Jungian Dichotomies & Gulenko's Subtypes & Visual Identification

[JohnDo]

Victor Gulenko introduced different subtype systems in the past. They are all based on subdividing the Jungian dichotomies into 4 categories:

1.) Accepting/Producing uses not 2 but 4 categories of Rationality/Irrationality. You can be very rational, quite rational, quite irrational or very irrational.
2.) DCNH also uses not 2 but 4 categories to describe Introversion/Extraversion. Very introverted, quite introverted, quite extraverted, very extraverted.
3.) His system with 8 subtypes introduces the Primary/Secondary dichotomy. So a third Jungian dichotomy is subdivided into 4 categories (depending on your DCNH subtype).
4.) Using 16 subtypes we just have to look at the four Jungian dichotomies and divide them into 4 categories each.

I am very introverted, very intuitive, quite logical, quite rational. So I am an INTj with an INFp subtype. I just wanted to clarify that because a lot of people on this forum are of the opinion
- that dichotomies are not important,
- that subtypes are not important
- or that subtypes have nothing to do with dichotomies.

Victor Gulenko, the most cited socionist after Augusta, works a lot with subtypes and dichotomies as you can see. So everyone who says that subtypes or dichotomies "are not socionics" obviously disagrees with the most important socionist...

But the more interesting point is: There is clearly a correlation between shape of face and subtype. I made 3 interesting discoveries during the last months and the fourth discovery will certainly come...

1.) The first thing I discovered was that subtypes with a strengthened conscious function have roundish faces whereas subtypes with a strengthened unconscious function have longish faces. See this thread. So you might start with this Roundish/Longish dichotomy if you are interested in Dichotomies & Subtypes & V.I.

2.) The next dichotomy I discovered some months ago was Angular/Soft. Subtypes with a strengthened base or demonstrative function have rather soft faces, subtypes with a strengthened creative or ignoring function have angular faces. The combination of Roundish/Longish and Angular/Soft makes it possible to diagnose DCNH subtypes by V.I. - but only if you are experienced enough and already know the main type of the person you want to type. Description and examples here.

3.) The third dichotomy I discovered some weeks ago. This one is necessary to determine Gulenko's 8 IE subtypes by V.I. - I think I'll call it Mathematical/Natural. Mathematical means a face looks really like a circle, a square, an oval or a rectangle. Natural means "angular circle", "rounded square", "piriform oval" or "broad rectangle":

base: circle
role: angular circle

creative: square
vulnerable: rounded square

demonstrative: oval
mobilizing: piriform oval

ignoring: rectangle
suggestive: broad rectangle

See this thread for explanations and examples.

Currently I'm trying to find the fourth "VI dichotomy" to distinguish between 256 types by VI. This one is really subtle and it is very difficult to descibe because you need to know a lot of people of the same type...

[Crispy]

Does EM Dual type match up with DCNH type/subtypes always? H-LII's can only be LII-(ILI)(IEI)(SLI)(SEI)?

EDIT: Would that also mean that to find your dual type, you can find your DCNH subtype on wikisocion, and then read the closest DCNH types (for LII-H: SLI-N, ILI-N, SEI-N, IEI-N?) to determine which subtype you are closest to?

If so... badass!

[Aiss]

Does EM Dual type match up with DCNH type/subtypes always? H-LII's can only be LII-(ILI)(IEI)(SLI)(SEI)?

EDIT: Would that also mean that to find your dual type, you can find your DCNH subtype on wikisocion, and then read the closest DCNH types (for LII-H: SLI-N, ILI-N, SEI-N, IEI-N?) to determine which subtype you are closest to?

If so... badass!

According to tcaudilllg, no. I think both IM and EM types are supposed to share a subtype, though. Or something like that.

[The Exception]

According to tcaudilllg, no. I think both IM and EM types are supposed to share a subtype, though. Or something like that.

I'm H-LII and I identify most with EII EM. So are you saying that my EM type would also be an H subtype?

[Aiss]

I'm H-LII and I identify most with EII EM. So are you saying that my EM type would also be an H subtype?

I thought I read something like this, yes, but I'm not sure who said it.

[krieger]

According to tcaudilllg, no.

If they don't, the personality structure would be so complex that there would be no way to humanly be able to keep track of it all. IMO that point is already reached with the introduction of a second type, though.

[Aiss]

If they don't, the personality structure would be so complex that there would be no way to humanly be able to keep track of it all. IMO that point is already reached with the introduction of a second type, though.

Don't shoot the messenger, I was merely supplying information.

Also, one could argue that our mind's structure can't be understood by our minds since they're limited by their structure.

[tcaudilllg]

If they don't, the personality structure would be so complex that there would be no way to humanly be able to keep track of it all. IMO that point is already reached with the introduction of a second type, though.

