are they considered compatible rather than extensions of one another?
Now I can only think of two possibilities for what this could mean:
1. Dual-Type theory is an extension of DCNH Theory into a 16 subtype theory. (Meaning all INTj-INFp's are Harmonizing in DCNH)
2. Dual-Type theory is meant to replace DCNH altogether. (Meaning DCNH is meaningless and replaced with EM/IM)

Am I missing something important?

[crazedrat]

Dammit Crispy, I have told this to you more than once now. I'm going to make it very simple this time:
There are dual core processors. You know how they work, right? They run two processes simultaneously. Then there are big single core processors. One big process. Right? Okay. So DHCN is like the big single core, dual type is the dual core. Get it? Now stop spreading chaos with this fool notion DHCN and dual type are the same thing.

[tcaudilllg]

I don't see where he realized his mistake. He proposes two types but it sounds like the second type uses the "extension of DCNH" format. Here he goes on about introverted extroverts and extroverted introverts:


Does dual-type theory classify IXXx-EXXx as extroverted introverts and EXXx-IXXx as introverted extroverts as well? I thought that concept was strictly related to DCNH and had nothing to do with dual-type theory. If both DCNH and Dual-Type theory use an Introvert-Extrovert 4-part scale (And I would assume both use scales for the other 3 dichotomies), why are they considered compatible rather than extensions of one another?
Now I can only think of two possibilities for what this could mean:
1. Dual-Type theory is an extension of DCNH Theory into a 16 subtype theory. (Meaning all INTj-INFp's are Harmonizing in DCNH)
2. Dual-Type theory is meant to replace DCNH altogether. (Meaning DCNH is meaningless and replaced with EM/IM)

Am I missing something important?

*sigh*

Crazedrat, is what Gulenko said about I-Es true for you? I'm not an -E so I wouldn't know.

[Krig the Viking]

Question, tcaud: was your Dual-type theory originally based on Gulenko's work, or did you invent/discover it independently?

[Aiss]

In the hope that you'll ever get to it. So far I've heard NT, but I'd appreciate a full typing.

Your Sociotype
ILI, I think.

What you are good at
Tough question to answer in general. I would say what I'm good at is connecting things, unifying them to make them work. For example looking at shreds of information from different sources or different theories, I'll consider them all simultaneously to incorporate everything of worth. This is something I'm really good at; whether it's good is another matter. I'd be probably called naive or crackpot by many people for just thinking up some of these things, though I'm often skeptical about it myself.

I tend to be very good at solving problems, once I understand them, in comparison to other people. I'm not this good at understand them at a glance, however.

To answer more specifically and conventionally, at school I was good at most subjects except for sports and some art classes, notably dancing. I gave up on math because I'm not really this talented and on studying languages in depth after dealing with a linguistic analysis project - too much classification, too little point in it. I learned some manual skills like knitting but never finished anything, I lack both patience and meticulousness for it. I like to bake and people tell me I'm good at it.

I'd say I'm good at writing, but I constantly have doubts about it. Though I did get some encouraging feedback, I can't help thinking it probably doesn't matter a lot. I favor fantastical settings over common realistic ones, but it's not definite; the plot is never realistic though, there's no point in writing about real life alone, for me. As with learning, I find myself interweaving threads rather than choosing a main one. I relate very much to the description of story growing rather than being constructed; in fact it's somehow more of writing down what I'm imagining when I'm spaced out, though most of it is discarded anyway.

What kinds of work you enjoy / career
I rather call it work if I don't enjoy it but have to do it for some reason. I'll probably stick to programming, though I find writing in natural language much preferable - but it isn't realistic to expect to live off of it, even some popular authors here aren't able to. I don't really mind programming, it's just that I'm not so great at it and it's draining - that along with my broader interests is why I'd like to get into bioinformatics. I would probably be fine with almost any work that was neither manual nor mind dumbing and offered a reasonable money to time ratio, unless there was something specifically against it.

Your hobbies
Reading, writing, reading random stuff on internet - I easily get sucked into tvtropes, wikipedia, socionics forums, and such. I find many things interesting - I could probably make a list which would include a number of languages, history, archeology, art, sciences etc. Those are not things I'm regularly involved in though. It's usually that I become interested into something, explore it and try to weave it in with everything else. I tend to remain interested, but not involved anymore. I'm horrid at contributing, too. Not much of a "hobby", in all likelihood.

I like games, especially role-playing but also board games. Though I don't really play a lot, it's more because I'm not spending so much time with people to begin with than because of lack of interest.

