Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Newbie questions about dual-type theory

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,968
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Newbie questions about dual-type theory

    For those people into dual-type, super-socion stuff....Just some basic questions on the behalf of those of us who don't understand it:

    * Are there simple examples of how one can recognize if a behavior is stemming from a person's metabolism type or exertion type? For example, if a person says or does something that points to Te, Ti, or some other IM Element, how do we know whether that's exertion or metabolism?

    * If a person is typed according to classical Socionics, would that be the person's metabolism type, exertion type, or neither one?

    * It seems that Tcaud and Labcoat are now the chief proponents of dual-type theory (any others?). I would be curious if the two of you agree on the dual-type types of various forum members and people in history who have been discussed. Also, are there any notable differences in your views on dual-type theory?

  2. #2
    bibliophile8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ohio, one of those pesky 50 states
    Posts
    174
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    * If a person is typed according to classical Socionics, would that be the person's metabolism type, exertion type, or neither one?
    If I understand correctly from reading tcdaullig's posts, classical socionic type corresponds to the master or metabolism type in the supersocion.

    Please, supersocion theorists, correct me if I am wrong.
    type #33
    but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    It's why you have a mana bar, not a rage bar.

  3. #3
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,315
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bibliophile8 View Post
    If I understand correctly from reading tcdaullig's posts, classical socionic type corresponds to the master or metabolism type in the supersocion.
    That's what I understand as well.
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  4. #4
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Are there simple examples of how one can recognize if a behavior is stemming from a person's metabolism type or exertion type?
    No. All behavior is affected by both types. Surely you could 'isolate' behaviors that are exclusively affected by a single of the types under controlled circumstances, but under ordinary circumstances the influence of one can not be detected apart from that of the other. In other words, knowing what ENFp slave type looks like in INTj-ENFp will not tell you enough to make you capable of immediately detecting it in INFp-ENFp.

    If a person is typed according to classical Socionics, would that be the person's metabolism type, exertion type, or neither one?
    Metabolism. (= master)

    It seems that Tcaud and Labcoat are now the chief proponents of dual-type theory (any others?). I would be curious if the two of you agree on the dual-type types of various forum members and people in history who have been discussed. Also, are there any notable differences in your views on dual-type theory?
    I'll have to coordinate with tcaud over the PM about that. Most likely we often agree on certain parts of the dual type of some people, but rarely on the whole of it. For example, while I do not know the whole of your (jonathan) dual-type, it is clear to me that you are a gamma-NT overlooking some feeling type, and I am certain that tcaudilllg agrees.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,968
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    No. All behavior is affected by both types. Surely you could 'isolate' behaviors that are exclusively affected by a single of the types under controlled circumstances, but under ordinary circumstances the influence of one can not be detected apart from that of the other. In other words, knowing what ENFp slave type looks like in INTj-ENFp will not tell you enough to make you capable of immediately detecting it in INFp-ENFp.



    Metabolism. (= master)
    While I can see how these two answers can coexist theoretically, don't they seem perhaps contradictory in practice? If all behavior is affected by both types in a way that's difficult or impossible to distinguish, then it should follow that following standard typing methods would likely lead to a typing that's not the master type in some cases.

    For example, suppose a person where INTj-ESTp. Standard typing methods might detect base Ti and substantial expression of Se, leading to a typing of ISTj.

    Of even greater concern to me, though, is that if one can't isolate what part of the behavior is from the "master" and what part is from the "slave," then how can one verify that the theory is correct? How do I picture what a dual type is supposed to look like or even have an idea of what a person's dual-type is if there's no way to isolate the behaviors associated with the dual types? Similarly, how do you know that my master type is Gamma-NT and that my slave type is an ethical type if the behaviors of master and slave are indistinguishable? Or...what kind of controlled circumstances would we need to be able to observe the dual type theory in action?

    Another related question: How do we know that there are only 2 types (master and slave)? Can a master have two slaves? Can a slave have its own slaves? Can there be additional slaves that appear from time to time? And if not, why not?

  6. #6
    Hacking your soul since the beginning of time Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,084
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    While I can see how these two answers can coexist theoretically, don't they seem perhaps contradictory in practice? If all behavior is affected by both types in a way that's difficult or impossible to distinguish, then it should follow that following standard typing methods would likely lead to a typing that's not the master type in some cases.

    For example, suppose a person where INTj-ESTp. Standard typing methods might detect base Ti and substantial expression of Se, leading to a typing of ISTj.

    Of even greater concern to me, though, is that if one can't isolate what part of the behavior is from the "master" and what part is from the "slave," then how can one verify that the theory is correct? How do I picture what a dual type is supposed to look like or even have an idea of what a person's dual-type is if there's no way to isolate the behaviors associated with the dual types? Similarly, how do you know that my master type is Gamma-NT and that my slave type is an ethical type if the behaviors of master and slave are indistinguishable? Or...what kind of controlled circumstances would we need to be able to observe the dual type theory in action?

    Another related question: How do we know that there are only 2 types (master and slave)? Can a master have two slaves? Can a slave have its own slaves? Can there be additional slaves that appear from time to time? And if not, why not?
    If dual type does exist, which I've been thinking about a lot lately, then I see no reason that people are limited to only a master type and a dual type. Maybe their is infinite levels that people exist in(sort of like dimensions of character) for each possible personality context. Maybe the master type isn't really a master type, but only appears as a master type because of the context of reality that we leave in. Maybe the human mind has infinite possibilities, for infinite possible contexts.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •