If you have questions about dual-type theory, you can ask them here.
If you have questions about dual-type theory, you can ask them here.
How do you verify and cross-check your findings, what makes you ever certain they are correct?
how compatible are two people if ones IM is dual to the others EM?
Why don't you use an unambiguous name?
"Dual type" has a completely different meaning in classical socionics: your dual (ESFj) is your "dual type"
DeLong uses the term "dual type"
socionics.com uses the term "dual type"
Last edited by JohnDo; 03-20-2010 at 09:05 PM.
Good comment.Why don't you use an unambiguous name?
"Dual type" has a completely different meaning in classical socionics: your dual (ESFj) is your "dual type"
DeLong uses the term "dual type"
Ganin uses the term "dual type"
IM is information metabolism. (see Rick's site, Socionics in the West)
EM is energy metabolism. I use "energy metabolism" as an umbrella term for the brain's data processing system. Energy is the change of data from one form to another. It's metabolic in that awareness of it is received from the outside... it might be thought of as the "stimulus awareness and response" component of information metabolism. The tendency is to think of the stimulus and information processing components as one cohesive unit, but this is not so. It is not necessarily the case that information stimulus, once received, goes directly to its processing function. On the contrary, information stimulus can be observed in the context of ANY function at ANY time. (not implying that the rules of information progression can themselves be circumvented -- they can't). The general word for information stimulus is data, jumbled and indiscriminate. Our ability to make sense of the data we come in contact with rests in large part on our willingness to give it the necessary attention, amid certain evolved factors which have, over the ages, come to accompany specific attentive dispositions. For example, being able to handle a delicate instrument necessitates having a certain measure of control over not only the instrument but also the motion and poise of your body. You must have dexterity and finesse. You might think that socionics sensing types would be good for this and you would be correct... but in only half the cases. We have enough people on this forum who have both strong intuition and strong dexterity to put the "dexterity = sensing" argument quite to rest. Once upon a time, I thought this an indicator of "crosstypes". However, using Augusta's information element theory (and Rick's notes) I was able to deduce that these "crosstyped" individuals did indeed use functions of information metabolism just like anyone whose skill set matched the "model". The difference is that the function processing the skill and the function processing the information are not the same. Putting skills in the context of information metabolism, it is plain that skills come at the expense of each other. The strength/weakness pattern for skill functions matches Model A's. Finally by the rule of eight elements we know that the skills must be classifiable in terms of the eight, or else they could never have been imagined in the first place. That we can think conceptually about our skills shows that the skill functions process the eight elements. The purpose of skills is to manipulate objects by applying energy, therefore we call the skill functions "functions of energy metabolism" and their set in the individual the "energy metabolism type". (EM for short)
I recently came to understand that our EM type is the cast for our self-image: we use our IM functions in such a way as to befit our reflective self (the self others think of us as) and meet others' expectations, while using our EM functions to fulfill our self-concept. We are bound to our IM types by criticism; we are bound to our EM types by desire to be "us".
Dual-type theory is the study of how the IM and EM types interact.
You are a crosstype between LII and IEI?
Does this mean that you use both Ni and Ti equally?
I think the distinguishment is between processing style vs. information observed
If there is something to this dual-type theory there should be a strong correlation with DCNH. I am a Harmonizing LII in the DCNH system = IP-subtemperament.
That obvioulsy means that I can only be LII-ILI, LII-IEI, LII-SEI or LII-SLI. Is that correct?
"Shoulds, shoulds, shoulds" mean nothing in the face of what actually IS. Just because you say it "should" be that way doesn't make it so. Evidence is the ultimate barometer and MBTI studies have confirmed that there is no correlation between Jungian basis typologies and skill. Furthermore, if you had done your homework, Che, you would have known that there were two-type theories in the former USSR. However, they were lacking for correlation between the second type and skill. Gulenko himself attests to their being little understanding of the 2nd type in his writings of the period, and says explicitly that this 2nd type has nothing to do with the notion of subtypes! In fact, the IM and EM types share the same subtype!
