Originally Posted by ananke
- I'm interested in things IEIs create: fantasy, politics, intrigue, drama, "the quest". A sense of right and wrong... awareness of the internal experience of being human.
- I enjoy hanging around IEIs (though its not always reciprocal, lol). I have a lot of IEI friends.
- In my view, people need to broaden their understanding of each other. They need deeper understanding of what it would be like to be x-and-x person.
- I'm physically inaccurate, a fictionalist, adventurous, deep, deliberate, reliant, excitable, arithmetic, argumentative, and aggressive.
Not necessarily. The problem is that hobbies and interests change very often, especially if you are young. Two years ago my leading hobby was playing chess so my energy type would have been INTp? Four years ago my leading hobby was watching porno films so my energy type would have been ESTp? Six years ago my leading hobby was playing video games so my energy type would have been INTj?
I disagree. While energy type certainly has some influence, intertype relations are determined primarily by IM type.
I don't feel compelled to modify any information element. Why should I modifyby using
? And how should I do that?
I don't see the different between EM an IM in your descriptions.
Maybe a better way of determining your energy type if you already know many of your IM identicals:
- Try to determine if you are more introverted or more extraverted than your identicals.
- Try to determine if you are more intuitive or more sensing than your identicals.
- Try to determine if you are more logical or more ethical than your identicals.
- Try to determine if you are more rational or more irrational than your identicals.
Last edited by JohnDo; 07-17-2010 at 12:28 PM.
Che, I would appreciate it if you did not post in my threads. This is a request.
It is not really "your" thread because you are not the owner of this forum.
I think it is interesting that I am almost the only one here who seriously tries to discuss with you about dual-type theory.
INTJ
From the socionics.com website: "INTJ's live in a world of their own conception" no words could better express the truth!!
and by the way, if anyone is interested, could someone write a socionics dictionary and please include synonyms, antonyms, etc. IM is an abbreviation for? EM stands for?
here is what a definition may appear like: the definition of :Aggressive,n. a person that has too much testostrone. the origin of the word is traced to Russian socionists Rushen Alcohonokov introduced in 1983. synonym: macho man randy savage. antonym: wimps
but seriously a socionics dictionary would be extremely helpful as you can see the end result when left up to my own devices. A dictionary of socionic terminology would be a very solid ground to base further theories upon. I mean most if not all serious studies have a well developed dictionary.
and if this is not too much write a socionics for dummies or a socionics basics.
I believe greenantler is working on such a thing. Why not PM her about it?
IM means information metabolism so IM types are just the usual socionics types. EM (=energy metabolism) is one of Tcaudillg's strange ideas and would certainly not appear in a socionics dictionary...
We already have Wikisocion...
Rick DeLong is trying to do that I think...
I never said that I identified with IEIs -- I said they interested me.
Information gathering and development patterns are related to the IM type. Pretty much every behavior not related to information gathering and development is shaped by either the EM type or conditioning. The EM type determines your efficacy level with each of the information elements.
Efficacy as in "the ability to produce a desired or intended result"?
So if I'm SEI-IEI, then...?
My main hobby right now is personality theories like socionics and the ennegram. Seeing the behavorial and thought patterns in myself and others. That sort of stuff fascinates me. I also enjoy surfing the web and finding cool websites to share with other people, reading both fiction and nonfiction, listening to music, and just daydreaming.
I tend to hang out most with alphas and deltas. I tend to feel more comfortable with them than withvaluing quadras. I really can't narrow it down further to specific types.
