No, quite the opposite. I am on the disorganized side (particularly for a J type).
No, quite the opposite. I am on the disorganized side (particularly for a J type).
No, he told you that EM sensing devalues reading. EM is not the same as regular type, it specifically attempts to describe the nature of the information being observed. It's not about the subjective thinking of the person, it's about where they look when they look at objective reality. The assumption is the information we observe, although distinct from the IM type, will have a recurring pattern to it. Since any pattern can be categorized, we can apply socionics. Furthermore, the subject / object distinction is the most basic distinction that can be made. EM asks: What catches a persons eye first?Originally Posted by Eldanen
I haven't read all the posts relating to this, I can say that I know 2 professional artists who read books for enjoyment. Well at least they say they enjoy reading, of course there could be another motive.
IEE-Ne
Actually, some EM sensors do value reading. It comes down to whether the Fe EM function is valued or not. Fe EM is attentive to words and meanings. It tends to be deep and philosophical. Te EM in particular is not very philosophical. Te EM types in general tend to have simplistic, undetailed philosophies. The philosophies Te EM types do pay attention to tend to be less reflective, more combative, and generally not paid attention to unless justification is needed for say, killing somebody.
There is also another factor with respect to reading valuing, that has to do with attentiveness to factors which indirectly affect oneself. People who both devalue Fe EM and have low "worldly attentiveness" (e.g. low intelligence) tend not to read much. Not even Harry Potter. These are your factory workers, your car mechanics... basically your average blue collar worker.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 03-23-2010 at 11:47 PM.
Out of curiousity, disregarding any input I have given you that might give you an indication on what dual-type I have, would you say the above about me?Actually, some EM sensors do value reading. It comes down to whether the Fe EM function is valued or not. Fe EM is attentive to words and meanings. It tends to be deep and philosophical. Te EM in particular is not very philosophical. Te EM types in general tend to have simplistic, undetailed philosophies. The philosophies Te EM types do pay attention to tend to be less reflective, more combative, and generally not paid attention to unless justification is needed for say, killing somebody.
There is also another factor with respect to reading valuing, that has to do with attentiveness to factors which indirectly affect oneself. People who both devalue Fe EM and have low "worldly attentiveness" (e.g. low intelligence) tend not to read much. Not even Harry Potter. These are your factory workers, your car mechanics... basically your average blue collar worker.
I can't recall the last time you explained your philosophy on this forum, so yes I would. You look at Hitta, he's a philosopher to the core. My philosophy tends to consist of "common sense", heh, with particular respect for eclecticism. I don't know much about yours.
Do you have an interest in math?
Not a particularly strong one. Math is a tool, something capable of getting people to their goals. It tends to be on the effort-heavy side thus making it's application a matter of weighing effort against expected result. A lot of time a more quick-and-dirty approach suffices and one can improve one's performance by forgoing the details of formalism.Do you have an interest in math?
Well that rules out Gamma NT ego, I suspect. A question for you, why did you say you had "ESTJ blood" in your sig a while back?
And is it just me, or do dominant subtypes have more difficulty typing themselves?
That can only be a red herring if you're trying to type me. I don't feel I have much in common with the average ESTj at all. The comment was made randomly with very little rational basis.A question for you, why did you say you had "ESTJ blood" in your sig a while back?
Depends on who you're calling a dominant subtype, or what on earth you mean by it.And is it just me, or do dominant subtypes have more difficulty typing themselves?
You and I think so differently that it is a challenge to deduce the specific reasons for the difference.
I've got it: LII-ILE. Everything is an idea to you, and it is your task to show how these ideas share a binary relationship. That is what you've been doing for the past year, all your energy focused on critiquing the possible formulations that people could have with respect to socionics. It is your task to eliminate confusion, to refine our logic by establishing differences between ideas that we thought were the same.
Yes, that's what I think about dual-type theory, too. Tcaudillg doesn't explain why people of the same type and subtype but with different hobbies should be distinguished by dual-type...