Not really. You just need a basic set of rules that you use to compute the personality on the spot. It takes a bit of effort, but intuition wins the day.

But a second type just says, "people are good at X, bad at Y, and they are basically good at what keeps their interest". The socionics/MBTI type system says nothing about that, as far as skills go. And then you add in the DCNH subtypes which give you a sense of what their attitude towards their skills and mental abilities is and what they can use them for, and the caste types as a measure of how they fill social roles required by society. Just different types for different domains of self-consideration.

Actually DCNH should be considered a different scale of types altogether. It's just that Gulenko seemes quite determined to subordinate all the other type scales before Augusta's. But all Augusta's type is concerned with is the development of long-lasting long-term potentiation, the original development of concepts and creation of data.

Try watching a major news event as it happens, because that's what the IM type is all about: it determines how a person fills in the blanks during a crisis, their confidence in the filling and the probability of their suggestions being accepted as fact. If you notice in 9/11 footage, the type traits of the onlookers is very visible, because the major priority for everyone at that moment was contributing to the understanding of what was happening, each in their own way.

[krieger]

Tcaudilllg, you're not going to tell me that there is any certainty to what you do. It's all unfounded guesswork. I could create an anonymous account on the forum and post some honest facts about myself in your dual type thread and you'd type me as something completely different from what you otherwise would.

[tcaudilllg]

Tcaudilllg, you're not going to tell me that there is any certainty to what you do. It's all unfounded guesswork. I could create an anonymous account on the forum and post some honest facts about myself in your dual type thread and you'd type me as something completely different from what you otherwise would.

Well I guess I would type you as being how you presented yourself as being.

[JohnDo]

Does EM Dual type match up with DCNH type/subtypes always? H-LII's can only be LII-(ILI)(IEI)(SLI)(SEI)?

Tcaudillg's idea of a dual-type is not quite the same as Gulenko's second type. I recommend to ignore dual-type theory completely and stick to Gulenko's systems as long as tcaudillg is unable to offer convincing explanations and descriptions. Dual-type is nothing but a guessing game so far...

[krieger]

Tcaudillg's idea of a dual-type is not quite the same as Gulenko's second type. I recommend to ignore dual-type theory completely and stick to Gulenko's systems as long as tcaudillg is unable to offer convincing explanations and descriptions. Dual-type is nothing but a guessing game so far...

No. It's exactly the same thing. Exactly the same guessing game. You make a great case against your own practices.

[JohnDo]

No. It's exactly the same thing. Exactly the same guessing game. You make a great case against your own practices.

Gulenko's systems are logically consistent. Not a guessing game at all. You just need more experience...

I still believe that tcaudillg looks at the same phenomenon from a different perspective. Sooner or later he will realize that a C-LII can't be LII-LSI but only LII-IEE, LII-ILE, LII-SEE or LII-SLE...

[krieger]

Gulenko's systems are logically consistent. Not a guessing game at all. You just need more experience...

I was using dual types/DCNH long before you even knew about gulenko. I've been through the optimism phase that you're in.

Logically consistent is a vacuous phrase, by the way. Empirical verifyability is where it's at. Until you can demonstrate the validity of your beliefs in a controlled, experimental setting, they are nothing but idle fantasies.

[Aiss]

Gulenko's systems are logically consistent. Not a guessing game at all. You just need more experience...

I still believe that tcaudillg looks at the same phenomenon from a different perspective. Sooner or later he will realize that a C-LII can't be LII-LSI but only LII-IEE, LII-ILE, LII-SEE or LII-SLE...

Why don't you try to reduce instead of expand? Like, go back to 8 Jungian types and treat socionics as a two subtypes system to complement it?

Hello, I'm , subtype. What are you?

[Jarno]

Why don't you try to reduce instead of expand?

He's LII. He has to create hypothesis. It's his nature :-)

[JohnDo]

Hello, I'm , subtype. What are you?

Jungian: I'm a , subtype.
Socionics: I'm a , subtype.

Why don't you try to reduce instead of expand? Like, go back to 8 Jungian types and treat socionics as a two subtypes system to complement it?

Very different persons are one and the same type there. I want to have a system where two people of one type are as similar as possible.

[Aiss]

Jungian: I'm a , subtype.
Socionics: I'm a , subtype.

Very different persons are one and the same type there. I want to have a system where two people of one type are as similar as possible.

There are traits that objects have in common, and then there are unique ones. Creating a category for every single object would defeat the purpose of categorization.

[JohnDo]

I was using dual types/DCNH long before you even knew about gulenko. I've been through the optimism phase that you're in.

Did you discover the same VI dichotomies when you were in your optimism phase?

There are traits that objects have in common, and then there are unique ones. Creating a category for every single object would defeat the purpose of categorization.

Correct. I don't want a category for every person. I think 256 type might be enough. In my opinion it has to be possible to distinguish between the types both by behaviour and by VI. Tcaudillg suggests 1024 types and I do not know how it should ever be possible to distinguish between them...

