Supersocion Theory explained

[krieger]

I'd say that before these theories can be appreciated by the 'masses', we'd need some simplified descriptions of some of the concepts we are discussing with it. A good start would be:

- there are two types in every person instead of one; a master personality (also called metabolism type) and a slave personality (also called exertion type). Any two master and slave types can combine to form a whole personality. One can, for example, have a personality that combines the world-view of two conflicting types, such as the INTj and ESFp.

- the master/metabolism type largely determines how a person lives their life, whereas the slave/exertion type determines how the person sees the world on an elementary level, and how the person acts in a concrete way. An master type INTj with a slave type ENFp, for example, primarily focusses on those things in reality that involve attractions between people and the intangible properties of those people that warrant those attractions, but sees it as his/her task in life to organize this world with analyses.

- master/slave type combinations are usually denoted in the following way: [master type]-[slave type]. An example would be INTj-ENFp, where INTj is the master type and ENFp is the slave type.

- relations exist between types on both the master and the slave level. For example, two persons can be duals on the master level and conflictors on the slave level at the same time. Such people would understand eachothers' motives, but not eachothers' concrete actions.

- in addition to two types, people's personalities are defined by an Information Domain that the person belongs to. This domain determines what kind of political views the person holds, and how the person makes decisions on the correctness of choices apart from simply perceiving the world in a certain way.

Information domains can be read about here: http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t..._domain_theory

Particularly the schematic at the bottom of the page will be of interest.

- the information domains are 4 in number, namely Universalism, Adaptationism, Traditionalism and Specialism. Every domain conflicts with one of the other three domains, and is only half capable of constructively cooperating with the remaining two. Individuals from the same domain cooperate with no difficulties at all, regardless of any awkwardness that may exist on the level of the master and slave type. (tcaudilllg and myself are both Universalists, to give an example)

- the persons in each information domain are in turn sub-divided into Field-orients and Object-orients. The former are concerned with global, collective ideals and goals, whereas the latter are concerned with specific, personal ideals and goals. Each of these subdivisions has a unique name. See the schematic in the Psychic Domain Theory wiki page for this. (link above)

Advanced hypotheses: (I don't fully understand these myself and reserve oppinion on how accurate theory on these is)

- there exist certain individuals with unique properties that give them specialized roles in society.

- the first is the Opinion Leader, a person who communicates with people outside of his/her Information Domain to see where there is a common ground that allows cooperation where none was otherwise possible.

- the second is the Rescendent, a person who fits the common definition of a "psychopath". Theory says that these people have the roles of their conscious and unconscious functions reversed.

- the third is the Immanent, a person who, instead of seeking the minimal amount of reconciliation with opposition that an ordinary person exhibits, tries to surpress opposing influences to the extreme.

- Further, people that reach certain stages in life, unlock features of their personality that had laid dormant before. These stages are: age 22-23, adulthood, age 35-40, the midlife crisis, age 50-60 seniority, and as a final stage of life, the acceptance of death. Each of these stages (except debatably of course, the last) gives the person access to a function of psyche that was previously inaccessible, allowing them to see beyond there own viewpoint and letting them cooperate with those who are different from them in new ways.

[Enters Laughing]

- Further, people that reach certain stages in life, unlock features of their personality that had laid dormant before. These stages are: age 22-23, adulthood, age 35-40, the midlife crisis, age 50-60 seniority, and as a final stage of life, the acceptance of death. Each of these stages (except debatably of course, the last) gives the person access to a function of psyche that was previously inaccessible, allowing them to see beyond there own viewpoint and letting them cooperate with those who are different from them in new ways.

''During the Roman Empire, Romans had a approximate life expectancy of 22 to 25 years. In 1900, the world life expectancy was approximately 30 years and in 1985 it was about 62 years, just two years short of today's life expectancy.''

[krieger]

*sincere apologies to Subterranean - I wrongly assumed his post was an act of vandalism in a style common to this forum*

[Enters Laughing]

Don't do that, subterranean, it's not a sign of good character. I really want people to understand what tcaudilllg and I are doing, and you are hindering it.

It is unlikely that these stages are part of the human psyche...people in the past expected to die at the age of 30 or so...they would hardly have been preparing to have a 'mid-life' crisis.

[krieger]

Not a bad point. It may very well be that these tresholds lay at different ages in different stages of human evolution. However, the fact that not all humans would reach the tresholds in earlier times does not invalidate that they might have laid where they are now from the beginning (whatever that beginning might be).

[tcaudilllg]

- Further, people that reach certain stages in life, unlock features of their personality that had laid dormant before. These stages are: age 22-23, adulthood, age 35-40, the midlife crisis, age 50-60 seniority, and as a final stage of life, the acceptance of death. Each of these stages (except debatably of course, the last) gives the person access to a function of psyche that was previously inaccessible, allowing them to see beyond there own viewpoint and letting them cooperate with those who are different from them in new ways.