The more obvious reason is that different life conditions lead to different hobbies, even though type and subtype are identical...
Another problem is that tcaudillg obviously doesn't understand DCNH properly. You first need to know some people of the same type and subtype, then you can think about the reasons for different hobbies. I know some other Ni-INTjs, they are quite similar but of course they differ in their hobbies: They simply didn't live the same life!!
I do feel this is one of the most likely dual-type combos for me, however:I've got it: LII-ILE. Everything is an idea to you, and it is your task to show how these ideas share a binary relationship. That is what you've been doing for the past year, all your energy focused on critiquing the possible formulations that people could have with respect to socionics. It is your task to eliminate confusion, to refine our logic by establishing differences between ideas that we thought were the same.
- this sentiment is likely caused by the fact that ENTp and INTj are very similar types, thus making the dual-type combo be one of the most similar to a pure INTj type, which I would identify with by virtue of how I already identify with INTj.
- for some reason people suggest INTj-ENTp very often for themselves; this is linked to the other point above.
But: such a typing would make it easier to accept that I don't identify strongly with the way J is usually described. I am less scheduled, organized and rigid than the descriptions typically expect me to be.
You are typing me as a EM Fe valuing type again, though, so this would contradict your earlier judgment about my lack of a guiding philosophy beyond a purely practical one.
As an LII, comfort is your first priority. ILE EM hidden agenda is... tolerance. When people tolerate things they shouldn't, and accept things that they shouldn't, then LII-ILE gets uncomfortable.
LII-LII is made uncomfortable by people being uncomfortable.
It is not obvious at all. That is an assumption that you have made, and an incorrect one at that. Although different life conditions do shape the specific choices we make, we choose our hobbies based on how good we are at the outset. If you can't pick up a beginner's drawing book and learn it right away, then you suck at drawing and this fact will become immediately apparent. The potential which really exists within us is the vise by which we choose to release it. We assess our own static potentials based on our apparent capability, and channel our energy towards expanding these available potentials. Feelings of "failure" when undertaking certain activities appear to be hard-wired: particularly when using weak functions, we get a sense that we don't have a "grip" on the situation. The sense is apparently just as much reality as what ability we may or may not have to the contrary.
Also, it's worth noting the process by which this sense is cultivated. The apparent answer is that the so-called "pure" types do it: an LII-LII will always know a good theory from a poor one, just as an ILE-ILE will always know a good idea from a bad one. (assuming no self-delusion is involved). An SLI-SLI can always tell good craftsmanship when they see it, nor can any person argue with LSE-LSE when they see an organization running badly. They are the prime critics, who both create and shape the world. When you argue with them, you are at a disadvantage: they do not just conceptualize of relationships, but see those same relationships all around as soon as they realize the conceptualization. When they explain themselves, you "get a sense" that they are right. You "know" that they are right, and that their judgment of what is good work vs bad is valid. Others may pretend to judge but only the pure IM types can make a convincing argument that one product shows greater skill than another. This because they are the definer of that which is being replicated.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 03-28-2010 at 06:47 AM.
None of that rings much of a bell, sorry.
Suffice to say, when people are tolerating something you can't stand, you must say something about it. You can't keep quiet about it... it MUST stop.
But I'm not dragging this thread off topic any more. We can continue our discussion in the dual-typing thread.
tcaudilllg, you once typed a board member as ILE-IEI, saying this was a good IM-EM combination...what do you mean by 'good'? what makes a particular IM-EM combination 'good' as opposed to 'bad'?
The more information is disseminated and neutralized, the better.
1. yes.
2. Impossible. It would mean suddenly losing all interest in the things and dreams that you previously had up to that point. Your dreams are largely shaped by your EM type.
3. Both would have very strong number sense. However, they would see the numbers as meaning different things. The IEI would seem the numbers as having a certain emotional impact, while the SLE would see them as creating a shift in current. For example, the IEIs-LIEs of today are reflecting on the emotional and lifestyle implications of living in this time of recession. The SLE-LIEs are more keen to adjusting to the regulatory measures that are being put in place.
