View Poll Results: What is easier to determine?

Voters
15. You may not vote on this poll
  • Club

    6 40.00%
  • Temperament

    5 33.33%
  • Not a big difference.

    2 13.33%
  • I'm not interested in Clubs and Temperaments.

    2 13.33%
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Clubs, Temperaments & DCNH Subtypes

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    636
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Clubs, Temperaments & DCNH Subtypes

    DCNH is a sub-temperament theory. Why does DarkAngelFireWolf69 prefer sub-temperaments to sub-clubs? Probably because the existence of sub-temperaments is more obvious...

    1.) A lot of people appear to find it difficult to determine if they are Rational or Irrational. This even caused a problem which is known as the infamous j/p-switch...
    2.) Some people say they are extraverted but not outgoing. Others say they are extraverted but their energy level is low...

    So does everyone agree that temperament is much harder to determine than club?
    Last edited by JohnDo; 05-07-2010 at 04:12 PM.

  2. #2
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    DCNH is a sub-temperament theory. Why does DarkAngelFireWolf69 prefer sub-temperaments to sub-clubs? Probably because sub-termperaments are more obvious...

    1.) A lot of people appear to find it difficult to determine if they are Rational or Irrational. This even caused a problem which is known as the infamous j/p-switch...
    2.) Some people say they are extraverted but not outgoing. Others say they are extraverted but their energy level is low...
    3.) Smilingeyes even believes that temperament changes during life whereas club is constant...

    So does everyone agree that temperament is much harder to determine than club?
    Huh? I do?
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

  3. #3
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    636
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
    Huh? I do?
    Errr... wait... is it the other way round? You believe that temperament is constant and club changes, yes...?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it mentioned in some socionics articles? Sounds like old news anyway.
    You ILIs are really disgusting sometimes. It's interesting even if it's from the stoneage...

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss
    Also, *if* DCNH works for temperamental subtypes, it would actually support this difficulty (seeing as there would be a lot of intratype variations). Whereas something related to type that's easier to determine is probably less altered by subtypes, whatever system you use.
    I just think it is an interesting correlation that DarkAngelFireWolf69 prefers sub-temperaments to sub-clubs and that many people have difficulties with determining their own temperament. So it would probably be a good idea to recommend DCNH to them...
    Last edited by JohnDo; 05-07-2010 at 04:29 PM.

  4. #4
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    Errr... wait... is it the other way round? You believe that temperament is constant and club changes, yes...?
    That sounds more familiar. Though I'm constantly trying to find a phenomenon that would show that temperament changes. I'd love it. Just haven't found one. Troublesome to me.
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

  5. #5
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A part of the problem is that many socionists (like Rick) don't really have a clue as to what temperament is. They just thing that anyone who is mostly Fi or Ti has one "temperament" and anyone who is mostly Ne or Se is one temperament. Then they type according to the most prominently visible function. So, when an ESTp suddenly starts expressing their creative function, in comes one of these idiots and says he's ISTj because he's Ti-dominant. And suddenly he gets typed into another temperament, just because of a minor shift in functional use that happens so many times each day it's difficult to keep track of.

    IMO the idea that temperament changes is tied to the faulty idea that it is simply the most preferred function that decides type. I dunno about DarkAngelFireWolf69. He's quite brilliant but not faultless. Maybe he's understood some deeper level or observed something that I don't know about. But I'm not convinced at all.

    All of that is why I choose to talk about judging vs perceiving when addressing the difference between functions and rational vs irrational when addressing the difference between temperaments. Because if one believes one equates to the other, one will be confused.
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

  6. #6
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes View Post
    A part of the problem is that many socionists (like Rick) don't really have a clue as to what temperament is. They just thing that anyone who is mostly Fi or Ti has one "temperament" and anyone who is mostly Ne or Se is one temperament. Then they type according to the most prominently visible function. So, when an ESTp suddenly starts expressing their creative function, in comes one of these idiots and says he's ISTj because he's Ti-dominant. And suddenly he gets typed into another temperament, just because of a minor shift in functional use that happens so many times each day it's difficult to keep track of.

