Originally Posted by
chemical
Since this thread is probably just the place, mind explaining how you see the multiple types theory?
The thing which occurred to me is that I seem to see in socionics, some sites just give profiles which detail IE 1-4, leaving the rest out, presumably because these correspond to the "vital" sphere, and perhaps even because only the mental sphere is really the sociotype proper in the sense of information processing. Yet, the vital sphere plays a crucial role in intertype. Gulenko's energy model seems to be getting at a replacement for this vital sphere with a sociotype which doesn't just parallel the standard sociotype (e.g. a LII's sociotype has vital sphere that looks sort of like ILI, with 4-dimensional Ni, 3-dimensional Te, 2-dimensional Si, 1-dimensional Fe). For instance, he says, there's no reason the vital energy-focused type cannot be sensory, where the main sociotype is intuitive.
The problem for me arises in really delineating what the energy model is about. The vital, behavioral side versus the mental, informational side - what does this mean though? The closest thing I can posit is that in the Jungian theory, energy is sort of controlled by emotional charge, so lies in the realm of complexes and so forth which kick the ego into action by spewing contents from the unconscious which the ego must react to. I'd assume that these unconscious contents parallel the Freudian id to some extent, and to that extent, the idea of a super(id) constituting a "vital sphere" which determines the energetic charge is well-founded.
It seems like the issue with linking those thoughts to the two-types model though is that Jungian theory basically says your one type handles the contents spewed into consciousness, and this also is how the original sociotype model is doing things (the ego/superego block are your conscious processing of things, whereas things like the hidden agenda just are used to spur you into action and so forth, they are energizing agents).
The one other thing Gulenko says is the energy/persona type is the output of an input-output system. Usually these two would both be controlled by one type.
I suppose then, what he's getting at is that your innate responses to information, how you make sense of things in life, is through a certain kind of information. How you then decide to live is another. I guess this could correspond to an ethical type, who understands everything in terms of ethical judgments, and then lives the entire life doing logical work. For instance, this could be a good number of medicine-oriented people, people who really see the ethical merits of medicine, and view the world in terms of ethical concerns, but how they respond (output) isn't through ethical processing used to deal with their environment (dealing directly with humane evaluations as a response to their humane evaluations), but rather working in a pure scientific knowledge-based sphere. Here you could get a IEI-SLI or something like that.
I guess I just find the term "energy type" a bit hard to sort out, because in so much as one needs to allocate energy towards certain information processes, I don't see how alternate information processes would be useful - the information processes themselves are effectively filters for what you see and focus on when you encounter information, and thus they are already in a sense controlling energy allocation. I suppose energy as understood specifically in terms of behavioral type is what is meant though, because that's what parallels the vital sphere of the usual model A. For instance, you could understand things in an introverted way, yet conceivably be an extravert in terms of living.
When he was posting on here, Tcaud used to speak of this behavioral/living type (though as I understand it, he was doing his own thing which independently to some extent paralleled Gulenko) as related to your interests set, which makes sense: interest is definitely a sort of vital-energy driving thing. You might not be able to understand things in a way suggesting an extraverted processing set, yet in what you choose to live like with your understanding, or what tasks you choose to do, you'd most certainly be able to tap extraversion if that's how you're built.
Side note is that I find the arrangement of IE a little strange in model A, given that in the Jungian theory, the opposite of thinking is feeling (logic versus ethics), yet in sociotype, one ethical function in a logical base is especially weak, the other one is only moderately weak. I think if one used the dual-types, one might be able to use a more Jungian standard for the arrangement of orders, and account for a IE being weak in one situation but not another possibly by ascribing it different roles in the two different types.
The only thing is, with a multiple types theory in the exact fashion of Gulenko, it's hard for me to see how the usual model A applies anymore. After all, model A presumes to describe the vital type, and Gulenko seems to be trying to do away with that.