Did I say that? No IM-EM combination is better than any other.
Model Of Information-Energy Metabolism
This model includes a number of elements from multiple socionics theories
- DCHN subtypes
- Model A (Model B optional)
- +/-
- Political type theory/theory of belief ontology (optional)
The type of the information metabolizing system (IM) is the arrangement of the individual's priorities for personal development. The type of the energy metabolizing system (EM) is the arrangement of the individual's priorities for social participation, which frames their interests.
The IM and EM systems work together to make sense of the world. Their function is the identification of relationships between information aspects of different elements. For example, beta Se EM paired with gamma Te IM correlates harmony/disharmony with changes in magnitude. An LIE-SLE, as such, would very likely be alert to opportunities in the arms business -- at the very least, they would observe that conflict tends to create more conflict (negative beta Se expansion), which would lead them to observe that the weapons business is and will remain lucrative. (Eisenhower is famous for criticizing the LIE-SLE mentality in this regard, which he dubbed the "military-industrial complex"). The IM-EM relationship establishes that changes and states of aspects of one element are always matched by corresponding changes or states of aspects of another element (or the same) -- it is the system of correlation. The breadth of our correlative awareness is, accordingly, the sum of our knowledge.
The concept which joins the IM and EM systems is that of the object. When Ti(N) IM creates an identity for a Ti(S) observation of independent movement, a special function of the brain grabs onto this and removes it from the flow of information metabolism. Rather, information metabolism becomes the subject of the Ti-processed item.
Code:ESI +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ | | | | | | | | | | | Fi | Ne | Ti | Se | Fi | Ne | Ti | Se | Fi | | | | | | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ ............................OBJECTS............................. +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ | | | | | | | | | | | Ti | Se | Fi | Ne | Ti | Se | Fi | Ne | Ti | | | | | | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ LII
The IM and EM systems each perform specific functions of relation between oneself and the world.
- The EM system is the vise by which the world is apprehended. The world, as such, is observed to be primarily concerned with the ego and superid blocks, and less concerned with the superego and id blocks.
- To be an actor in the world, one must influence it as desired. Experience using each of the EM functions naturally leads to their prioritization by one's own accord, and use of non-valued functions is minimized. This in turn reinforces the impression that the world has primary and secondary characterizations, because while one's influence on the domain of the ego and superid function is plainly evident, the lack of attention to the domains of the unvalued functions exacts a price in that one is influencing them in unknown and possibly negative ways. This has the effect of creating a "shadow" over one's own life, that can only be compensated for through learning to value these function more.
- Development of knowledge through the IM system is seen as necessitated for effective navigation by means of the EM functions. This because the individual intends to use the IM system as a means of increasing their awareness of objects, which in turn will help them observe correlations between aspects. The IM and EM systems feed into each other by a feedback loop. We can say this with certainty because it is impossible to consider information outside of the context of a correlative relation between elements. (when we consider the "pure" form of the information elements, we are in fact considering them in the context of the EM and IM functions of the same element feeding into each other). This fact cannot be emphasized enough, thus I denote the theory of the system's interrelation as the "dual-type" theory.
The systems are related under a "master-slave" principle: the state of the IM functions is what it is because the EM state is what it is. The exact form of the relation depends on the "subtype modality" being used to process the function block.