If we're going by regularity, daydreaming is probably my most common means of entertainment when I'm not busy getting stuff done or researching something I've become interested in. I fall into it as well when doing things, but then I become distracted and make mistakes.

Whether you enjoy athletic sports
Does having played bridge at school count?

What you are notably bad at / careers you think you would fail in
Anything requiring manual precision. Anything that would require me to get people to open up - so in practice psychology (I'm interested in the science, but I'm no good at "dealing with others' problems" part), psychotherapy, counseling etc. I could see myself talking to strangers briefly, though I probably wouldn't enjoy it. Anything that would be strictly dependent on sticking to the rules and schedules. Medicine, but that's type-independent (I physically faint more easily than most people). Teaching, as I lack the patience to repeat and explain things endlessly. Babysitting, nursing, this kind of work.

What you try to avoid doing.
I try to avoid exposing myself too much emotionally, or sharing things which I don't think are good enough. The former is self-explanatory, the latter I have rather high standards for, so I'm more often than not hesitant to share my ideas or writing.

What a romantic relationship most means to you. Your criterion for leaving / recognizing when a relationship isn't working out.
There are many reasons for leaving, but I think the key is trust. It's not that I expect absolute trust, but if it's lacking there's no point to the relationship in the first place.

[tcaudilllg]

Question, tcaud: was your Dual-type theory originally based on Gulenko's work, or did you invent/discover it independently?

Independently. I didn't come upon Gulenko's work until mid 2007. See . I was already working on the crosstype theory by then (as many here will attest).

Man I made some wild claims in that one. People who could sense the future (...), people who thought in terms of archetypes; ambiverts. Possibly real, too (to an extent) but not correlating to the dual-type phenomena.

The breakthrough (you're gonna love this) came when I studied a fictional individual (a video game character) who perfectly matched my definition of a "typeless" XXXx person under the crosstype rules. The character was an ISTp with a strong interest in analytical psychology and emotional manipulation. I studied his speech and noted that the information elements didn't follow Gulenko's ordering rules. (we had that paper long before the subtype papers and the two-type paper). He'd use an element and right afterward, he'd use its conflictor. I was able to notice this thanks to the notes Rick posted a few months before, which introduced us to model A.

(Xenosaga was a game that was meant to inspire you and break all boundaries. It's no wonder I found something meaningful in it.)

The real breakthrough happened when I considered Joy's crosstype. She was calling herself an ENTJ at the time. I figured her N and S functions cancelled out, because at the time I was correlating crisis-oriented thinking with undifferentiated N and S. That would make her an ENTJ-ESTJ hybrid, represented in model A with two extroverted thinking functions followed by Si and then Ni. (by that time I had distinguished between two different conditions which satisfied S/N cross, Si/Ni and Ni/Si)... see Up to that point that I had just thought the two Te's combined into one, but then I stopped as asked myself if they were different, because I realized I needed some way to increase the depth of the analysis of Si and Ni's "cancellation". So I asked myself how I could tell them apart. I realized that the only distinction that could be made was between what was being discussed in a sentence, and the actual action of the sentence itself. Hence the division between information and energy. Now I had a pattern: the first function of the undifferentiated pair set the context of the other one. Ni in the context of Ti; Fe in the context of Ti; etc. One shaped the meaning of the other. Fe in the context of a thought, or a situation. Te in the context of an emotion. But there is a rule that the information aspect which is given cannot be considered in detail because it is not the focus of attention: its context is. So it has a immediacy that the mind recognizes but isn't really grasping, because it's not paying attention to why it is, just that it is (or alternatively, is happening). It grasps the data and the changes to the data, but not the meaning of the data, which can only be studied in terms of the context it gives.

I only made the correlation with interests early last year. Before then I was in fact struggling to give context and meaning to what I had come to understand as a second type. Hell, for some two years I had misdiagnosed myself as an EIE EM, and even toyed with the possibility of my being an EIE for a while.

[xerx]

What's my dual-type? Ask me anything you need to know.

[DividedsGhost]

Dammit Crispy, I have told this to you more than once now. I'm going to make it very simple this time:
There are dual core processors. You know how they work, right? They run two processes simultaneously. Then there are big single core processors. One big process. Right? Okay. So DHCN is like the big single core, dual type is the dual core. Get it? Now stop spreading chaos with this fool notion DHCN and dual type are the same thing.

In computer science it is theoretically possible to take a program that runs on a single core and allow it to run on a dual core, and vice versa, take a dual core program and allow it to run on a single core. This makes your conceptual simplification an over-simplification.

