Quote Originally Posted by 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.