The above example demonstrates accepting modality information processing. First, Ti aspect states are observed as corresponding with Fi aspect states in a definite manner. The consequence of the correspondence is observed as a definite Fe state which is controlled by Ne. If the Fe state is positive, then it may be reasonable to leave the Ne alone. But if it is negative, it makes sense to control the Ne in such a way as to befit the state of the Fe. It follows then, that although Ne controls Fe its state will not be allowed to rest unless the corresponding Fe state is favorable.Code:MENTAL TRACK INFORMATON FLOW MODEL INFORMATION METABOLISM (ESI) +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ | | | | | | | | | | <-- Fi <-- Ne <-- Ti <-- Se <-- Fi <-- Ne <-- Ti <-- Se <-- Fi | | | | | | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ | | | | | | | | | | <-- Ti <-- Se <-- Fi <-- Ne <-- Ti <-- Se <-- Fi <-- Ne <-- Ti |-* | | | | | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ ENERGY METABOLISM (LII)
BLOCKS OF THE EM MODEL
Although the four blocks of EM Model A are similar in principle to those of the IM system, they are experienced differently. Strong functions have high efficacy, weak functions comparatively low efficacy. Valued functions receive a lot of attention and use, while unvalued functions receive attention only when absolutely necessary.
IDENTITY BLOCK (IM Equivalent "Ego Block")
One identifies strongly with the functions of this block. One looks for a positive stereotype to emulate when using these functions, and identification with the same is seen as something of a compliment. One wants to be thought of and remembered as a person who lived the positive aspects of these functions to the utmost -- the improvement of their state is seen as the central theme of individual existence and no effort will be spared to make the most of them for as long as the individual lives.
INCAPACITY BLOCK (IM Equivalent "Superego block")
Although one would like to use these functions to accomplish something meaningful, it is simply the case that one has very limited ability to use them. Learning to disavow responsibility for the functions of this block -- and to accept the consequences of our non-participation -- is an important aspect of the human experience. More than any of the others, experience with these functions teaches us humility, that there are many things in life that are simply beyond our control or our ability to change.
CONTROL BLOCK (IM Equivalent "Super Id Block")
The state of these functions is observed as the backdrop against which the identity functions operate. It is understood that the state of these functions has direct bearing on one's ability to exercise the identity functions effectively, and as such it is important that they be controlled. There is an effort to keep the domains of these functions stable, predictable, and safe. However this requires a commitment by oneself to their control. As soon as one "lets go" of these functions, the problems that one had "held down" by controlling them re-emerge. For this purpose it is invaluable to have the aid of a person who is competent with these functions, so that one can leave them in capable hands and return attention to the identity functions.
One may be tempted to identify with these functions, particularly with stereotypical images of dual and activity partners. However, actually living out the stereotype is seen as distasteful and inoptimal; if anything, the dominant aspiration is to reduce negative use of these functions by improving the identity block situation.
MYSTERY BLOCK (IM Equivalent "Id Block")
Although it is understood that these functions are an important part of life, one has a certain anxiety about them. Indeed, one is so afraid of discussing one's experience with these functions that they become "the elephant in the room" -- discussing a person's mystery block is always a one-way affair. The individual understands the importance of these functions and will search high and low for clues as to their situation, but will not share any of their own information about them. Instead, they find themselves almost pleading -- sometimes even -- for information about them from their [EM] quasi-identicals and contraries. Through this information, they hope, they can derive these functions' situations without actually having to inquire about them directly, thereby avoiding any negative consequences.
What makes the mystery block functions so dreadful, is that they seem susceptible to myriad stigmas and prejudices. The hope is that by deducing the response to discussion of these functions before the discussion actually takes place, any possibility of being prejudged for one's use of them may be avoided.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 07-08-2010 at 12:40 AM.
Is all of this clear and understandable?
I don't think so. That's why nobody answers I guess...
There are several problems concerning your theory:
- You don't really seem to understand the system of DCHN subtypes. It doesn't make much sense to construct new theories using it without understanding it properly.
- Nobody here is familiar with Model B because no English articles about it are available anywhere. Why don't you put a description of it on Wikisocion?
- +/- signs are used very rarely on this forum. Most forum members probably don't even know them.
- "Political type theory" is another theory of yours that hardly anyone seems to support or even understand.
- Even with a very good English-German dictionary I just don't get what you mean in many cases. You should get used to simple English if you want anyone to understand you...
So how could anyone on this forum be able to understand your newest invention?