Now try again.

[tcaudilllg]

In computer science it is theoretically possible to take a program that runs on a single core and allow it to run on a dual core, and vice versa, take a dual core program and allow it to run on a single core. This makes your conceptual simplification an over-simplification.

Now try again.

This thread is for dual-typing, not debate. If you derail the topic again I will request that a moderator remove your post.

[DividedsGhost]

This thread is for dual-typing, not debate. If you derail the topic again I will request that a moderator remove your post.

Sorry Tcaud. Calm down. It was somewhat relevant because he was trying to explain the difference between the two systems and it wasn't a good analogy. I have no intention of shitting on your topic. I have an interest in your system; that's my way of complimenting you. You don't need to get aggressive with me.

[CILi]

This may not be the place for it, but if you get a sec, Tcaud, could you help me better understand some of your stuff?


As an LII-IEI, are you attracted to all of the following types or just a select few?

A) ESE-xxx
B) xxx-SLE
C) xxx-ESE
D) SLE-xxx

In other words, is dual-attraction strictly bound by the IM/EM divide, or is our "concept" of another person too fuzzy/unconscious to separate IM and EM?

The more I dive into your theory, the more I'm confused on what I've actually been "typing" in other people. 1 of 16 IM types? 1 of 16 EM types? Or an ultra-specific 1 of 100+ Dual-Types? According to your definitions of IM/EM/dual-type/etc., might our self-diagnosed "sociotypes" you ask of us in the OP be completely off?


(P.S. - Please don't read hostility or skepticism into anything I've said. I generally really, really like your idea. ...I'm just struggling to wrap my mind around some of it.)

[crazedrat]

In computer science it is theoretically possible to take a program that runs on a single core and allow it to run on a dual core, and vice versa, take a dual core program and allow it to run on a single core. This makes your conceptual simplification an over-simplification.

Now try again.

I'm only talking about the structure of the processors, not the actual data running through the cores. The data could be anything. If you really care that much I could say the DHCN is the bigger core, but dual type is the core combined with the information on the core. But do I really have to constantly follow my own language around because naggy, egotistical ******s like you won't stop cumming on what I say? Because I know that you understood me, and analogies are alright as vague illustrations. So who gives a fuck? Can we get to the actual point of this discussion without you being such a ******?

Crazedrat, is what Gulenko said about I-Es true for you? I'm not an -E so I wouldn't know.

I only agree with the notion that the type could be made more complex, with more functions. Not with simultaneous processes. That's a different matter. With a more complex single process. This would require renaming all the functions completely, though. You'd have a system with 9 functions, or 16 distinct functions, or whatever; and those wouldn't be the same as the 16 types. But that has not been done, and I think Gulenko did it very wrongly. So I consider his system an estimation at best, but by acknowledging it I'm acknowledging the possibilities it represents.

[Krig the Viking]

Independently. I didn't come upon Gulenko's work until mid 2007.

[backstory]

I only made the correlation with interests early last year. Before then I was in fact struggling to give context and meaning to what I had come to understand as a second type. Hell, for some two years I had misdiagnosed myself as an EIE EM, and even toyed with the possibility of my being an EIE for a while.

Cool, that's about what I thought. I had a good reason for asking that question, but now I forget what it was. I can feel it lurking there in the back of my mind; perhaps eventually I'll remember!

Also, any thoughts on my EM type? I'm quite curious.

[tcaudilllg]

Cool, that's about what I thought. I had a good reason for asking that question, but now I forget what it was. I can feel it lurking there in the back of my mind; perhaps eventually I'll remember!

Also, any thoughts on my EM type? I'm quite curious.

I've ruled out LSI. SLE is a possibility. Do you have a lot of common interests with crazedrat?

SEI doesn't seem to be. IEI... no. EIE is conceivable. SLI... no. (SLI and SEI are artists). LII... possibly.

What are you actually good at? I mean, really good at?

[tcaudilllg]

Krig, why are you suspicious of me? Do you tend to be alert to others' motives?

[tcaudilllg]

In the hope that you'll ever get to it. So far I've heard NT, but I'd appreciate a full typing.

Your Sociotype
ILI, I think.

What you are good at
Tough question to answer in general. I would say what I'm good at is connecting things, unifying them to make them work. For example looking at shreds of information from different sources or different theories, I'll consider them all simultaneously to incorporate everything of worth. This is something I'm really good at; whether it's good is another matter. I'd be probably called naive or crackpot by many people for just thinking up some of these things, though I'm often skeptical about it myself.