I'm guessing the element I feel most compelled to modify would be
EM Dichotomies (I've capitalized the ones I most strongly identify with)
Deep (Fe valuing)
ROUTINE (Ni valuing)
Deliberate (Ni valuing)
Motivated (Fi valuing, I know this contradicts with deep)
INACCURATE (NF)
RESTRAINED (Fe accepting)
FORMULAIC (Te accepting)
Argumentative/Tolerant (Not sure. I like avoiding arguments and I don't take for granted that people will automatically agree with what I say. I can sense well when arguments are likely to happen. However, I have almost zero tolerance for one's negative emotional outbursts and am inclined to take it personally, as if somehow it was my fault rather than attributing it to someone just having a bad day)
Harmonius (Se accepting)
Nonfictionalist (Ne accepting)
I guess compared to other IM identicals, I'd be somewhat more introverted and intuitive and significantly more ethical and irrational.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
NiFe EM: the ability to use positive and negative reinforcers to modulate behavior to an intended result. Intent to bring out the best in people, and minimize the worst.
For SEI-IEI, an Ni state corresponds with an Si state ("Doing this makes me feel comfortable. [...] This is the real me."). ("What you are doing makes me uncomfortable... [...] You're creeping me out...") There is a question of whether the behavior is agreed with or disagreed with... how does the person feel about what they are doing? You have a choice of changing yourself and suppressing your emotions and your behavior to gain their acceptance, or choosing not to suppress these emotions and risk ostracism. SEI-IEI producing subs are more accepting ("live and let live")... ah that sounds like BG doesn't it? Trying to figure if that's SEI-IEI or -EIE. It would seem to me that SEI-EIE is more attuned to the emotional atmosphere and whether they like it or not ("He always get like this when something like this happens and I hate it. [...] I'm sorry, Jack, but you cannot go on like this. You must change. -I- cannot keep going on like this.")
Lol story of my life. I thought chess would be more LII though.
The only EM dichotomy that I'm sure of from the list is Routine. Later today I'll investigate the others and post about which ones fit me the most.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
I like simulation games and knitting. What type are those?
Irrational gammas, deltas, and alphas besides ILEs.
What do you mean by modify?
Where are these?
Which ones would this be for me?
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
How can you say that with certainty?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...
If there were people who understand what you say they would probably want to discuss about dual-type theory with you...
Labcoat understands it; xoxoxoxo on chat understands it; green understands it; crazedrat understands it; April understands it; Ashton understands it; Gilly re-derived it. (hell, even McNew understands it, from what he told me). There isn't that much to understand really: being able to create ideas about how to do something effectively does not necessarily mean being able to actually get it done. If the opposite were true, people probably wouldn't have to rely on each other as much as they do.
And if the reason that a person is able to create ideas and contribute intellectually to society with a given function is because of that function's position in Model A, then the reason for their failure to actually implement their idea, despite trying, must also lie with Model A because we know for sure that IM aspect processing is involved with it somewhere. But if not in the system that Augusta described... then where? Obviously there must be another system with its own Model A.
Does that mean that each IM/EM combo has a special niche that, if found, they would be particularly fit to excel in, moreso than those of same IM type and different EM type?
Can extremely similar historic happenings be attributed to IM/EM combo? Is this evidence that Newton and Leibniz were the same Dual-Type, or does it not go that far?
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Why would that be the case?
Each IM/EM type pair is its own focus (EM)/approach (IM) combination. The EM type defines your specialty and your IM type defines how you approach that specialty. Are you rational about it, or do you take an irrational approach? (socionically speaking) Do you try to systemize it, or do you try to understand how it affects you? People who have the same EM types cluster together -- they work in the same field. But to keep the mentality of the field's practice balanced, you need a lot of different views. What would medicine be without ethics? Dominant LSE EMs make the best doctors, but can you imagine how cold the field would become without an IEI IM voice in there somewhere? Someone to say, "you cannot turn this patient away even if they can't pay, because it's wrong!" So it's very important that each IM type be represented in each discipline, because what the IM type really represents, is the individual's specialized contribution to what's being studied.
Well I thought you meant that by finding out the IM/EM combo you can find where they will most likely end up career wise and their success depends on EM type. If so I thought it would be safe to assume that two individuals who had the same success with the same contribution would be the same IM/EM combo.
When you say Dominant LSE EM are you using DCNH and Dual-Type on the same individual? Is the dominant part of the IM type or the EM type?
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
I never said that wasn't the case! I just explained it in more detail! Don't tell me you're buying into Che's brainwash that no one can understand what I say.