[krieger]

Did you discover the same VI dichotomies when you were in your optimism phase?

I did not discover imaginary VI dichotomies, no. I never quite got as deluded as to think there would be a sufficient amount of certainty about the types and subtypes of any database of people to come up with such a ridiculous notion.

[xerx]

I don't think DCNH has to do with dual type theory. It makes sense that it should, but it's not explicitly stated anywhere that it does.

Mostly I think it's about the preponderance of certain functional states in an individual. You can have someone more focused on an id function, or on his creative, or even his polr. That's pretty mainstream as far as socionics theories go.

I switch between the DCNH states on a daily basis, but only one or two of the subtypes are my favorite.

Besides dual type theory seems like a more complicated chestnut.

[tcaudilllg]

I did not discover imaginary VI dichotomies, no. I never quite got as deluded as to think there would be a sufficient amount of certainty about the types and subtypes of any database of people to come up with such a ridiculous notion.

You need to watch more anime, man.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

We need some sort of repeatable, controlled experiment and loads upon loads of excecutions of it to ever get accuracy in socionics. This kind of thing is probably already going on in Russia and we're missing out on it. That's optimism speaking, though. Pessimism says that if such a thing were happening at all, the western scientific institute would long have caught up with Russia by now. And it's unthinkable that in 30 years no one ever got the idea.

[Beautiful sky]

We need some sort of repeatable, controlled experiment and loads upon loads of excecutions of it to ever get accuracy in socionics. This kind of thing is probably already going on in Russia and we're missing out on it. That's optimism speaking, though. Pessimism says that if such a thing were happening at all, the western scientific institute would long have caught up with Russia by now. And it's unthinkable that in 30 years no one ever got the idea.

what type is optimistic/pessimistic?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Beautiful sky]

SLIs, for example, are neither one or another. I doubt that there exists a "pessimistic" type, maybe a large number of IEI...

I am very optimistic and positive.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Beautiful sky]

Why? I think she's nice, the little I talked to her it was interesting and easy-going. And I don't know where you got the idea that she's "gathering facts" about you, gathering facts what for? I doubt she has nothing better to do than hiring a killer to come after you.

hypocratic, condescending, backstaber, she says she's optimistic and positive, but give her the right and she will kick you out of anything

The time I saw was the third time she asked about how I did certain things and it was from Rubicon. I don't do things like that; she assumes she's INFj and yet she doesn't know how INFj's do the things they do? It just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

[JohnDo]

I did not discover imaginary VI dichotomies, no. I never quite got as deluded as to think there would be a sufficient amount of certainty about the types and subtypes of any database of people to come up with such a ridiculous notion.

I'm not suprised by the fact that you did not discover those dichotomies because you are certainly in no way a genius, probably not even LII. But if you can't even confirm them now that they are laid out for you then you are really bad at typing...

[krieger]

But if you can't even confirm them now that they are laid out for you then you are really bad at typing...

Unless you've met all these people in person and interrogated them on every topic you need to to establish a subtyping, you are also not confirming these ideas to yourself. And that's the problem. Half of what you do is probably wrong and the only thing you've got to show for your efforts is your subjective faith in your ability to "guess" right at all this.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Out of all the LII's on the forum, JohnDo is by far the most retarded.

[krieger]

JohnDo, let me put this another way.

- Gulenko's 16 subtypes are an unproven theory, you run a risk by accepting it
- any person's typing is difficult to directly prove, you run a risk by accepting it
- any person's subtyping is very difficult to directly prove and depends on both of the above conditions, you run a doubly reinforced risk by accepting it
- your guesses as to how subtypes link up with VI are not infallible and depend on all the above conditions...
- now you also change the person's typing and subtyping and your descriptions of the subtypes and your understanding of regular types based on your own theories...

See where this is going? One big, neverending, reinforcing loop of uncertainty.

[xerx]

I don't think DCNH has to do with dual type theory. It makes sense that it should, but it's not explicitly stated anywhere that it does.

Mostly I think it's about the preponderance of certain functional states in an individual. You can have someone more focused on an id function, or on his creative, or even his polr. That's pretty mainstream as far as socionics theories go.

I switch between the DCNH states on a daily basis, but only one or two of the subtypes are my favorite.

Besides dual type theory seems like a more complicated chestnut.

Gulenko believes that type is not something static. Type is expressed in different degrees depending on the situation or the person. People of the same type (even the same DCNH subtype) have enormous differences, not only in the way they act, but also in VI. He even claims that people of different types can have a similar appearance.

So concrete behaviors are not type related. A type related behavior goes through X degress of modification before it impacts on the real world. What is consistent, afaict according to his school, is that problem solving, especially difficult problems, is related to type. Using a strong function as opposed to a weak function becomes irresistible in a situation like that.