I tend to be very good at solving problems, once I understand them, in comparison to other people. I'm not this good at understand them at a glance, however.

To answer more specifically and conventionally, at school I was good at most subjects except for sports and some art classes, notably dancing. I gave up on math because I'm not really this talented and on studying languages in depth after dealing with a linguistic analysis project - too much classification, too little point in it. I learned some manual skills like knitting but never finished anything, I lack both patience and meticulousness for it. I like to bake and people tell me I'm good at it.

I'd say I'm good at writing, but I constantly have doubts about it. Though I did get some encouraging feedback, I can't help thinking it probably doesn't matter a lot. I favor fantastical settings over common realistic ones, but it's not definite; the plot is never realistic though, there's no point in writing about real life alone, for me. As with learning, I find myself interweaving threads rather than choosing a main one. I relate very much to the description of story growing rather than being constructed; in fact it's somehow more of writing down what I'm imagining when I'm spaced out, though most of it is discarded anyway.

What kinds of work you enjoy / career
I rather call it work if I don't enjoy it but have to do it for some reason. I'll probably stick to programming, though I find writing in natural language much preferable - but it isn't realistic to expect to live off of it, even some popular authors here aren't able to. I don't really mind programming, it's just that I'm not so great at it and it's draining - that along with my broader interests is why I'd like to get into bioinformatics. I would probably be fine with almost any work that was neither manual nor mind dumbing and offered a reasonable money to time ratio, unless there was something specifically against it.

Your hobbies
Reading, writing, reading random stuff on internet - I easily get sucked into tvtropes, wikipedia, socionics forums, and such. I find many things interesting - I could probably make a list which would include a number of languages, history, archeology, art, sciences etc. Those are not things I'm regularly involved in though. It's usually that I become interested into something, explore it and try to weave it in with everything else. I tend to remain interested, but not involved anymore. I'm horrid at contributing, too. Not much of a "hobby", in all likelihood.

I like games, especially role-playing but also board games. Though I don't really play a lot, it's more because I'm not spending so much time with people to begin with than because of lack of interest.

If we're going by regularity, daydreaming is probably my most common means of entertainment when I'm not busy getting stuff done or researching something I've become interested in. I fall into it as well when doing things, but then I become distracted and make mistakes.

Whether you enjoy athletic sports
Does having played bridge at school count?

What you are notably bad at / careers you think you would fail in
Anything requiring manual precision. Anything that would require me to get people to open up - so in practice psychology (I'm interested in the science, but I'm no good at "dealing with others' problems" part), psychotherapy, counseling etc. I could see myself talking to strangers briefly, though I probably wouldn't enjoy it. Anything that would be strictly dependent on sticking to the rules and schedules. Medicine, but that's type-independent (I physically faint more easily than most people). Teaching, as I lack the patience to repeat and explain things endlessly. Babysitting, nursing, this kind of work.

What you try to avoid doing.
I try to avoid exposing myself too much emotionally, or sharing things which I don't think are good enough. The former is self-explanatory, the latter I have rather high standards for, so I'm more often than not hesitant to share my ideas or writing.

What a romantic relationship most means to you. Your criterion for leaving / recognizing when a relationship isn't working out.
There are many reasons for leaving, but I think the key is trust. It's not that I expect absolute trust, but if it's lacking there's no point to the relationship in the first place.

I'm leaning ILI.

What are you feelings on good and evil?

[tcaudilllg]

Tricky you sound like a LSE EM type. LSE EMs are really into martial arts.

Why not try the dichotomies and see if they point towards LSE for you?

[tcaudilllg]

Thank you. I am just as into writing and painting as I am into martial arts. Unusual combinations are typical of me. Is that significant?

Those aren't unusual at all. It is in fact quite normal for them to be found together.

Do you have an interest in medicine as well?

Sorry to ask, but how do I do that for EM types?

Classify yourself according to the EM dichotomies (see the first post in this thread)

[xerx]

tcaud it hurts me that you no longer acknowledge my existence. Type me please.

[tcaudilllg]

tcaud it hurts me that you no longer acknowledge my existence. Type me please.

First follow the instructions.

[xerx]

First follow the instructions.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...8-post292.html

[Aiss]

I'm leaning ILI.

What are you feelings on good and evil?