Well dominant subs try to influence the world around oneself by making targeted changes. Creative subs, in contrast, try to increase understanding so that the dominant subs can make changes. In the dominant case, you have clockwise ring progression -- the functions count up. (1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 ->1) In the creative case, you have counter-clockwise ring progression, meaning the functions count down. (4 -> 3 -> 2 -> 1 -> 4) In the one case, the accepting functions have control, and in the other case, the producing functions have control.When you say Dominant LSE EM are you using DCNH and Dual-Type on the same individual? Is the dominant part of the IM type or the EM type?
The normalizing/harmonizing subs, as accepting and producing subtypes respectively, have similar ring progression to their dominant/creative subs, but prefer to work within boundaries rather than to set their own. This in turn creates a divide in career focus. (SLE dominant EMs are policy makers, while SLE normalizing EMs are soldiers).
No lol, it was just a complicated oversight. I thought when you said "Why would that be the case?" that you meant "There is nothing in Dual-Type theory that would point to similar historic happenings like Newton/Leibnez being the same type combo".
So when applying both IM and EM theory, the DCNH subtype is always the same in the individual? Does Dual-Type theory make finding EM so simple as to say that most/all soldiers fighting today are both SLE EMs and Normalizing in both IM and EM?
I don't find you to be hard to understand in general, but I find the intricacies of your theories hard to understand completely. This is of course only a temporary problem as the more I learn about the theory, the easier it will become to understand the separate examples/rules/etc. of the theory. Also I doubt it's possible to brainwash someone into not being able to grasp what another is saying.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Not quite, because the military involves many different disciplines and specialties. But relative to the other EM types and subtype variants the SLE normalizers do have the majority. SLE EMs are more likely to discern conflicts around them than other types, and normalizers in particular think they have little choice but to follow after the conflicts proposed by the SLE EM doms. The SLE-SLE dominant subs are of course the chief warmongers, being able to both conceive of war and to make it.
I certainly hope not.Also I doubt it's possible to brainwash someone into not being able to grasp what another is saying.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 07-21-2010 at 11:51 PM.
Does dominant SLE-SLE mean that both IM and EM have the same DCNH subtype? If you've seen District 9, is the Boss Negro Chieftain (Obesandjo) a good example of SLE-SLE?
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
The subtype is a characteristic of the person. Its called a subtype, but it's really a wholly different dimension of personality. Whether a trait is a "subtype" or not is really just a frame of reference. If a person prefers to take orders rather than give them, and prefers to actually do something rather than figure stuff out, then that person is a normalizing subtype. The IM and EM systems couldn't have different subtypes because the subtype trait is not dependent on the IM/EM systems. Rather, the subtype is a parameter of their function.
The idea of there being two separate subtypes per system... doesn't make a lot of sense.
Never seen District 9.
If DCNH is a different dimension of personality, do you still regard it as an inclination towards a temperament attitude? So instead of "Normalizing enjoys following orders rather than give them" you can say "An SLE-SLE with strengthened IJ functions is more likely to follow orders than give them"?
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Uh my advice is to forget the notion of functional "strength" completely -- it's just an indicator of frequency relative to an alternative function. When one choice of cognitive functionality is exercised at the expense of another, then it may be indicative of a personal preference which in turn may be indicative of a distinct dimension of personality.
However in this case Gulenko has observed not the predominance of a function, but of a psychological function which manipulates information aspects. Sometimes Gulenko gets so involved in socionics that he can't hardly explain his ideas to people who don't understand information metabolism. I've noticed he tries to perceive of the things around himself in terms of information elements (see his blog), which explains his choices of terminology. Gulenko is very talented at discovery, but less so at explaining the meaning of the discovery itself. (it's a factor of his dual-type and subtype.)
You missed the point of the question. I'm asking if you acknowledge DCNH as a theory of preferred/strengthened temperament (Dominant = More preference to EJ functions; Normalizing = More preference to IJ functions). If so, why must this indicator of frequency favor the same temperament for both IM and EM types (Especially if the IM and EM types have different temperaments in the first place)? Is it supposed to connect them together?
