Socionics on Hard Mode: Level 10 @ Boss

[krieger]

we had some intriguing speculations on this back in the days... or at least i did.

the double type gives you the ability to identify traits in terms of a gradual spectrum. for example, a person can be double intuitive (both types have intuition), intuition overlooking sensing (top type has intuition, bottom has sensing), sensing overlooking intuition (you get the picture) and double sensing (i'm going to take pains explaining).

you could even do this with reinin traits, i.e. double Result or Emotivist overlooking Constructivist. same with clubs, temperaments, etc.

the next implication then, was that the reason why reinin traits (and other traits) at varying points can alternatingly seem easy and hard to detect was because most people are a mixture of the two extremities and only some (1/4?) people possessed a trait "double".

i was always somewhere in between thinking socionics wasn't powerful and descriptive enough with just one type on one hand, and thinking the extra type made things excessively complicated on the other. and meanwhile there isn't much of an a-priori reason to postulate yet another type, no matter how much gulenko will struggle to make it sound like there is. the best reason i think is to postulate fractal patterns in psychology much like they appear in nature. not idiotic an idea, but a stretch.

as a brain-game, though, it served its purpose.

edit: ok, now allow me to wax philosophical.

suppose instead of declaring "there are two types", you hypothesize there are just multiple, indiscriminate as to how many.

everything i describe above then, regardless of how many types there are, still holds. you'd just vary the number of intermediate measures of each trait as you vary the number of types.

i think this is is the lesson learned from the endeavor. the non-distinction between quantifying the number of types, and simply typing in terms of graduations...