It's a topic I have so far successfully avoided discussing, actually. I don't see the point in trying to define them in any way, I consider it impossible. I'd say there's rather a sense of good and evil, but these categories are in no way defined by it. Which potentially creates conflict. I've always leaned towards relativism, though I wouldn't go as far as to say it's so individualistic it applies only to oneself, because we use it to judge others all the time and there's a certain collectivism to it, if only in forming our ideas of it - and this degree of unification is important for society, too. Then at the same time intentions and actions might be respectively good and evil according to one's own sense of good and evil - not that it's an either-or evaluation. This - which one matters - is usually one of the hardest questions for me in many personality tests, because I think only taking both into account, along with the how, why and consequences, makes sense.

It's actually quite illogical and I fully realize it.


----

I've decided to join the crowd and do the dichotomies as well. I may or may not have an ulterior motive in wanting to actually understand them better. Sorry for another wall of text.

Deep/Shallow - it's likely that everyone thinks they're Deep, and is annoyed to no end by Shallow people who speak like bots. I'm not sure how much it matters in this context that I do as well.

Adventurous/Routine - Routine, rather.

Deliberate/Spontaneous - probably Deliberate. I think in those terms, though I'm bad at execution too often.

Motivated/Reliant - I lack motivation and I'm bad at following opportunities. I'm less sure about searching them out. I'd rather not admit, but I kind of relate to what you write about reliant people. Though I suspect this dichotomy may be affected by strength, so having neither Fi nor Te in EM ego would make it less pronounced - is this speculation way off?

Accurate/Inaccurate - Inaccurate to the point of ridicule.

Restrained/Excitable - neither. As with Motivated/Reliant, I wonder if strength may play a part in that.

Formulaic/Arithmetic - probably Arithmetic, though it's another thing I don't really like.

Tolerant/Argumentative - neither the Argumentatives' beliefs nor emotional outbursts match me in any way. I'd however call myself 'argumentative' rather than 'tolerant', usually. I feel closer to what you describe as Tolerant here, except for the key point - I sometimes choose to avoid conflict, but sometimes to provoke it. So I suppose it may be somehow closer to Argumentative, at a core. I disagree with this dichotomy, whichever one I am.

Aggressive/Harmonious - Harmonious, probably.

Nonfictionalist/Fictionalist - can't say. I relate both to interconnecting of ideas and immersing myself in an imaginary universe. It's likely I don't quite understand what you meant by this distinction.

Concrete/Abstract - Abstract. I'd even go as far as to say that a single language is limiting, since it influences our thinking patterns to a large degree - like a model which is taken for the real thing and obstructs the view of what it doesn't account for. Though in everyday sense I agree with efficiency in communication. It really depends on situation more than anything else. But still, Abstract. And I'm likely guilty of overcomplicating the wording when I don't think efficiency matters, though in English it's still more often a result of some awkwardness when using a foreign language than design.

[Krig the Viking]

I've ruled out LSI. SLE is a possibility. Do you have a lot of common interests with crazedrat?

SEI doesn't seem to be. IEI... no. EIE is conceivable. SLI... no. (SLI and SEI are artists). LII... possibly.

What are you actually good at? I mean, really good at?

I think I already listed the things I'm good at. To quote my previous post: "I'm good at analyzing and figuring things out. I learn very quickly, notice patterns and trends in seeming chaos, and can quickly discern the essential nature of things. I am also good at explaining things to people in a clear and consice way, although I don't find this as fun as the researching and studying part."

I apply this skill in my various hobbies, which I listed in my previous post.

Your hobbies
I have the following listed under "Interests" on my Facebook profile:
History: ancient Egyptian, ancient Babylonian, ancient Levantine, medieval Europe, modern -- pretty much everything except, for some reason, Oriental. Also: philosophy, theology, politics, fantasy and science fiction, pen and paper role playing games, Norse mythology, linguistics and etymology, invented languages, the ancient Hebrew and Greek languages, Biblical exegesis, the Old English and Old Norse languages, other foreign languages, information theory, the martial arts, musical composition, classical painting and sculpture, photographic and general artistic composition, fictional worldbuilding, climatological meteorology, some geology, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, quantum physics, et cetera ad nauseum.

And of course Socionics/personality type theories as well as general psychology.

Basically, I love to analyze other people's systems of things, and create my own. There's nothing better than that little "click" in your brain when something you've been studying for a long time finally all clicks into place, and you can at last see the big picture of how it all fits together.

Krig, why are you suspicious of me? Do you tend to be alert to others' motives?

I'm not suspicious of you in the sense that I suspect you might secretly have bad or harmful motives. Unless I have positive evidence otherwise, I tend to assume that people do not have malicious or otherwise "evil" motives. I am cautious when people make factual claims, however, because I know that people frequently make mistakes; confirmation bias is the most common one, along with simple oversight/ignorance of relevant facts. I include myself in this.