[JohnDo]

Unless you've met all these people in person and interrogated them on every topic you need to to establish a subtyping, you are also not confirming these ideas to yourself.

Man, are you really that stupid?! Of course I met a lot of people in real life, that's how I came to my conclusions. Celebrities I only use as examples and some will always be mistyped, of course. I tried to explain it several times but you still don't understand:

I did not come to my conclusions by typing fuckin' celebrities!!

I'm not even much interested in typing celebrities! I don't even want to discuss about celebrities, either! Just go out and meet people in real life...

[JohnDo]

- Gulenko's 16 subtypes are an unproven theory, you run a risk by accepting it

I disagree completely. Socionics is an unproven theory itself. What Socionics does is claiming that people can be classified by terms like introverted/extraverted, sensory/intuitive and so on. What Gulenko's subtype theory does is claiming that people can be classified more precisely by calling them very introverted/quite introverted/quite extraverted /very extraverted. If you believe in Socionics you obviously have to believe in subtype theory, too. It is obvious that some extraverts are more extraverted than others, that some rationals are more rational than others and so on...

- any person's typing is difficult to directly prove, you run a risk by accepting it

Currently it is impossible to prove any typing. There are about 7 billions of people in the world - and not even the type of one person is proven so far...

- any person's subtyping is very difficult to directly prove and depends on both of the above conditions, you run a doubly reinforced risk by accepting it

Yeah, I'm trying to make subtypings more realiable. That's exactly what I'm doing. By making subtypings more reliable even the reliability of the main typings increases! Simply because you have better chances to compare similar persons directly if you know the subtypes of many people...

- your guesses as to how subtypes link up with VI are not infallible and depend on all the above conditions...

They are in no ways guesses but observations. I just typed and subtyped a lot of people I know in person and found out that there are clearly those correlations. Why don't you just give it a try and subtype all the people you know in person? Then you should be able to confirm my observations...

- now you also change the person's typing and subtyping and your descriptions of the subtypes and your understanding of regular types based on your own theories...

Mistypings have to be corrected. Descriptions have to be imroved. Understanding gets better and better. I can't see any of you problems...

See where this is going? One big, neverending, reinforcing loop of uncertainty.

Uncertainity is what Socionics is all about. That's why I like it that much. If you don't like uncertainity - turn away from Socionics...

[krieger]

Man, are you really that stupid?! Of course I met a lot of people in real life, that's how I came to my conclusions. Celebrities I only use as examples and some will always be mistyped, of course. I tried to explain it several times but you still don't understand:

I did not come to my conclusions by typing fuckin' celebrities!!

I'm not even much interested in typing celebrities! I don't even want to discuss about celebrities, either! Just go out and meet people in real life...

They only proof or indication of the correctness of your views you can give involves using celebrities as examples. It's all the same.

I disagree completely. Socionics is an unproven theory itself. What Socionics does is claiming that people can be classified by terms like introverted/extraverted, sensory/intuitive and so on. What Gulenko's subtype theory does is claiming that people can be classified more precisely by calling them very introverted/quite introverted/quite extraverted /very extraverted. If you believe in Socionics you obviously have to believe in subtype theory, too. It is obvious that some extraverts are more extraverted than others, that some rationals are more rational than others and so on...

You're helping my case, not your own. Socionics is already an unproven theory. You add another layer of uncertainty to that. Socionics has a much larger base of supporters than Gulenko's subtype theory, and socionics already has a dangerously small one.

[JohnDo]

They only proof or indication of the correctness of your views you can give involves using celebrities as examples. It's all the same.

You don't understand what Socionics is all about. Those celebrities are only examples. Of course I can't really type them because I just don't know them in person. That's fucking obvious, isn't it?
Should I post pictures of my relatives, pals and so on? Wouldn't help you, either, because you don't know them. So just type the people you know in person. That's how Socionics works anyway...

Socionics is already an unproven theory. You add another layer of uncertainty to that. Socionics has a much larger base of supporters than Gulenko's subtype theory, and socionics already has a dangerously small one.

Correct. So if you don't like subtypes - just ignore them, even though they are very useful...

[Creepy-Cyclops]

So if you don't like subtypes - just ignore them, even though they are very useful...

I disagree completely. Socionics is an unproven theory itself. What Socionics does is claiming that people can be classified by terms like introverted/extraverted, sensory/intuitive and so on. What Gulenko's subtype theory does is claiming that people can be classified more precisely by calling them very introverted/quite introverted/quite extraverted /very extraverted. If you believe in Socionics you obviously have to believe in subtype theory, too. It is obvious that some extraverts are more extraverted than others, that some rationals are more rational than others and so on...

I find it strange that a Ti dominant contradicts himself so quickly, not saying you aren't Ti dominant, just that it's....interesting I suppose, in a way.