Basically: DCNH is an extension of the 2 Subtype theory, based on inclination for a particular temperament. You claim that IM and EM type are inherently different from each other. So it makes no sense to me why you would say your subtype in the 4-subtype temperament system will be the same for your IM type as your EM type in all cases. Unless of course I'm missing something.
Last edited by Crispy; 07-23-2010 at 02:06 AM.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
The "more preference" rule is a mistake: it doesn't exist for exactly the reason that I just explained to you. The sooner your break out of the box that others have set for you, the sooner you will be able to evaluate the truth or falsity of statements for yourself. Until that time further discussion (with you) appears pointless, as I need collaborators, not students who can't figure out which school to adhere to.
The only problem I see is that DCNH seems to be built upon dividing types with temperaments. If this does not mean that it strengthens the temperament's functions, what exactly does it mean? Does it at least put "more focus" on that temperament? Are you saying that DCNH has absolutely nothing to do with temperament and is a separate system altogether? I just don't know how you view DCNH yet.
If Gulenko didn't discover a temperament-subtype theory, what DID he discover? How exactly does the psychological function manipulate information aspects?
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
I view it like this: DCNH is two seperate trait dimensions, one which defines the direction of the ring, and another which defines attitudes towards the creation of schemas.
DCNH is a refinement of the two-subtype system. (if you look at the literature, this is how Gulenko thought of the subtypes before he proposed the strong element hypothesis) The accepting subtypes are divided into D and N, while the producing subs are divided into C and H. The difference between accepting and producing (this I conjectured through contrast of my thinking style with labcoat's) is that accepting subtypes prefer clockwise ring progression, while producing subs prefer counter-clockwise ring progression. The reason for this is because the alternative to the preferred is identified with the shadow.
Each person has a justification for being their subtype: producing subtypes prioritize knowledge and investigation, while accepting subtypes prioritize action. The producing subtype person looks on the accepting subtype as limited by their lack of knowledge, while the accepting subtype sees the producing subtype as constrained by their lust for knowledge, which lends to hesitation.
The DCNH-level distinction is made on basis of schema: D & C produce schema, while N & H accept schema. This is why N is the foot soldier for D: N wants clearly defined boundaries, while D prefers to set the boundaries. C differs from H in that C sets the direction of investigation, while H explores in that direction. H doesn't want to be C because C must assess the importance of potential avenues of investigation before deciding to pursue them. The measure of a research's relevance is its importance to the current situation: will it enable D to institute change? Understanding which changes take priority involves taking a hard look at the severity of various situations, a process that is too dark and serious for H. Likewise, N feels the consequences of "changing the world" too heavy for their taste.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 07-23-2010 at 05:44 PM.
Your arrogance is one of the reasons why most people don't want to discuss with you...
Trait dimensions?! Direction of the ring?! Creation of schemas?!
Please don't use DCNH as long as you don't understand it. C-LII, for example, just means more extraverted and more perceiving than most other LIIs. That's what it's all about...
WRONG!!! That's what I mean, please don't use DCNH as long as you don't understand it at all!!
For IJ- and EJ-temperament the accepting subtypes are D and N.
But for IP- and EP-temperament the accepting subtypes are C and H.
Bullshit. For LSIs it is the other way round. Ti-LSI values knowledge, Se-LSI action.
What? How can H be a foot soldier for D?! Gulenko says that H is in a stronger position than D...
Well, if you are really LII and even LII-IEI then you are a very good example of an H that wants to be a C...
I don't support your idea that subtype and energy type are independent. That can't be true.
(corrected error in post #37)
As previously discussed, I will no longer be discussing dual-types on this forum. (see the site ads controversy) Those who wish to discuss the matter further should register at progressivesocionics.co.cc.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 07-23-2010 at 06:39 PM.
Dual-Types aside, I still feel like I'm missing something about DCNH.