To put it another way: I am no more suspicious of your ideas than I am of my own. I try to submit everything to rigorous testing before I accept it as true, whether the idea was mine or someone else's.

[tcaudilllg]

I think I already listed the things I'm good at. To quote my previous post: "I'm good at analyzing and figuring things out. I learn very quickly, notice patterns and trends in seeming chaos, and can quickly discern the essential nature of things. I am also good at explaining things to people in a clear and consice way, although I don't find this as fun as the researching and studying part."

I apply this skill in my various hobbies, which I listed in my previous post.




I'm not suspicious of you in the sense that I suspect you might secretly have bad or harmful motives. Unless I have positive evidence otherwise, I tend to assume that people do not have malicious or otherwise "evil" motives. I am cautious when people make factual claims, however, because I know that people frequently make mistakes; confirmation bias is the most common one, along with simple oversight/ignorance of relevant facts. I include myself in this.

To put it another way: I am no more suspicious of your ideas than I am of my own. I try to submit everything to rigorous testing before I accept it as true, whether the idea was mine or someone else's.

OK I'm siding towards LII now, because that's something that April would do.

[tcaudilllg]

Could I be SLE-IEI or IEI-SLE? Do you have descriptions of those two types, and what would the differences between them be?

SLE-IEI - "triumph in the name of ethic"
IEI-SLE - "Victory by ethic"

[tcaudilllg]

Krig, do you program?

[tcaudilllg]

I like. Can you say more about those two types? I am probably SLE-IEI or IEI-SLE.

Rat is IEI-SLE.

Let's see, for IEI EM the role aspiration is to make the world more ethical (relative to a standard). So SLE-IEI believes in making the world more ethical by defeating the unethical. Particularly, SLE-IEI would prefer to destroy the source of unethical behavior, as per their nature. LSE-IEI would prefer to force a person to behave ethically using fear of reprisal. (the law). LSE-IEI is a prosecutorial temperament.

IEI-SLE aims to be a winner. Very competitive. The best way to win, IEI-SLE argues, is to be ethical. "Only those who practice [a certain ethic] are true winners". From this standpoint, conduct has a strategic element. "The battle for hearts and minds", as it is called.

[golden]

Ooh, may I please try? Socionics is so cool, and I want to learn as much as I can.

- your sociotype--looks like IEI-fe.
- what you are good at--literature, music, modern dance, psychology, art history, design, theater, public speaking, tutoring.
- what kinds of work you enjoy / career--book editor, esp love juvenile and young-adult books and children's four-color picture books; have worked as a piano accompanist. I enjoy writing ad copy, press releases, or anything short 'n' snappy/silly.
- what job you have now--book editor.
- your hobbies--songwriting, piano, collecting things (art glass, horsehair pottery, vintage dresses), reading, researching stuff.
- whether you enjoy athletic sports--I like to ride a bicycle, X-country ski, and hike; except for hiking, I like to have company when I do these things. Ooh, and kickball rocks!
- what you are notably bad at / careers you think you would fail in--selling tangibles, medicine (blood, ew!), fund-raising, event planning, giving massages, thievery or other law-breaking careers (lol), anything that requires a lot of aggression or that I don't feel right about morally, like being an attorney and representing someone who I think is in the wrong.
- what you try to avoid doing--money stuff, deep cleaning (I hire someone for those things).
- what a romantic relationship most means to you. Your criterion for leaving / recognizing when a relationship isn't working out. To me, it means open communication about one's inner world; laughing a lot; creating a household together (should be beautiful); cooking together; traveling and exploring together; supporting each other's big dreams; looking out for each other (anticipating problems, unmet needs); creating a daily life "rhythm" together; finding mutual friends and groups to share; and, um, sexual experimentation and pleasure.

As for not working out? For me it's mainly (1) if the partners cannot understand and acknowledge each other's feelings and motivations; (2) if daily rhythms and long-range goals cannot be aligned; and (3) if the partners cannot continue to grow and express themselves as individuals within the coupling.


Please also report your identification according to the EM dichotomies.

I'm not sure I know how you want this done. But let's see ... I'll boldface each of my preferences for the dichotomies:

Deep (Fe valuing) vs Shallow (Te valuing)

Adventurous (Se(T) valuing) vs Routine (Ni(T) valuing)

Deliberate (Ni valuing) vs Spontaneous (Si valuing)

Motivated (Fi valuing) vs Reliant (Ti valuing) [But this one is a bit of a wash.]

