Results 1 to 40 of 48

Thread: Dual-Type, DCNH, and Dichotomy Splitting

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,034
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Dual-Type, DCNH, and Dichotomy Splitting

    I am splitting this particular conversation from Tcaud's Dual-Typing thread because he asked to have it not derailed. I consider this important to discuss because it carries a (possibly perceived) major contradiction when trying to combine theories. My purpose is not to create confusion, but to replace confusion with understanding as these questions are answered:

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedrat360 View Post
    Dammit Crispy, I have told this to you more than once now. I'm going to make it very simple this time:
    There are dual core processors. You know how they work, right? They run two processes simultaneously. Then there are big single core processors. One big process. Right? Okay. So DHCN is like the big single core, dual type is the dual core. Get it? Now stop spreading chaos with this fool notion DHCN and dual type are the same thing.
    What this implies is that the DCNH type sits on top of both dual-types and is the same with both. This is intuitively fine as a real possibility until you introduce the concept of dichotomy splitting, or the reason DCNH was made in the first place.

    From Wikisocion Article on DCNH:
    First dichotomy: contact/distance. The first pole indicates the predominance of the need for contact, and the second the need to maintain distance. Into the contact category will fall clearly expressed extroverts as well as extroverted introverts. Distant will be clearly expressed introverts, but also introverted extroverts – those extroverts who avoid intensive contact. The scale of vertness is thus split into four gradations.
    Now lets look at Tcaud's Introverted spectrum using ONLY IM and DCNH:
    Tcaud is INTj in IM, and Creative Subtype in DCNH. According to DCNH that makes him an "Extroverted Introvert".

    Now if I'm understanding Tcaud correctly with the following quote, he believes himself to be a "Clearly Expressed Introvert":
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    *sigh*

    Crazedrat, is what DarkAngelFireWolf69 said about I-Es true for you? I'm not an -E so I wouldn't know.
    Here he is associating the Introversion - Extroversion spectrum with Dual-Type theory rather than DCNH, and coming out as a "Clearly Expressed Introvert" because he is INTj-INFp. This would be understandable if Tcaud was Harmonizing in DCNH and there would be no conflict in the spectrum.

    But if BOTH theories use the same spectrum, and they BOTH place Tcaud on different part's of the spectrum, I can only conclude three things:
    1. Both theories use the spectrum (Dual-Type extends from DCNH) and Tcaud is really Harmonizing Subtype/Clearly Expressed Introvert and the Dual-Processor Analogy works with little contradiction.
    2. Only DCNH uses the spectrum and Tcaud is an Extroverted Introvert. (Complicates processor analogy for Creative IXXx-EXXx types causing someones IM to be Extroverted Introvert and EM to be Clearly Expressed Extrovert, but does not completely void the analogy)
    3. Dual-Type and DCNH are incompatible with each other because they attempt to use the same dichotomy spectrum. In this case if Dual-Type theory is accepted, DCNH should never be used with Dual-Type. (The analogy fails)

    Can someone explain to me how these theories fit together in the analogy without causing contradictions in the dichotomy spectrums? If both DCNH and Dual-Type are used on top of IM, which is responsible for making people Extroverted Introverts etc?

    Once again I would like to stress that I am not out to cause confusion, and believing so would be he result of paranoia. These are my real concerns regarding the mashing together of theories with conflicting implications. If we can sort out these contradictions, Dual-Type will be A LOT more understandable.

    EDIT: Notepad messed with formatting, fixed most of it.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,848
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is just a massive language game and it's completely meaningless.
    Showing I/E in one tense, and then in another tense, does not poke a hole in anything. Language issues like this show up in day to day speech all the time. It shouldn't be my job to unwind it for you, but since you're shouting about this on a public forum I have no choice. I'm obligated to cater to you now. So let's do it.

    With a DHCN brand of INTj-ENFj you have an example of an extraverted introvert. In this case extraversion is a shade added on top of a foundation of introversion. On its basic levels the type is an introvert. So you can think of this like a pyramid. The base of the pyramid has a big sign that says "introvert". Then, at the top, you climb up to "extraverted introvert". But there is no part of the pyramid that is simply labeled "extravert". Extraversion is not its own process for this type; extraversion only occurs following introversion. It's subordinated to introversion. Right? Good.