Is there a particular Gulenko article that shows this? It would help if the article explains the "Direction of the Ring" as I simply don't understand what you mean by this. Is that where you use functions consecutively on rotation and the direction decides the rotation?
These roles for subtype relations make a lot of sense, but it also sounds like EJ/IJ and EP/IP pairings. IP can't handle the dark/serious process that the EP can. IJ can't handle the consequences with as much ease as EJ can. This sounds like EP/EJ have more energy than IP/IJ in a subtype proportion. Your view of DCNH has many interesting and probably useful details, but the fact that you reject/ignore the temperament aspect is confusing to me.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
I realized the ring direction link by myself. (I noticed that Labcoat always had more command of Ti than me, while my speculations tended to be more accurate than his). I'm not sure if anyone else has discovered it, although Jung has alluded to the existence of a "reverse process opposite the conscious" in his writings on the id. (See "Stages of Life") Based on that, Boukalov is probably aware of it.
I ignore the temperament aspect because the functions have nothing to do with it. Ne is not "stronger" than Ti in an LII creative sub -- it's just more focused on because the point is to convert its most realistic contents into Ti.
Yes. "T follows N or S but never F".Is that where you use functions consecutively on rotation and the direction decides the rotation?
Then it appears we are just arguing semantics. By "X is stronger" I of course mean that "The individual has more focus on X". Strong is a vague term which is probably why you resent it's use, but I was even having trouble deciding if you thought "more focus" was bad as well.
So if what you say is correct and IM and EM are distinct AND IM/EM always have the same DCNH type, then in your view JohnDo's splitting of DCNH into a 16 subtype system would just add another classification that is common to both an individual's IM and EM types. Essentially someone would have an IM type, an EM type, and an ExpandedDCNH "subtype" that affects both EM and IM. Does this expansion seem impossible to you or just unnecessary? If you are already using DCNH, what is so horrible about splitting it from 4 to 16?
EDIT: Also, how useful do you find these provisional descriptions in demonstrating the differences between the four DCNH subtypes of a particular IM type?
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...H_descriptions
If you believe these to be useful, then it should be that much easier to determine the DCNH subtype of an individual's IM/EM types.
Last edited by Crispy; 07-23-2010 at 11:43 PM.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
I honestly don't know. But neither do I understand Gulenko's reasons for proposing so many.
There is an ending somewhere along the line. We only have so many cognitive functions.
I'll review it.EDIT: Also, how useful do you find these provisional descriptions in demonstrating the differences between the four DCNH subtypes of a particular IM type?
Provisional DCNH descriptions - Wikisocion
If you believe these to be useful, then it should be that much easier to determine the DCNH subtype of an individual's IM/EM types.
This may not be the place for it, but if you get a sec, Tcaud, could you help me better understand some of your stuff?
1) As an LII-IEI, are you attracted to all of the following types or just a select few?
A) ESE-xxx
B) xxx-SLE
C) xxx-ESE
D) SLE-xxx
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) If you "fill-in-the-blanks" with the descriptions I've listed below, would the following formula at all describe a dual-type's purpose/goal in life? (Or am I way, way off in my understanding of your theory?)