Now a response to labcoat: I rely on people who have a strong sense of who they are and their limitations to give me accurate information about themselves. These people can be dual-typed easily. I can then compare this information with the behavior of people who VI similarly and have similar interests, thus being able to deduce their traits whether or not they are themselves feel certain who they are. (and a lot of people don't!) Some people I can type at moment's notice, while others must be questioned quite extensively. Because the VI pool is not yet fully built, I often need to see the individual "in action" (for a long period of time) to get a strong sense of their strengths and weaknesses. But after I have a VI profile for the type, I can apply that very broadly, without actually having to know the person beyond a brief paragraph or two of description. I can, in fact, surprise people by revealing how much I know about them. (but I do not do this often, because people can become afraid of my "ability" quickly).
I agree but I don't understand how there could be evidence for your theory as long as you are the only one who understands and applies it confidently...
I read some stuff on your website - and still don't know what it's all about. The reason is probably not that I'm too stupid.
Nobody seems to understand
- why there should be a dual-type.
- how to determine the dual-type.
- how dual-type theory could be useful.
The problem is that I just can't see dual-types, I don't know how to determine my dual-type, I don't know how it should ever be possible to distinguish between 256 types. You certainly know that Rick DeLong even thinks 32 types are too many. I disagree because the DCNH system with 64 types seems to be accurate and I even know how to distinguish between those 64 types by V.I.. If dual-types existed and the theory was useful it would have to to be possible to distinguish between the 256 types (by V.I. for example). I can't see how that should work...
Yes, I know that. In his article "Compatibility and Duality" (which is not available anymore because of wikisocion's crash) Gulenko said that distinguishing between 256 types would be impossible. Then he changed his opinion and thought about a second type in one person. Then he changed his opinion again. He often changes his opinions, you know?
Where did you read that? Do you speak Russian or do you read machine translations?
I know from my own introspection that IM and EM share the same subtype. That was my conclusion.
As for the rest, it used to be on Wikisocion... it's discussed in the article "Quantity of Types in Socioanalysis".
Your concern about VI is well founded. Will you help me establish the variations?
Type your interests and hobbies -- observe the information which they tend to be most centric on. This is your EM type. For example, if you really enjoy computer programming, then you are an ILI EM type because programming consists of reams and reams of subroutines -- possible sequences of events an associated exchanges of quantities within objects. Sequences of events, we have established on this forum, are gamma Ni. The passage of time is characterized by the work of the universe, the gamma Te element. What is life if not the work of cells in accordance to genetic code?
Okay. I will think about dual-type theory and if there is something to it I will know it in some weeks...
Lost.
Sure. There are just some problems ...
1.) I will need some weeks to determine if dual-types even exist...
2.) You called me a "delusional individual" with "paranoic, unreasonable believes and the will to act on them". Well, I don't understand your crazy dual-type theory - nobody does. But you don't even understand my very easy theory about V.I. and DCNH. This correlation obviously exists. You are either bad at typing or not familiar with DCNH if you can't confirm that...
3.) This thread should be about questions and answers - so I would recommend to answer the questions people have. Why don't you do that?
So you believe that the EM type is inborn and unchangeable? What if my hobbies change? They often do...
How do go about typing accurately using this system considering that there appears to be enough problems with just the sixteen types?
As an observer how do the EM and Im types differ in the way they manifest themselves in a a persons external behaviour or expressed motivations?
Is IM more apparant for example?
Could your observation not be more easiliy explained by peoples temporary adaptations to different environments?
When you say EM can affect an persons "interests", could you be more specifiv or give some examples?
IEE-Ne
I just wanted to mention that this dual-type theory would make it necessary to distinguish between 1024 types, actually...
16 types * 16 dual-types * 4 subtypes = 1024
I will probably never get to know over 1000 people in my life. So I really wouldn't know how I should apply that theory even if it was developed...
Imagine being able to know a person's abilities and probable interests just by looking at them. That's the world to which we are heading.