Let's have a look at this last passage of your writing to understand why I (and probably others) have difficulties understanding it...What makes the mystery block functions so dreadful, is that they seem susceptible to myriad stigmas and prejudices. The hope is that by deducing the response to discussion of these functions before the discussion actually takes place, any possibility of being prejudged for one's use of them may be avoided.
First problem is that I don't know some of the words you use. That's typical of LIIs I think, they like to use technical terms and avoid common speech. Doesn't really make it easier for people who don't speak English as first language. "dreadful", "susceptible", "myriad"?! Dictionary... So dreadful means something like horrible, susceptible something like vulnerable and myriad something like many. Well then, I always like to learn new words... But I don't really get the meaning of the second sentence, even though I know the words you use. I think I'll give it up...
Last edited by JohnDo; 07-08-2010 at 10:04 AM.
Then you are ill suited to apply the system, I guess.
Gulenko's articles are far more technical than this one. If you can't understand it, then you probably don't really understand Gulenko's articles, either. You are particularly blind to the man's limitations.
Yes, I have to work with a dictionary a lot when I read Gulenko's articles. That's just because I'm not a native speaker...
But the problem is that even native speakers and even LII native speakers don't seem to understand what you mean...
Let's see if we can clear things up a bit...
IM determines development, EM determines interests? I thought about this concept during the last weaks. Might be interesting to discuss about it...
I'm sure that I'm an LII-IEI and I have tried to study mathematics for several years. I was never really happy with my decision, even though LIIs should be great mathematicians (I didn't know socionics or MBTI when I started). Is it because of my IEI energy type that I became much more interested in psychology, socionics and so on? On the other hand, one of my professors seems to be LII-IEI, too. Have I mistyped him or can an LII-IEI be a great mathematician whereas I am just to lazy/stupid/psychotic?
I think Donald Rumsfeld might be a good example of an LIE-SLE. He has qualities both of an enterpriser and a conquerer. According to the VI-pattern I discovered, a face that looks like a piriform oval indicates a strengthened mobilizing function. If he is LIE he should be an Se-LIE (using 8 subtypes) and an LIE-SLE or LIE-SEE (using dual-types).
Tcaudillg, it would be much easier to develop dual-type theory if you were familiar with the systems of 4 and 8 subtypes.
I don't understand anything.
1.) What is "object" supposed to mean in this context? An extraverted element (object=extraverted, field=introverted)?!
2.) What does Ti(N) and Ti(S) mean?!
I don't really get it either. Can you provide an easy to understand guide or summarize some of the basic points so that I can get through it more easily?
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
Man, if I've learned anything from these five years of studying socionics, its that when someone proposes that this or that function is "strengthened" in a given context, it's because they have indeed noticed something, but have not the foggiest clue why its there or what it means.
I think Donald Rumsfeld might be a good example of an LIE-SLE. He has qualities both of an enterpriser and a conquerer. According to the VI-pattern I discovered, a face that looks like a piriform oval indicates a strengthened mobilizing function. If he is LIE he should be an Se-LIE (using 8 subtypes) and an LIE-SLE or LIE-SEE (using dual-types).
Tcaudillg, it would be much easier to develop dual-type theory if you were familiar with the systems of 4 and 8 subtypes.
An object in this context means a focus of attention. Like a ball, for example....1.) What is "object" supposed to mean in this context? An extraverted element (object=extraverted, field=introverted)?!
2.) What does Ti(N) and Ti(S) mean?!
Ti with auxiliary N and S, respectively.
As for Model B, all you need to know is that it has 16 functions and that half of them are under the auspice of the Freudian subconscious. Oh, and their dimensionalities are 5 - n. (meaning LII Fe is 5 - 1 = 4D on the normal track).
Oh, and that "object passing between the functions" thing comes from an idea by Boukalov called the "function of consciousness", the medium of communication between functions of the same system. According to Boukalov, this continuous transference of attention is what we call "consciousness".
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 07-09-2010 at 12:16 PM.