--- I use my "IM" in order to "EM." ---
IM
LII - Understanding of Theoretical Development
ESE - Understanding of How to Excite/Activate/Motivate Others
ILE - Understanding of A Thing's Potential to Achieve/Succeed
SEI - Understanding of Pleasance/Fondness/Arousal
IEI - Understanding of Human Behavior and Choice
SLE - Understanding of Conflict/Force/Authority
EIE - Understanding of Other People's Perspectives and Identities
LSI - Understanding of How to Track and Execute Movements
ILI - Understanding of Progression/History/Chronology
SEE - Understanding of Networking and Making Contacts
LIE - Understanding of Economics/Numbers/Arithmetic
ESI - Understanding of Fairness/Equality and Attitudes
EII - Understanding of People's Desires/Needs/Aspirations
LSE - Understanding of Organization, Coordination, and Attaining Rank
IEE - Understanding of A Message or Emotion's Potential
SLI - Understanding of How to Assist or Obstruct Others
EM
LII - Develop New Theories and Ideas for Others
ESE - Excite/Activate/Motivate Others
ILE - Select A Thing/Idea (in Light of Its Potential to Succeed) for Others
SEI - Create Pleasance/Fondness/Arousal for Others
IEI - Verbalize Behaviors, Choices, and Decision-Making of Others
SLE - Impose Force/Authority/Conflict on Others
EIE - Verbalize Perspectives/Views/Identities of Others
LSI - Track and Execute Movements for Others
ILI - Plan/Predict the Future (in Light of History) for Others
SEE - Network and Make Contact with Others
LIE - Control Economic Matters for Others
ESI - Impose Sense of Fairness/Equality on Others
EII - Verbalize Desires/Needs/Aspirations of Others
LSE - Organize, Coordinate, and Achieve Rank Over Others
IEE - Select A Message/Emotion (in Light of Its Potential) for Others
SLI - Assist/Obstruct and Praise/Recriminate Others
I'm attracted to people based on their charisma. Has nothing to do with information metabolism, just temperament.
"The best way I can be of maximum service by using my best EM, is to develop my best IM to support it."2) If you "fill-in-the-blanks" with the descriptions I've listed below, would the following formula at all describe a dual-type's purpose/goal in life? (Or am I way, way off in my understanding of your theory?)
--- I use my "IM" in order to "EM." ---
For example, in my childhood I was a very naive person. (reflecting poor grasp of Ni attributes of others). By creating typologies I've eliminated most of that naivete. I can recognize one thing about them and instantaneously make broad assessments of their behavior. The more types I distinguish, the more accurate those correlative assessments are likely to be.
Actually I would say that's the LII EM variants summarized. LIIs make a point of creating understanding.IM
LII - Understanding of Theoretical Development
ESE - Understanding of How to Excite/Activate/Motivate Others
ILE - Understanding of A Thing's Potential to Achieve/Succeed
SEI - Understanding of Pleasance/Fondness/Arousal
IEI - Understanding of Human Behavior and Choice
SLE - Understanding of Conflict/Force/Authority
EIE - Understanding of Other People's Perspectives and Identities
LSI - Understanding of How to Track and Execute Movements
ILI - Understanding of Progression/History/Chronology
SEE - Understanding of Networking and Making Contacts
LIE - Understanding of Economics/Numbers/Arithmetic
ESI - Understanding of Fairness/Equality and Attitudes
EII - Understanding of People's Desires/Needs/Aspirations
LSE - Understanding of Organization, Coordination, and Attaining Rank
IEE - Understanding of A Message or Emotion's Potential
SLI - Understanding of How to Assist or Obstruct Others
That's mostly IM. The ones you got correct I marked with Xs. Verbalizing is mostly an accepting subtype activity, and is done with the IM function.EM
LII - Develop New Theories and Ideas for Others
ESE - Excite/Activate/Motivate Others
ILE - Select A Thing/Idea (in Light of Its Potential to Succeed) for Others
SEI - Create Pleasance/Fondness/Arousal for Others
IEI - Verbalize Behaviors, Choices, and Decision-Making of Others X
SLE - Impose Force/Authority/Conflict on Others this sounds like parts SLE and LSI
EIE - Verbalize Perspectives/Views/Identities of Others
LSI - Track and Execute Movements for Others [b]X (producing sub only)[/]b
ILI - Plan/Predict the Future (in Light of History) for Others
SEE - Network and Make Contact with Others X
LIE - Control Economic Matters for Others X
ESI - Impose Sense of Fairness/Equality on Others X
EII - Verbalize Desires/Needs/Aspirations of Others
LSE - Organize, Coordinate, and Achieve Rank Over Others - reverse with SLI
IEE - Select A Message/Emotion (in Light of Its Potential) for Others
SLI - Assist/Obstruct and Praise/Recriminate Others - reverse with LSE
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