''During the Roman Empire, Romans had a approximate life expectancy of 22 to 25 years. In 1900, the world life expectancy was approximately 30 years and in 1985 it was about 62 years, just two years short of today's life expectancy.''

Those are average estimates. Two points:

1) Intuition seems capable of recognizing a dangerous situation when it sees one, and can respond to threats to the degree the psyche will allow it to. However, some things -- plague, starvation, nuclear annihilation... things that one has no control over whatever one's state of mind/non-human related factors -- beat intuition. If anything, these events "short-circuit" a person's development before their time. (not sure what that means in terms of the bigger psychic picture.)

2) The actual figures may have been somewhat higher than those estimates. Indeed, median life expectancies are debated: although useful as an indicator of severe social problems, they may not be the best way to examine historical situations otherwise. So to say, they are a warning flag -- signs of an -Ni future that never materializes because people take initiative to stop it from happening.

[tcaudilllg]

interesting. but even though could be explained with classical socionics and biological brain disfunctions, still at least Looks like it Could have merit.

And what are these "disfunctions" you propose?

[Expat]

''During the Roman Empire, Romans had a approximate life expectancy of 22 to 25 years. In 1900, the world life expectancy was approximately 30 years and in 1985 it was about 62 years, just two years short of today's life expectancy.''

Those are averages, brought down by the fact that many children died before 5.

In the Roman Empire - and already in the Roman Republic - the minimum legal age to be elected consul (the highest executive office) was 42. Since two consuls were elected every year, and only men of the senatorial class (ie wealthy men) were elegible, surely they weren't expecting that most men wouldn't even reach that age - were they?

Narrowing down to one single family - the early imperial family - as an anecdotal example, we have the following as to how long some individuals lived:

- Augustus, first emperor: 76 years
- Livia, his wife: 86 years
- Tiberius, her son (and his stepson): 77 years (and he may have been murdered).

So the idea that "Romans had a approximate life expectancy of 22 to 25 years" - and that that would somehow invalidate considerations of psychological development - is, just, silly.

[Enters Laughing]

The people who had tombstones built for themselves were typically in their twenties to early thirties. If they were preparing for death way before they were 40, then I find it hard to see there being a genetic basis for people having a mid-life crisis beyond the age of 40. I believe mid-life crisises are more to do with culture and social pressures than age or anything ingrained into the ancestral psyche or whatever - the whole concept is rather vague anyway, and most people don't have mid-life crisises, however loosely defined.

[tcaudilllg]

I think that stands to question.

Perhaps Expat can relate his experience of allowing his Fi to influence his Fe (ENTj form of the 2nd transcendent function), and the circumstances which led him to accept that possibility.

[munenori2]

So are there any theoretical limits to the whole master/slave type deal? I mean, could you be INFj-ESTp or is that something that is purely out of the question? There would have to be limits of some kind, I would think, because I can't see how that would work without somebody's head exploding Scanner-style.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY-03vYYAjA[/youtube]

[tcaudilllg]

That would be true, except you don't consciously process the slave/exertion type. It's something you do, rather. You might compare it to a motor process, such as a reflex or anecdotal observation. It's a part of the bigger whole, but your mind barely registers it. Consider my experience of exertion FeNi: it's something so usual, so causal that if I were unaware of the existence of exertion type I would expect everyone to "see" the same world I observe; in fact, unless I'm talking to someone who's exertion type is radically different from my own (such as ISTp), then there will be no inclination that anything is out of the ordinary. The world you see may not be the world other people see, because you choose to interact with some energies more than others, and have varying degrees of confidence in the same. If someone is relying on energies different from your own, then that which you deem to be happening around you may not be what they observe in their own experience. Thus you end up responding to different aspects of reality on different pretenses, and perhaps even end up undermining each others' efforts whether you are aware of it or no.

[misutii]

This whole master-slave type thing definitely interests me, I remember reading a machine translated russian article about it and wishing it was in proper english... but I was trying to figure out how exactly to figure it all out and I couldn't do it, I figured that I should start with myself but I honestly have no idea what my "slave" type would be. Is there any way to find out? How did any of you figure out yours?

Furthermore I can't help but see this Supersocion theory as an elaboration of sub-type theory... so in basic socionics there's 16 types, but as you learn more and type more people you notice more patterns and suddenly each type has a subtype so 32 types... then you learn more and notice more patterns... Anyways I want to know: is your "slave" type in any way related to your subtype? i.e. I'm INFp-Ni, does the fact that I'm an Ni-subtype mean that I'm more likely to have a certain "slave" type than an INFp-Fe would have? There's 16 'slave' types so do 8 of them merely build upon a certain subtype and the other 8 upon another? I might be way off base here, tell me if I am, it's just that when I was trying to find more info on subtypes I kept coming across Russian articles where the master-slave type thing was mentioned so figured they might be related

[krieger]

- begin by realizing that your relations with people are influenced by factors other than the socionics type (= master type unders SST) the effect of which is at least as large, if not much larger than that of the socionics type. See the "forms of conflict unders Supersocion Theory" for hints as to what these factors are.