    IMO the idea that temperament changes is tied to the faulty idea that it is simply the most preferred function that decides type. I dunno about DarkAngelFireWolf69. He's quite brilliant but not faultless. Maybe he's understood some deeper level or observed something that I don't know about. But I'm not convinced at all.

    All of that is why I choose to talk about judging vs perceiving when addressing the difference between functions and rational vs irrational when addressing the difference between temperaments. Because if one believes one equates to the other, one will be confused.
    I get the sense I may be contributing a somewhat irrelevant post, but perhaps writing it will help formulate my thinking on it somewhat.

    For myself, i've found myself in employment where all I do is seemingly to engage my second function all day. However in the evening or at weekends my irrational side starts to show more. I remember in these circumstances it caused consternation over whether I was a rational or irrational type.

    However, overall, my lifestyle, that which I revert back to is an irrational temperament.

    I have little to offer about being able to change temperaments, I certainly would like the idea, but I have to wonder, at least by what I recall of Jungs writings, that a person who doesn't live overall by their true temperament develops mental illnesses of various varieties. However, I have to say that a pure IP temperament causes other forms of illnesses, as it's the poorest temperament there is for interacting with the actual world. So that's a dilemma for IP types I think.

  7. #7
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,009
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    You ILIs are really disgusting sometimes. It's interesting even if it's from the stoneage...
    I never said it wasn't interesting.

  8. #8
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,097
    Mentioned
    103 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    I just think it is an interesting correlation that DarkAngelFireWolf69 prefers sub-temperaments to sub-clubs and that many people have difficulties with determining their own temperament. So it would probably be a good idea to recommend DCNH to them...
    I identify with alot with both the IJ and IP temperaments and almost feel as if I'm straddling the border between the two. I think overall I'm closer to IJ but IP comes in as a close second. I have a harmonizing subtype which strengthens the IP functions so that probably explains some of it.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  9. #9
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A lot of INTjs seem to favor the harmonizing (Ip) subtype.

  10. #10
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    636
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    A lot of INTjs seem to favor the harmonizing (Ip) subtype.
    H-subtype means strengthened which is responsible for understanding and beeing interested in underlying processes. Furthermore it is the most important element for typing. So there should be much more H-subtypes interested in socionics than other subtypes...

  11. #11
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    636
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    All of those can be justified equally well, as can the hypothesis that all INTjs are "harmonizing subtypes" and the other subtypes are a myth.
    You obviously don't understand anything about subtype theories. How could other subtypes be a myth?! I know D-LIIs, C-LIIs and N-LIIs in real life. If you don't - go out and type some

  12. #12
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,009
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    So does everyone agree that temperament is much harder to determine than club?
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it mentioned in some socionics articles? Sounds like old news anyway.

    Also, *if* DCNH works for temperamental subtypes, it would actually support this difficulty (seeing as there would be a lot of intratype variations). Whereas something related to type that's easier to determine is probably less altered by subtypes, whatever system you use.

    Edit: I mean by socionics testing and such, I think temperaments can be useful if you're aware of your own energy levels, or someone's whose habits you know very well (probably only if you live with them for a while at least).
    Last edited by Aiss; 05-07-2010 at 04:20 PM.

  13. #13
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo
    So does everyone agree that temperament is much harder to determine than club?
    That's another interesting question.
    Club is based on the choice of two functions over two others. Model A (sucky as it is) suggests that one's ego is built on this. Taking into account that one's self image is not stable, one could argue that one positively expresses the preference of these two functions (ie. one's club) so as to reinforce one's self image and stake a claim to a social role. Because if they didn't reinforce their role constantly, they'd get confused and lose their self-identity.

    Meanwhile if temperament is stable and one can only experience one's own, the difference between one's own temperament and that of others is veiled. One is unable to compare. What one is unaware of, one can't communicate. So people don't purposefully express their temperament.

    So if people are constantly actively sending out and reading messages of people's clubs but not their temperaments, precisely because club is changing whereas temperament isn't, that would quite neatly explain the observable. That people tend to pick out their and others' clubs before temperaments (because they already understand clubs, whereas hardly anyone understands temperaments [because they can only experience one])
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

Posting Permissions

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