In dual-type theory, if you were to consider both of your IM/EM types, would the IM type always have greater influence over your life than the EM? If so, there is reason to believe the EM type can align with a 16 subtype system. Is this not the case?
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
The EM type is much more obvious than the IM type. A person's talents and interests are pretty plainly observable, don't you think?
You should just drop the 16 subtype system thing completely. Even Gulenko says they are different.
I disagree. If the EM type was more obvious it would be the first one who had been discovered in the soviet union.
EM type determines your talents and interests compared to your IM-identicals! An LII-IEI is an Analyst who also has some qualities of a Lyricist. An LII-LSE is an Analyst who also has some qualities of a Director. And so on and so forth...
But you can't seriously think that an LII-IEI and an SEE-IEI have the same talents and interests...
EM type only makes sense in comparison to IM-identicals. That's why you might call it "subtype" instead of EM type
Do you have a link or a paper you can quote, please?
LOL... if you actually had hobby partners you'd know how wrong you are. The career/interest/fixation/whatever is what it is. Cod put it this way: SLI EM is like to be a gardener. How he approaches gardening is shaped by his IM type.I disagree. If the EM type was more obvious it would be the first one who had been discovered in the soviet union.
EM type determines your talents and interests compared to your IM-identicals! An LII-IEI is an Analyst who also has some qualities of a Lyricist. An LII-LSE is an Analyst who also has some qualities of a Director. And so on and so forth...
But you can't seriously think that an LII-IEI and an SEE-IEI have the same talents and interests...
EM type only makes sense in comparison to IM-identicals. That's why you might call it "subtype" instead of EM type
Do you have a link or a paper you can quote, please?
As for evidence, find it yourself.
If it's true that EM are more obvious and easily observed, how is it that the IM types were discovered and built upon before the finding of EM types?
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Short answer: because of Augusta. Augusta created the ontology and the strong/weak system. That system holds for any intelligent system which processes information elements. However she based her understanding on Jung's functions, so she didn't notice (or chose not to develop) the EM system. There is precedent for people staying mum on discoveries that challenge their sense of self. In Augusta's time, the IM system itself was an amazing revelation. 16 types were complex enough... but 256? Even Gulenko is on record saying it was just too much -- and he acknowledges in his subtypes paper that 256 types had been consider by some people in the community, but they were lacking a theory of energy. Besides, he thought his subtypes idea was more important.
There won't be evidence. It is obviously clear that, for example, IM Alpha-NTs are much more often scientists than IM Alpha-SFs, no matter what EM type they are. IM type does not only seem to determine how they approach science...
LOL, you keep misrepresenting my views. People can figure my views without having you explain them. And they absolutely should, cause it's plain to all that you're discordant to the core.
That really made me laugh. Nobody is able to figure it out because you are completely unable to explain anything properly. In many cases you don't even answer the questions people ask...
Your ideas are inconsistent with classical socionics. While I agree that 16 subtypes are necessary, your "energy metabolism" is not socionics but esotericism. Well, I'm interested in esotericism, Carl Jung also was, but it's just not socionics...
Just one last question (and I really hope you answer this one): Could you please give me a list with all fictional and non-fictional people you type as LII-IEI?
LII-IEI is one of the rarest types in fiction.
Actually I have a suspicion that the guy who was caught in Pakistan hunting Osama bin Laden is LII-IEI. LII-IEIs can be very "out there"... to them the line between reality and fantasy is very tenuous.
They seem to be rather reclusive.
There was a character in Wild Arms 4 who was LII-IEI. His name was Kresnik Ahtreide.
Kresnik Ahtreide - Wild Arms Wiki
Methods for finding your dual-type
- Type your hobbies. The integral type of your leading hobby and interest is that of your EM type.
- Pay attention to which types you hang around most. Not out of applied socionics, but naturally.
- Observe the information element you feel most compelled to modify. This is your creative function. Identify the element which is the means of this modification -- this is your creative EM function.
- Type yourself according to the EM dichotomies.
Is there a comprehensive list of these?
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