- notice that every type characteristic described in socionics exists in four graduations: Double Existance of the attribute, Complete Absence of the attribute, and two directions in which one attribute can 'overlook' it's antithesis. For example, there are Double Intuitors (people that are theoretical to the point of complete impracticability), Double Sensors (men and women of action; people that don't engage in any intuitive reflection whatsoever), Intuitors overlooking Sensation (people that reflect on a world of practical happenings) and Sensors overlooking Intuition (people that have intuitive abilities but use them towards practical ends).

- notice that certain environments favor certain attributes, thus leading to a higher distribution of that attribute. Institutes of high learning, like universities, for example, have a significantly larger distribution of Double Intuitors. Mixed sensor/intuitors will still be widespread in such environments, but Double Sensors will be in the minority.

- begin analysing the differences between the various identicals of yours that you meet. In particular, notice that they have different ways of explaining their views, different ideas, that they notice different things and that they appreciate different activities. What you have in common with your identicals has nothing to do with how you view the world: only with how you live in it, and how you organize the worlds' contents.

[tcaudilllg]

Consistent. Good suggestions.

[FDG]

What would happen with a cross between identicality in slave type and master of another person? We would see the world as the person lives it. Thus we would view the world the way the other party lives it, and actually have more insight into their psyche as they have it themselves, unless they happen to have a coincident master-slave type.

[tcaudilllg]

Yeah I think that's sound reasoning, because the master type could metabolize the energy of the other person's slave type.

[FDG]

By the way, it might just be my mixed sensing intuiting nature as opposed to your double intuiting, but I feel like you have built your theory upside down. If you were to start from the ends you have reached now - which make perfect sense and are completely adaptable to real-life happenings - nobody would have previously dismissed it with such strength.

One of my doubts is whether we are describing under different labels phenomena that have been already classified in classical socionics. Who assures me that universalism-specialism and adaptism-traditionalism aren't just two axed of an 11-dimensional hyperplane that cointains the renin dichotomies, just translated? Nobody indeed, but I'll make an act of trust.

[tcaudilllg]

Well it wouldn't hold up to experience to expect, for example, all authority-democracy types to split along those lines politically.

The two theories use the same terms, but for different meanings.

[krieger]

What would happen with a cross between identicality in slave type and master of another person? We would see the world as the person lives it. Thus we would view the world the way the other party lives it, and actually have more insight into their psyche as they have it themselves, unless they happen to have a coincident master-slave type.

I personally don't notice anything groundbreaking in that regard. I don't see ENFp's any different than any other type.

One of my doubts is whether we are describing under different labels phenomena that have been already classified in classical socionics. Who assures me that universalism-specialism and adaptism-traditionalism aren't just two axed of an 11-dimensional hyperplane that cointains the renin dichotomies, just translated? Nobody indeed, but I'll make an act of trust.

That would mean that the kind of conflict that we presume exists between people of conflicting Information Domains can be explained using only the socionics types. We constatate that this is not the case. People with conflicting socionics types have very little reason to 'hate' eachother when there is not also Information Domain conflict going on. Under normal circumstances, socionics type conflict means little more than awkwardness.

[tcaudilllg]

[quote]

What would happen with a cross between identicality in slave type and master of another person? We would see the world as the person lives it. Thus we would view the world the way the other party lives it, and actually have more insight into their psyche as they have it themselves, unless they happen to have a coincident master-slave type.

I personally don't notice anything groundbreaking in that regard. I don't see ENFp's any different than any other type.

FDG I think that's a good observation.

Much has been made of ******'s theatrical capacity; indeed, the argument goes that ENFjs in general know how to play a role. But do they define the role they play? Not usually: that is the domain the ENFJ exertion types, because drama is a response to observation. If the situation calls for an emotionally arousing demonstration, the exertion ENFJ will offer it by conveying their state of mind so effectively that others literally get swept up in it. In such a state the ENFJ finds themselves well suited, because they have lots of relevant information to process.

Is this what you were referring to, FDG?

[misutii]

i still have no idea how to figure out mine or anyone else's "slave" type

[tcaudilllg]

i still have no idea how to figure out mine or anyone else's "slave" type

Ask yourself, "if I were to consider my influence on the world as a socionics type, what type would it be and why?" Actually you only have to figure out two details: your base function's usage of energy, and your creative function's use of energy.

Your base is doing one of eight things, each corresponding to an energic information element:
- realizing possibilities you have heard about, or trying to prevent things from happening
- bringing things into harmony with each other, or dischord
- trying to set in motion a series of events
- trying to create new bonds between things, or disconnect them
- trying to restructure things, or to take them apart
- trying to create a positive emotional reaction in someone, or a negative reaction
- trying to set something in motion, or to stop it or restrain it
- trying to convey a cognitive frame of reference

Ditto for the creative function. One activity can be the means of accomplishing another.

I highly suspect that hitta's functional revise holds for the slave type as much as for the master, so there are positive and negative forms of energy in the psyche. (which may seem obvious, but without hitta how could you frame it in structure? From what hitta's been saying, functional revise is actually an application of a new worldview he is developing. Seems to me it should operate anywhere polar opposites exist, as he defines it.)