    Now with dual type you would have two completely different pyramids. One labeled introversion, the other labeled extraversion. If you're climbing one, you aren't climbing the other. They are completely distinct. There is no subordination happening. You are not an 'extraverted introvert', or an 'introverted extravert'. You are an 'extravert-introvert'. Each term is given equal value and is its own distinct process. Do you understand?

    The language issue comes about by not properly specifying the context of terms. In your case you don't understand the context and you approach it at face value. With socionics context comes from the metaphysics of the model being discussed. So when I describe to you the core differences between DHCN and Dual type, this alone should establish differences in context.
    Last edited by crazedrat; 09-04-2010 at 08:07 PM.

  3. #3
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,034
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You are describing situation 2 in my original post.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    2. Only DCNH uses the spectrum and Tcaud is an Extroverted Introvert.
    Paraphrase:
    For INTj-ENFj
    16 Subtype DCNH
    Scale: (Introvert - Ext. Int. ) - Int. Ext. - Extrovert
    So parenthesis is the pyramid where a base introvert can fit. Makes sense.
    Dual-Type Theory
    Scale: (Introvert )- [ Extrovert]
    Parenthesis is where IM type can fit and boxquotes is where EM type can fit. Sort of makes sense.

    Now, you have shown that these two theories can work separately. I'm talking about when you mash them together, as tcaud has done by labeling himself Creative INTj-INFp. Why should the same DCNH "processor" be added on to both of the "dual-cores"? You could just as well use DCNH on both IM/EM types and be Creative in one and Dominant in the other.

    Here is what results from your original analogy: Tcaud is an IM extroverted introvert, EM extroverted introvert (These work), IM disorganized rational, and EM clearly expressed irrational (These conflict).

    Being an IM pJ and an EM pP is a weird combo that you would normally expect to not be possible. But if it is possible as you imply, why must the combos IM pP (Clearly expressed Irrational) and EM jJ (Clearly expressed Rational) be impossible by forcing the same DCNH on both IM/EM?

    It seems like the only feasible way to mash together DCNH and IM/EM is to have two separate DCNH types, one for each IM/EM type. The way it is done now simply makes no sense.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,848
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ah, you see I didn't read your massive wad of text because I've already explained ^ That to you like 3 times now.

    Yes, that is true, but DHCN is not developed enough to identify an EM DHCN type. Infact DHCN is inherently flawed, so I don't see much point in trying. It doesn't even rightfully accomplish the single proces elaboration. That would require redefining all the functions. DHCN is more like a tweak people add on to their typing for variety.

  5. #5
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,034
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If that is true than DCNH and Dual-type are clearly not ready to be merged. DCNH leads down to the path to 16 Subtype theory and is currently incompatible with Dual-Type. Since it only makes sense to consider either Dual-Type or 16 Subtype (and not both) to be the next step after finding IM type, using the same DCNH on both Dual-Types is a contradiction. When I first mentioned this to tcaud he insisted it works the analogy way and I can not understand why.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  6. #6
    ._. 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 Crispy View Post
    If that is true than DCNH and Dual-type are clearly not ready to be merged. DCNH leads down to the path to 16 Subtype theory and is currently incompatible with Dual-Type. Since it only makes sense to consider either Dual-Type or 16 Subtype (and not both) to be the next step after finding IM type, using the same DCNH on both Dual-Types is a contradiction. When I first mentioned this to tcaud he insisted it works the analogy way and I can not understand why.
    I recall tcaud said something about subtype altering information pathways rather than functions, which is a theory barely mentioned in English sources. If this is the case, it would make more than a little sense for EM and IM type to share a subtype, as some links between them may be enhanced as well. This is just speculation based on a single mention of it, though. FWIW I see DCNH as working like that, influencing information pathways in vital and mental ring rather than elements. Oddly enough, it seems to somehow fit with what I know of model X.

Posting Permissions

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