But it's actually quite easy once you get used to it. There's there an easy way to think about EM types. Your EM functions just apply information that you've learned about. This information is always created with IM functions, usually by people other than the learner. (people who are IM-EM identicals are the exception). The IM functions synthesize information from available EM function data. This is how we expand the knowledge base of our culture. It takes an EIE, for example, to determine how to cope effectively with a new situation emotionally. They can teach this method to others and the same can be implemented via the EM functions. EIE EM types form the rank and file of the world's counselors. They make superb psychotherapists. The reason for this is that they are attentive to people's emotional responses and know when to give emotional support and how. But it's the ENFJs who explain best the support they need and how to give it. The ENFJ EMs listen to the ENFJ IMs, and you can bet that every revolution in psychotheraputic technique over the past century has arisen from an ENFJ EM thinking critically about what an ENFJ IM has told them.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 03-22-2010 at 06:20 AM.
By understanding EM types, you can apply a filter on incoming information which signals personality, and filter out all the EM type related information. This way, you can say "He did this, but it wasn't necessarily an indicator of his IM type because it can be explained by his EM type. However, he mentioned X, which I hadn't heard before. That points very strongly towards IM type Y, in my opinion."
IM is verbalized less than EM. IM is mostly a private activity, in fact, seen only when someone is actively explaining something. You can see EM pretty much any time though, because people have a constant motivation to "interest" others in what they are thinking about.As an observer how do the EM and Im types differ in the way they manifest themselves in a a persons external behaviour or expressed motivations?
Is IM more apparant for example?
EM does not "affect" interests -- it determines them. Your very sense of reward for doing activities or learning information is the driving force behind your EM type. Just as your sense of reward for doing things remain more or less constant, so does your EM type remain stable. EM type is an effect of your motivation for learning, the product of the reward chemicals produced by your brain for engaging in personality-related activity.Could your observation not be more easiliy explained by peoples temporary adaptations to different environments?
When you say EM can affect an persons "interests", could you be more specifiv or give some examples?
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
When are you going to dual-type me Tony? I've been patiently waiting for over a year now and you have never replied to my inquiries.
No, he has it right. 1024 distinct disposition sets.
You seem to be intimidated by the big numbers... I wonder, do you want to understand people at all? Your little 16-type box just can't capture the intricacy of the human heart, which comes in literally billions of combinations. I kid you not... the entire supersocion theory permits more personality variation than actually exists on earth today.
1024 would put you a small step towards grasping the inner world of an individual apart from your prejudices. But to really get a sense of what's going on, I would recommend factoring in the political belief types as well, giving you 32,576.
What? You're an LII... you should be able to hack simple binary logic. You know it's not really operable to try to figure a person's personality from a description in some kinda database... much better to master the components and their interaction, and then you can just use the formula to deduce personality on the spot.
There is absolutely no way you can connect your theory with its large number of variations to any expedient amount of observation whatsoever. You're crunching useless amounts of abstraction in your head.
You probably didn't offer enough information.
Why not reply in the dual-typing diagnosis thread with a post about your FAVORITE hobby, and why it's your favorite?
About the variations stuff: it's intuition. I don't have to crunch it. 4D behavioral data in a 3D hypothetical sphere... my brain does it all for me, recalling all the necessary information automatically.
Or to get to the specifics, I have a set of probability rules which I use to make quick decisions on a person's type.
Well, I would agree that there is a certain amount of intuition involved in any sort of typology system; however, there's only a certain extent to which one can rely on it without looking stupid. You have to offer some form of insight based on perception of behavior, mannerisms, and so forth. A little more rigor, you know? One can't say that because I like to read, I'm suddenly an INFp.
You don't understand. What you're doing is fundamentally irresponsible with typology. You're taking superficial characteristics and attributing meaning to them that doesn't exist. You're not saying this openly, and you might not realize this, but the way you have of looking at intuition and sensing can give an opportunity for people to disparage others based on some slapstick label. I know lots of sensors who enjoy reading and can probably come to insights based on their thoughts that are much more keen than intuitive egos who spend all their time doing it and waste their energy on expositions such as this. You're beating a dead horse, tcaudillg, with your inept rambling, and this is one of the reasons why typology forums die.
All the caricatures being explored, people move on to other interests.
I don't read, apart from forum posts and organized reference materials.