[tcaudilllg]

labcoat, don't you think that the positive conversational atmosphere you project into this forum is beneficial for ENFps?

[munenori2]

Ok, this is pretty much not confined purely to this post alone. I've been reading what it is you guys have to say and, obviously, on my part there is some confusion. That's to be expected. So basically, my questions are these:

I take it that the 'gradations' of the dichotomies applies to more than just the S/N in that there can be double introverts, extraverts overlooking introverts, double thinkers, judging overlooking perceiving, and so on. Is this a correct assumption? Essentially, you've got the master/slave type, say INFj-INTp which would amount to double introvert, double intuiter, feeling overlooking thinking, and judging overlooking perceiving if I'm grasping the underlying form of these things. From the perspective of the individual, would this be experienced as a very strong pull towards I and N, as well as slight preferences in F and j in typing themselves? There are, of course, probably other considerations to think of, like a person's skewed view of themself and so on, so maybe it would be more accurate to place these judgements in an overall consensus of an (hopefully) objective outside view.

Also, I wanted to get a clearer picture of the dynamics of the master/slave distinction in terms of the person. It's been said that the master is the metabolism type and the slave is the energic type. Does this amount to the master type being the use of that individual's 'preferred' types of energy and the slave being the kind of energy that the person naturally exudes? I'm also unclear on what precisely is meant by energy in this context. I guess I've thought of it more in terms of information, where it relates to energy in terms of their own and another's ability to take in that information in a sense that is valued by them and doesn't require extensive energy in doing so. Then there's also the question of what this means for how the person views/interacts with the world. This issue has seemed to be addressed, but more elaboration would be helpful to (and appreciated by) me.

There are some more thoughts I have on this whole deal, but I think I'm going to have to ruminate on them some more before I go about spouting them off. I suppose my interest is the effect this has on looking at someone's system of values. In the INFj-INTj case, would be valued by both, but is strong in one sense and weak in another, whereas would be valued only in one and strong in two senses (if that makes sense ) Given this example, you might quantify their values as predominantly Fi and Te, while also saying that these aren't the strongest functions they use (which would be Ne and Ni, albeit valued less than those two). Though as to the practical use or significance, I don't know. Just something that struck me as potentially interesting, I guess. Anyway, hopefully some of you might find these considerations worth thinking about.

[anndelise]

Your base is doing one of eight things, each corresponding to an energic information element:
- realizing possibilities you have heard about, or trying to prevent things from happening
- bringing things into harmony with each other, or dischord
- trying to set in motion a series of events
- trying to create new bonds between things, or disconnect them
- trying to restructure things, or to take them apart
- trying to create a positive emotional reaction in someone, or a negative reaction
- trying to set something in motion, or to stop it or restrain it
- trying to convey a cognitive frame of reference

Ditto for the creative function. One activity can be the means of accomplishing another.

I highly suspect that hitta's functional revise holds for the slave type as much as for the master, so there are positive and negative forms of energy in the psyche. (which may seem obvious, but without hitta how could you frame it in structure? From what hitta's been saying, functional revise is actually an application of a new worldview he is developing. Seems to me it should operate anywhere polar opposites exist, as he defines it.)

I tried going through your list...I'm having problems picking out which would be the base.
Here's the thing....
I get an idea in my head, something I want to do (at least at the moment), but I don't know how to do it.
So I try to find books and such to learn how to do it.
Unfortunately, I don't like how the books are set up. I just want a step by step format so I can just follow the tasks without having to give it much thought. But not just that, I also want to have room for maneuvering and adding in my own during the process.

For example, I'm currently trying to learn how to cook. But I really really really hate even the concept of following a recipe. It feels like someone standing over my shoulder barking orders at me and trying to force me to do it perfectly. It completely removes any personality. What I want is to learn some techniques that apply to various foods so I can do more of a mix-and-match thing. Less focus on "perfection".

Just before the cooking idea, I was trying to learn how to play a musical instrument....I chose the ocarina because it's portable, can be played anywhere, and has a nice sound to it, and has less need for upkeep of the instrument. I went shopping for stuff on learning how to play. I kept running into Western Music Theory. It's not how I want to learn. It's not how primitive man learned. And it's not the only method of playing. I also don't want to read music. (I already can, but it's like the recipe thing....too demanding for exactness.) (btw, the perfectionism and feeling of being demanded for exactness is unnatural for me, it's only part of me due to my upbringing and is annoying as fuck!) Anyways, after extensive searching and much frustration, I finally found a program that fit what I was looking for…only it's still not quite there yet. Close, but not there yet.

In both instances, I get very frustrated because I feel blocked from taking action. Also because it's as if in order to get what I want, I have to create it myself. And…I…really…fucking…hate…that…process….not to mention sucking at it. Even just a little bit totally drains me. It would be easier if I knew something of the subject, but when I don't, it's like pulling a semi down the road just to get even the first few steps figured out. By then I'm so frustrated (and angry), that I get generally pissy at everything else until my attention turns to some other project I want to do.