Accurate (strong T, strong S) vs Inaccurate (weak T, weak S) [I don't know if I'm very handy per se, but I have very good manual dexterity and can make things when I want to or need to. And I would always rather use a hand tool than a power tool, for control. However, I don't really enjoy making and repairing stuff all that much.]

Restrained (Fe Accepting) vs Excitable (Fe Producing) [very, very, VERY]

Formulaic (Te Accepting) vs Arithmetic (Te Producing) [Uh ... the only kind of math I really like is algebra, but in truth I don't like working with numbers too much and cannot say I'm math-talented. I used to do bookkeeping for a friend during college and was fine at it but bored. ????? In general, I accept the principles of math but am always annoyed because to us nonmathematicians it seems like all the teachers ever do is show the mechanical steps of how to do the problem, whereas I would rather focus on the bigger concepts that drive math. I love reading biographies of mathematicians and scientists who work with math, such as astronomers.]


Tolerant (Accepting Fe) vs Argumentative (Producing Fe) [Grrr. I don't know. I guess I'm more tolerant. I guess I see arguments as temporally framed by larger events. I'm not known for my composure in all situations, but if people are arguing, or let's say they want to drag me into an argument, I retreat to the overview position to neutralize the disagreement. I point out why the argument is arising in the first place.]

Aggressive (Se Producing) vs Harmonious (Se Accepting)

Nonfictionalist (Ne accepting) vs Fictionalist (Ne producing)

Concrete (strong Fe) vs Abstract (strong Te)

[tcaudilllg]

Crazedrat? I will pay attention to him.


Destroy the source of unethical behavior, you say? Do you mean that they try to bring certain people down, or do you mean that they actively try to destroy/change certain ideas in a culture?


In most cases, I would find that kind of behavior self-defeating.


SLE-IEI fights in order to change the world?
IEI-SLE changes the world because they are fighting?

SLE-IEI: "You're evil so I gotta fight you."
IEI-SLE: "The best way to fight is not to fight at all..."

Do you see the duality?

[tcaudilllg]

Not sure. Kind of. But you said IEI-SLE is very competitive, and now you say that they don't fight. How is that possible? Or you mean that they fight by "not being evil"?

Well when they aren't being serious they engage in sportsman-like activities. Basically they are the soldier who tries to end the war. All SLE EMs are "soldiers", in a sense, but IEI-SLE aims on winning the peace, rather than the war.

Check this out:
http://winninghearts.wordpress.com/

Iraq is a case example of SLE-IEI/IEI-SLE relations. SLE-IEI was all gung-ho and "let's beat the bad guy". But then they got over there and found not only that the bad guys kept coming, but that soon they were fighting the very people they tried to save as the line between good and bad began to blur. Once SLE realized they couldn't win, the situation there became a joint effort between SLE and IEI.

[tcaudilllg]

Ooh, may I please try? Socionics is so cool, and I want to learn as much as I can.

- your sociotype--looks like IEI-fe.
- what you are good at--literature, music, modern dance, psychology, art history, design, theater, public speaking, tutoring.
- what kinds of work you enjoy / career--book editor, esp love juvenile and young-adult books and children's four-color picture books; have worked as a piano accompanist. I enjoy writing ad copy, press releases, or anything short 'n' snappy/silly.
- what job you have now--book editor.
- your hobbies--songwriting, piano, collecting things (art glass, horsehair pottery, vintage dresses), reading, researching stuff.
- whether you enjoy athletic sports--I like to ride a bicycle, X-country ski, and hike; except for hiking, I like to have company when I do these things. Ooh, and kickball rocks!
- what you are notably bad at / careers you think you would fail in--selling tangibles, medicine (blood, ew!), fund-raising, event planning, giving massages, thievery or other law-breaking careers (lol), anything that requires a lot of aggression or that I don't feel right about morally, like being an attorney and representing someone who I think is in the wrong.
- what you try to avoid doing--money stuff, deep cleaning (I hire someone for those things).
- what a romantic relationship most means to you. Your criterion for leaving / recognizing when a relationship isn't working out. To me, it means open communication about one's inner world; laughing a lot; creating a household together (should be beautiful); cooking together; traveling and exploring together; supporting each other's big dreams; looking out for each other (anticipating problems, unmet needs); creating a daily life "rhythm" together; finding mutual friends and groups to share; and, um, sexual experimentation and pleasure.