I've eventually learned that I can cycle through projects, and if I keep good notes of the basics I felt were important…or made sense to me, then I'm able to get a little bit further the next time, and things make a little but more sense to me the next time.


So, basically, I don't know what the "wanting to DO" one would be, but the creative would possibly be "trying to restructure things, or to take them apart".

But then, the fact that it's so aggravating to me (as well as the fact that I likely wouldn't be doing it if it weren't for that flippin "perfectionism and demand" crap I had to learn) could suggest that none of what I wrote above applies to

Ask yourself, "if I were to consider my influence on the world as a socionics type, what type would it be and why?" Actually you only have to figure out two details: your base function's usage of energy, and your creative function's use of energy.

i'm asking for ideas, but if i feel you aren't understanding me, I WILL argue back...or drop the whole thing :wink:

[misutii]

Do drugs and neurosis alter a person's "slave" type? i.e. If you went into a mental asylum would you find a large proportion of ppl with conflicting master/slave types - INFp-ESTj, INTj-ESFp etc.

Furthermore does slave type influence how we interact with the world? (i.e. would people who use the internet to learn about things, like us at this forum, be more likely to have a Logical slave type whereas people that seek other people in their local community face to face to find information might be more likely to have an SF slave type?)

This is confusing but so far I think I'm a double irrational intuitive INFp-xNxp cuz I'm double lazy/impractical lol

[krieger]

Do drugs and neurosis alter a person's "slave" type? i.e. If you went into a mental asylum would you find a large proportion of ppl with conflicting master/slave types - INFp-ESTj, INTj-ESFp etc.

Probably no more than they affect the master type. I personally believe in 'minor type changes', and think that both the master and slave type are capable of gradually changing over time. Behavioral training seems to have done the trick for the one person I know who reports has gone through this. It's not impossible that drugs could help at it aswell.

However, my view of people with conflicting master and slave types is not that they are mentally unstable. In fact, they should be thought of as highly 'effective' people; people that are capable of dealing with any kind of situation no matter how contradictory the action required to tackle it. An example of this might be "Dr." Phil McGraw, whoose type I think a good bet would be ISTj-ENFp.

Furthermore does slave type influence how we interact with the world? (i.e. would people who use the internet to learn about things, like us at this forum, be more likely to have a Logical slave type whereas people that seek other people in their local community face to face to find information might be more likely to have an SF slave type?)

Certainly. I myself have a slave type with a Concrete (+) Creating Introvert Feeling function. What this means, is that I find it very uninstinctive to accept information when there isn't someone who I trust has reliable judgment that already believes in it. I'd expect other 'feeling' slave types to give similar behaviors, and I'd expect people with 'logical' slave types to rely more on step-by-step reasoning.

Of course, the trick here, again, is to think in graduations. If feeling and thinking coexist in a person, you're going to see a bit of both in the behavior.

This is confusing but so far I think I'm a double irrational intuitive INFp-xNxp cuz I'm double lazy/impractical lol

That's a good first step. I think that the double-intuitiveness in particular is fairly easy to identify in oneself (although there is the risk of picking it for self-flattering reasons; given how intuition is always associated with the intellect).

As a double-irrational, I'd expect you to have a view of the world that supposes very little control on behalf of people and society on what happens in the world. A "chaos is the natural state of the universe" kind of world-view. Ring any bell?

[misutii]

This is confusing but so far I think I'm a double irrational intuitive INFp-xNxp cuz I'm double lazy/impractical lol

That's a good first step. I think that the double-intuitiveness in particular is fairly easy to identify in oneself (although there is the risk of picking it for self-flattering reasons; given how intuition is always associated with the intellect).

As a double-irrational, I'd expect you to have a view of the world that supposes very little control on behalf of people and society on what happens in the world. A "chaos is the natural state of the universe" kind of world-view. Ring any bell?

Yes very much! I see stability as an illusion and am more comfortable with "guide lines" rather then strict rules. I see routines as prison cells. When I think of the earth I see it as a fragile grain of salt at the mercy of a cosmos we don't yet truly understand.

Do quadra values effect slave type? How would an introverted slave type's worldview differ from an extroverted? And logical from ethical?

I'm quite certain that I'm a double intuitive now and don't see it as self-flattery, for example I have an INTp friend that likely possesses a sensory slave type and we've talked about this, although I'm more "intellectual"/abstract than him, he has a higher IQ/intellect.

[krieger]

Slave introverts see the world as philosophically problematic. They have 'deep' worldviews. They question the inner nature of things that are taken for granted by others. Slave extroverts, on the other hand, see no problem with just 'copying' their understanding of reality from their surroundings. They consider most philosophical problems unintelligible.

Two cases of typical slave-introvert behavior on this forum:
Hitta declaring that there is no "objective reality"
Phaedrus making a big issue out of dismissing relativism

Reyn til Runa is very likely also a slave type introvert.