As for not working out? For me it's mainly (1) if the partners cannot understand and acknowledge each other's feelings and motivations; (2) if daily rhythms and long-range goals cannot be aligned; and (3) if the partners cannot continue to grow and express themselves as individuals within the coupling.


Please also report your identification according to the EM dichotomies.

I'm not sure I know how you want this done. But let's see ... I'll boldface each of my preferences for the dichotomies:

Deep (Fe valuing) vs Shallow (Te valuing)

Adventurous (Se(T) valuing) vs Routine (Ni(T) valuing)

Deliberate (Ni valuing) vs Spontaneous (Si valuing)

Motivated (Fi valuing) vs Reliant (Ti valuing) [But this one is a bit of a wash.]

Accurate (strong T, strong S) vs Inaccurate (weak T, weak S) [I don't know if I'm very handy per se, but I have very good manual dexterity and can make things when I want to or need to. And I would always rather use a hand tool than a power tool, for control. However, I don't really enjoy making and repairing stuff all that much.]

Restrained (Fe Accepting) vs Excitable (Fe Producing) [very, very, VERY]

Formulaic (Te Accepting) vs Arithmetic (Te Producing) [Uh ... the only kind of math I really like is algebra, but in truth I don't like working with numbers too much and cannot say I'm math-talented. I used to do bookkeeping for a friend during college and was fine at it but bored. ????? In general, I accept the principles of math but am always annoyed because to us nonmathematicians it seems like all the teachers ever do is show the mechanical steps of how to do the problem, whereas I would rather focus on the bigger concepts that drive math. I love reading biographies of mathematicians and scientists who work with math, such as astronomers.]


Tolerant (Accepting Fe) vs Argumentative (Producing Fe) [Grrr. I don't know. I guess I'm more tolerant. I guess I see arguments as temporally framed by larger events. I'm not known for my composure in all situations, but if people are arguing, or let's say they want to drag me into an argument, I retreat to the overview position to neutralize the disagreement. I point out why the argument is arising in the first place.]

Aggressive (Se Producing) vs Harmonious (Se Accepting)

Nonfictionalist (Ne accepting) vs Fictionalist (Ne producing)

Concrete (strong Fe) vs Abstract (strong Te)

FiSe tends to be a stickler for fairness of representation, so I don't think that's it.
TiNe - no, not a lot of scientific emphasis.
FiNe - no signs of these
FeNi - possibly
TiSe - possibly
TeNi - no or else you'd be fine with money.
SeFi - no sociology emphasis
SeTi - didn't see anything about that
NiFe - didn't hear mention of ethics a lot
TeSi - money again
NeFi - no signs
NiTe - leaning towards no
SiFe - possibly
FeSi - a little less likely than SiFe
NeTi - again, no signs
SiTe - possibly

I'm leaning heavily towards EIE.

What exactly about books do you edit? Do you tend towards ethical absolutism or relativism?

[tcaudilllg]

I understand. I could be IEI-SLE, but I have become too nihilistic to believe there actually is a war or that it can ever be won. There is no right or wrong, and then there can't ever be a victory.

Why?

[Krig the Viking]

Krig, do you program?

A little in high school, but not since. I find it interesting, and I've been known to occasionally read about programming and think of ways to program things, but actually sitting down and re-learning how to write code would be tedious, and I have other, more interesting things to work on.

I feel much the same about programming as I do about math -- an interesting diversion, but ultimately too tedious and repetitive to hold my attention for long.

[golden]

FiSe tends to be a stickler for fairness of representation, so I don't think that's it.
TiNe - no, not a lot of scientific emphasis.
FiNe - no signs of these
FeNi - possibly
TiSe - possibly
TeNi - no or else you'd be fine with money.
SeFi - no sociology emphasis
SeTi - didn't see anything about that
NiFe - didn't hear mention of ethics a lot
TeSi - money again
NeFi - no signs
NiTe - leaning towards no
SiFe - possibly
FeSi - a little less likely than SiFe
NeTi - again, no signs
SiTe - possibly

I'm leaning heavily towards EIE.

What exactly about books do you edit? Do you tend towards ethical absolutism or relativism?

EIE makes a lot of sense. It was my second choice for my primary type.

Book editing ... I worked for a couple of magazines, then for an independent press, where I did a little of everything, shepherding books through production, lots of author contact, project oversight, copywriting, but also detail work like substantive editing and copyediting, proofreading, etc. I've been freelancing for several years and need to get back into the full-time job market and am thinking about going back to school for a master's in something more like PR or even marketing, but with a writing emphasis.

Ethical relativism, definitely.

Thanks so much, tcaud.