Sigmund Freud's wikiquote page is filled to the brims with quotes antithetical to slave introversion... Couldn't find the exact quote, but he has once said something along the lines of "love and work are all there is to life". Some of his quotes directly ridicule the slave-introvert's need for deep understanding. It might be worth taking a look and seeing what you think about this way of "unproblematizing" questions.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud

Slave logicals focus on what they know, whereas slave ethicals focus on gaps in their knowledge; problems they want solved. Also, the slave logical understands things in a technical way, while the slave ethical understands the human significance of the things s/he investigates.

-- I may have placed to much of an emphasis on philosophy here... slave introverts think about things in a deep way that is difficult for slave-extroverts to follow. They take in a problem as a whole in stead of looking at each of it's parts.

[krieger]

I take it that the 'gradations' of the dichotomies applies to more than just the S/N in that there can be double introverts, extraverts overlooking introverts, double thinkers, judging overlooking perceiving, and so on. Is this a correct assumption?

Certainly so. You can think in terms of "Quadra's overlooking quadra's" in supersocion theory. You can even use Reinin traits, for example, to explain INTj-ENFp as a double Negative/Result/Static type.

[reyn_til_runa]

Slave introverts see the world as philosophically problematic. They have 'deep' worldviews. They question the inner nature of things that are taken for granted by others. Slave extroverts, on the other hand, see no problem with just 'copying' their understanding of reality from their surroundings. They consider most philosophical problems unintelligible.

Two cases of typical slave-introvert behavior on this forum:
Hitta declaring that there is no "objective reality"
Phaedrus making a big issue out of dismissing relativism

Reyn til Runa is very likely also a slave type introvert.

Sigmund Freud's wikiquote page is filled to the brims with quotes antithetical to slave introversion... Couldn't find the exact quote, but he has once said something along the lines of "love and work are all there is to life". Some of his quotes directly ridicule the slave-introvert's need for deep understanding. It might be worth taking a look and seeing what you think about this way of "unproblematizing" questions.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud

Slave logicals focus on what they know, whereas slave ethicals focus on gaps in their knowledge; problems they want solved. Also, the slave logical understands things in a technical way, while the slave ethical understands the human significance of the things s/he investigates.

-- I may have placed to much of an emphasis on philosophy here... slave introverts think about things in a deep way that is difficult for slave-extroverts to follow. They take in a problem as a whole in stead of looking at each of it's parts.

i would say i may be a slave - introvert ethical. although i wouldn't exactly say i understand the human significance of the things i investigate in a personal way, i would say i have a good grasp on historical trends and how they affect different types/groups of people. i wonder if my job in social work sheds light on my slave type? i seem to be in it for different reasons than most i've encountered in the field. a common reason seems to be "to help people." for me, while i recognize that i am probably helping people by default, it's not my motivation. my motivation is to understand a wider range of human behavior, to test the limits of my comfort (often being with people all day, some of whom exhibit difficult behaviors, makes me want to isolate myself), to grow in knowledge that will help me in other areas.

does the slave type almost have a default "feel" to it? i wonder if i may be INTp-ISFp. what might one look like? it might also be worth saying that i had thought i was ENTp for awhile, easily seeing ISFp as my dual. is it common for ones slave type to seem to be his/her master type dual when it is not?

also, could you explain the whole-parts distinction a bit more? i relate to doing both and am not sure which would be my master/slave tendency.

[tcaudilllg]

I think slave ISFp sounds pretty good given her focuses, don't you think labcoat? Particularly, her focus about how things affect each other over time. That seems very to me. Also, slave Fe would be used to discuss different point of view: if she is a ISFp slave type, then we should be capable of discerning in everything she posts a sense of contribution toward the discussion of others' points of view, on the basis of people's influence over each other over time. So to say, given that we all run the risk of negatively affecting each other, we need to be aware that there are differences in our opinions. INTp-ISFp could also look at things like the history of a war between nations, for example, and isolate the different opinions involved in the conflict.

[tcaudilllg]

By the way, it might just be my mixed sensing intuiting nature as opposed to your double intuiting, but I feel like you have built your theory upside down. If you were to start from the ends you have reached now - which make perfect sense and are completely adaptable to real-life happenings - nobody would have previously dismissed it with such strength.

One of my doubts is whether we are describing under different labels phenomena that have been already classified in classical socionics. Who assures me that universalism-specialism and adaptism-traditionalism aren't just two axed of an 11-dimensional hyperplane that cointains the renin dichotomies, just translated? Nobody indeed, but I'll make an act of trust.

Today I came upon this article in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociall...ructed_reality

You can think of the conscious axis as an essentialist viewpoint, and the life axis as idealist/social constructivist. Now the interesting part comes when you contrast weak social constructivism -- which I trust you endorse and I do too, because I recognize its role in society and also, its basic foundation of life orientation -- with strong social constructivism, because that's when the conflict between the transcendent and the immanent is illuminated.

In fact, I suspect that the path to reconciliation between ourselves and our respective animas, is primarily a matter of integrating the influence of the immanent into our lives in a way that doesn't completely divorce us from reality.

[FDG]

By the way, it might just be my mixed sensing intuiting nature as opposed to your double intuiting, but I feel like you have built your theory upside down. If you were to start from the ends you have reached now - which make perfect sense and are completely adaptable to real-life happenings - nobody would have previously dismissed it with such strength.

One of my doubts is whether we are describing under different labels phenomena that have been already classified in classical socionics. Who assures me that universalism-specialism and adaptism-traditionalism aren't just two axed of an 11-dimensional hyperplane that cointains the renin dichotomies, just translated? Nobody indeed, but I'll make an act of trust.

Today I came upon this article in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociall...ructed_reality

You can think of the conscious axis as an essentialist viewpoint, and the life axis as idealist/social constructivist. Now the interesting part comes when you contrast weak social constructivism -- which I trust you endorse and I do too, because I recognize its role in society and also, its basic foundation of life orientation -- with strong social constructivism, because that's when the conflict between the transcendent and the immanent is illuminated.

In fact, I suspect that the path to reconciliation between ourselves and our respective animas, is primarily a matter of integrating the influence of the immanent into our lives in a way that doesn't completely divorce us from reality.

Good points. In this sense your plane can be considered also as a way to integrate what is lacking in ourselves, rather than a simply descriptive and static snapshot of our personality which is provided by classical socionics. So basically, the difference between your perspective and the 11-renin-dimensionality is that for any given type there is no fixed bounded set of preferences for either way in the conscious or life axis, right? I think a similar experiment has been made with an old political test. It had also been constructed a graph that showed where different types were placed in terms of political stance, and as you theorize it was impossible to form well-defined clusters.

[tcaudilllg]

As I see it, the process of individuation -- its internal, graduated aspect at least -- infers that most of us learn to find peace with ourselves as we get older, effectively mitigating our faults bit by bit through direct interaction with the subconscious ranges of information which take vengence for our having them. Of course the bit-by-bit part is only a conscious effort to try to understand the subconscious on consciousness' terms. Ultimately we must be willing to let the subconscious have a say in our considerations to really understand it, but in all likelyhood the capacity to do so is a genetically induced transformation made possible by changes in the relationship between brain regions and the flow of chemicals between them. The brain has a lot of self-regulating mechanisms which are very difficult to overcome, so in normal people at least the potential for personality change is limited.

According to Jung, "man" becomes more interested in cultural pursuits when he enters his second half of life. Under psychic domain theory, Jung, as a liberal universalist, would be referring to man as progressive universalism. (obviously "man" would not be referring to the adaptists and traditionalists, whom have a strong interest in culture as a regulator of behavior throughout their lives.) This is an important change because it is on the matter of the opposing axis that the two poles of an axis can agree: specialists and universalists both stand to lose from a social program that exhalts life above experience (see communism), and traditionalists and adaptists can see the problems with a lifestyle that holds psychological matters of ideology and internal contentedness above imminent existential concerns. (consider modern indepedent critiques of the two party system in the United States, and too, its vulnerability to Sept. 11.) Each axis agrees on a middle ground by which to meet its opposite. The effective outcome of say, a universalist and a specialist learning to put aside their negative projections of each other to take a common stand on cultural trends (the apparent substance of American politics), is a permanent. I believe this happens because one learns/acquires the ability to let the dual-seeking function act as a direct advisor to the role function, thus enabling a cross-domain receptivity to 5th function content as a means of determining one's role. Although I can't offer a lot of specifics right now, the essence of the change is a permanent relationship between yourself and all of your duals across all domains, meaning that even among your ideosyncratic opposition, one out of 16 of them have your back, and will vouch for your usefulness to them.

The way I see it, most of us are going to learn to put our differences aside someday anyhow, so why not make the good faith effort to understand people the way of individuation is gonna bring you into reconciliation with anyway? On the other hand, there appear to be some people who are lacking the ability altogether to process all eight domain perspectives of a given subconscious function. These people can't engage you in reconcilation at all: their biases make any meeting of the minds very difficult, if not impossible. I refer to these people as immanent, because they desire total psychic domain/dyad purity in their functions, looking at everything that is even indirectly antagonistic to their native domain as a kind of blight to be purged at all costs.

I suspect a lot of the hostility on this forum is due to the efforts of immanent persons. (I'm talking about Phaedrus in particular.)

[misutii]

so how does one's slave-type interact with another person's master-type? In my relations with other people I've always gravitated towards logical types. In fact out of the 9 people that I'd call friends (i've known each for at least 3 years) they're:
2 ESTp-Ti
ESTp-Se
INTj-Ne
ENTp-Ne
INTp-Ni
ENTj-Te
INFj-Ne
ENFj-Ni

I now think I'm INFp-INxx, does that pattern of relations indicate anything of my slave type? Is an intuitive master-type with an intuitive subtype (i.e. INTj-Ne) more likely to have an intuitive slave-type?

[bibliophile8]

I think I might be INTj-ESxx, or something like that, but now I'm questioning everything about my type.

@tcaudilllg Could you explain more about the introvert versus the extravert slave function?

@labcoat This is probably just my own idiocy, but could you label which of those questions for one's slave type correlate to which info element?

[redbaron]

That would mean that the kind of conflict that we presume exists between people of conflicting Information Domains can be explained using only the socionics types. We constatate that this is not the case. People with conflicting socionics types have very little reason to 'hate' eachother when there is not also Information Domain conflict going on. Under normal circumstances, socionics type conflict means little more than awkwardness.

This has definitely been my experience. I have a conflictor with whom we share information domains and there's no hatred or even inability to get along. Just a wrinkle of my nose at him when he does things in a way I would never think to do because I don't value the same things.

Your theories are very very interesting. I need to read more.

[tcaudilllg]

After a lot of consideration and analysis, I've come to a couple tentative conclusions regarding two matters of supersocion theory.

- On the question of rescendence in terms of functional revise, the deciding element of a function (-Ti for INTj base function, for example) is exchanged with the auxiliary/advisor element of its contrary (+Ti id in this example). However, in the case of rescendency, the signs are reversed. Therefore +Ti is in the lead, backed up by -Te. When the rescendent function in active, -Ti takes over the ego and +Ti moves to the id in the function order. With -Te still in place as the ego's control function's advisor, this gives the outward appearance of a transcendent thinking process. By such means a rescendent individual can appear very appealing and open to people of his own psychic domain, even offering a clarity of focus where others of their type would waver. Such a person can thus appear heroic in their own private circle, especially to those who do not know them well. By offering solutions which the socially adjusted person would never consider, they may seem to offer something too good to be true. Of course the inevitable answer is that it is indeed just that, as the great fundraising/investment/scientific research/pyramid schemes and, most nefariously of all, the world's totalitarian states remind us. The reason, in fact, that they offer these pseudo-solutions is because their non-recendent functions remain unchanged. -Ne can indeed work with -Ti, however strange that may sound. The invocation of the rescendent function, however, will set the non-rescendent functions into turmoil, literally diving them against themselves on the basis. This turmoil is invariably projected into the external world, in which signs of the conflict may be observed. For just as the socially adjusted world frowns on the perverse antics of the sociopath, so do the urges to think in manners that are well adjusted to reality take their vengence on those who attempt to lead thought away from it. (In the case of the INTj, -Ne's focus on a handful of negative possibilities, filled with visions of "wonderful disharmony", are appalling to +Ne's openness and idealism.)

- On the question of immanence, there appear to be two distinct approaches held by the immanent with regard to their internal conflicts, each with its own coherent and mutually exclusive reasoning. The first is to simply go to war with the enemy reality aspect; this is that from which war in general arises, when not systemetized to the same degree as WWI. (although the war did allow a socially sanctioned outlet for these tendencies.) The battle will inevitably end with the demise of the warrior, however that occurs. (the antagonistic aspect will always play a role in it.) This approach may or may not be a self-fulfilling prophesy, depending on the situation. People who die young of rare diseases, such as MSD or leukemia, have had their battles forced on them: they fight to live against a threat which they themselves had no part in. (it is plausible, though unproven, that terminal genetic defects may partially manifest themselves in brain chemistry, or at least may correlate to an internal disposition.) Some simply see the war in themselves as a part of reality, and project their war into the world around them on basis of conflicting values. These are the world's extremist behavioral element. Such a person is plagued not by a disease of the body, but of the mind. In the end, it is no less detrimental because they can never overcome the reality before them. Instead of accepting transcendence and realizing fault within themselves, these people choose instead to forsake the advice of their advisor elements, choosing rather to indulge themselves in their own ideosyncracies by accepting the counsel of their socially malignant tendencies. The result is an internal cataclysm, and if this person has any power at all by which to project it there will be a general ideological schizm and clash, the like of which history offers many examples. The clash will remain until its purveyor determines it impossible to win, or even lost outright.

The second approach to managing immanent conflicts is to recognize the part of oneself which one cannot integrate as superior, and even take its advice. This is a Joan-of-Arc type person, a messiah who comes in the name of the subconsious without really understanding what it is that is pushing them onward. Their personality has split in twain: at times they are meek and submissive, and at others extremely driven, as though they are filled with a kind of purpose that transcends the normal. This person has extreme distate for that which would seem to interfere with their subconsciously-inspired mission. If socially adjusted, they will be out to exert "divine justice" on the "unclean" rescendent. If they are themselves rescendently oriented, then it is goodness itself which must go. (this is incarnate evil type who is not only evil, but indeed, loves being so.) I am unable at this time to make concrete conclusions as to what is going on in terms of functional revise with these individuals. One possibility is that all of the non-active transcendent functions activate at once near the end of their lives (MLK Jr.'s visit to "the mountain" and seeing "the glory of the Lord" the night he was shot may be a case in point), but at this time I simply cannot affirm whether or not this is the case.