D subtype and doing what you're good at

[bye]

.

[Bertrand]

I like this; (social) dominance as a byproduct of competence arising out of strong functions being well-matched to their environment. I think its also the result of a hormonal feedback loop--when your functions are well-matched you meet with victories, success and approval, which via hormones conveys a feeling of dominance which in turn translates into more social displays of dominance. another way to put it is everyone has strong functions, but its the environment that selects, and when the environment selects you, that's just another word for dominance. your post also points out how going into an occupation does not necessarily make you good at it and therefore indicative of strong functions. people can be incompetent, such that even a life spent in business is no guarantee of strong Te, etc. judging highly successful people by their occupation, though, seems to gain credibility by this view, which could be quite useful for typing. this is probably why DarkAngelFireWolf69 said most people in the public eye are D.

it also lends credibility to the idea that highly prestigious institutions are also actually better at what they do, so like if you go to a mid ranked law school its possible its packed with mediocre instructors, who couldn't get better gigs because they were in fact, not as competent, i.e.: well-matched, so if you want the best instruction you go to the most competitive universities, and prestige becomes a valid proxy for competence. This assumes we work in a system that is meritocratic and isn't subverted by rules that reward incompetence, such as making volume of papers published the metric whereby the judge competence for the position of instructor. this later process is basically corruption, and disgust is probably a biological response aimed at rooting it out

[Sanguine Miasma]

Well for couple of weeks I had unnatural chemical imbalance. I can say it made a difference. I kind of experienced D mentality altough I kept low profile. It was bit disturbing. It wasn't really me.

If we speculate at implications if everyone was like that. The world would be different place. Lot's of initiative, lack of true innovation, haphazard implementation, lots of surface level stuff. DarkAngelFireWolf69 calls beta mindset Dominant.

[Bertrand]

if everyone was D I get the feeling nature would form a new heirarchy [1], after a violent struggle to set it up, and it would all just be a subset of D, which is probably already what has happened many times, it might even be the structure of humanity arising to the top itself, because competence doesn't necessrily mean biggest muscles, it can take the form of technology, hence humanity dominated their environment. in other words, its not really possible for everyone to be D and for everyone to co-exist, which means even if we posit everyone being D it won't last in that state for long. what ends up happening is there are many paths to D, hence any quadra can have its time in the sun. beta is probably most concerned with directly going after D, imitating dominant behaviors directly--whether this transforms the behavior into actual dominance is a question for the environment. a beta in a delta environment might act D as a matter of base personality but never achieve D in the DCNH sense because of poor adaptation to surrounding conditions, meanwhile Dostoevsky is killing it, or what have you. in the same way Tigers aren't on top of the food chain anymore, and so forth, because a degree of artificiality has transformed what the environment selects for. but not really, since sociability may in the last analysis be an adapted trait arising out of nature. DarkAngelFireWolf69 says R > F and perhaps this is a manifestation of that. in the same way 2 chimps can take down any 1 chief



[1] or it would be a utopia because everyone would be maximally competent, and within competency is included social skills. these are after all "objective" metrics. to say everyone is D is kind of to say everyone is in exactly their right place for their abilities. perhaps this is why God still "lacks" one thing--finitude and weakness. this kind of perfect state required stepping down from that utopia, which sets off spiral development, so in some sense in order to go on developing requires such things, but if we assume we've "arrived" then either we restart the process or come to rest in perfection

[FDG]

So you think that natural talent at a given task is type related?

I do agree that if you focus too much on something you´re not naturally good at, you will become less confident. The reverse doesn´t seem to be type related for example Cristiano Ronaldo seems to be some EIE.

Anyway, DNCH seems to be extremely environmentally dependent, I´m still not convinced.

[woofwoofl]

Here's Scott Adams on talent stacks; long story short, be good not necessarily great at a multitude of for-whatever-reason compatible things, and when circumstances, skills, and the person's push forward all meet in the right spot, victory.

2018, in USA at least; too advanced for a linear approach to power.

[squark]

Unfortunately many human social systems are set up to reward confidence, not competence. Those people who are in top positions are often there not because they were the best person for the job, but because they (and others) believed they were the best. It's like THIS that I posted the other day. Exceptions are where someone created the position themselves through their own work . . . ie founding a company based on their own ideas.

Iow, thinking you're the best and convincing others that you're the best, doesn't actually mean you're the best.

[Adam Strange]

Unfortunately many human social systems are set up to reward confidence, not competence. Those people who are in top positions are often there not because they were the best person for the job, but because they (and others) believed they were the best. It's like THIS that I posted the other day. Exceptions are where someone created the position themselves through their own work . . . ie founding a company based on their own ideas.

Iow, thinking you're the best and convincing others that you're the best, doesn't actually mean you're the best.

Actually, those cases are not an exception at all. You still have to convince people that what you are providing them is the best deal, for them, under the present circumstances, that they can get.

Everyone is the CEO of their own life, and everyone has customers. (Your customers are the people who give you money.)

A person's life in this perspective can be seen as a search for that point where they are working as hard as they want to at something which gives them an adequate amount of satisfaction for people who can provide a satisfactory amount of money. That point varies with the individual and the available opportunities and depends, I believe, almost entirely on luck.

Which is not to say that sociotype or intelligence or a propensity to work hard doesn't matter. I just think that all of those things are products of luck. Choosing the right parents, the right country and time to be born in, and how we respond to stimulii are not things we have under our active control yet.

[Tallmo]

I think D is also a lot about dominating the psychological space. Getting attention and being in the center. Because the Ego functions are well-developed the person seems more present and realized. If you reject a dominant it feels like you reject the whole person. They seem very invested in what they do. It can be hard to ignore or reject such a person.

It feels as if space "bends" in the presence of a D. Everything gravitates towards that person. It's not until they are gone that you realize how big the impact was.

So this is kindof the "introverted" perspective of how D subtype dominates.

[squark]

Actually, those cases are not an exception at all. You still have to convince people that what you are providing them is the best deal, for them, under the present circumstances, that they can get.

Currently American society is focused on selling oneself. From the youngest with their selfies, posting their Instagram links and youtube channels, seeking for likes and views and an audience, to the business world, to even the creative world, where artists have to promote their work, and authors who once may have been able to rely on the publisher's marketing now must market themselves as well. There used to be an idea commonly held that the quality of the work or product would sell itself, and that is still true in some areas and places - and that is what I was referring to in the exception listed. Flooded with choices, bombarded with marketing, at some point maybe things will again tip in that direction . . . I hope, where people being sick of being sold to, will instead seek out quality.

[Bertrand]

Currently American society is focused on selling oneself. From the youngest with their selfies, posting their Instagram links and youtube channels, seeking for likes and views and an audience, to the business world, to even the creative world, where artists have to promote their work, and authors who once may have been able to rely on the publisher's marketing now must market themselves as well. There used to be an idea commonly held that the quality of the work or product would sell itself, and that is still true in some areas and places - and that is what I was referring to in the exception listed. Flooded with choices, bombarded with marketing, at some point maybe things will again tip in that direction . . . I hope, where people being sick of being sold to, will instead seek out quality.

I agree in principle, this is when the proxy used to evaluate the thing doesn't actually do so accurately, which creates "bubbles" i.e.: scams. eventually it collapses and corrects, but at the same time for as long as the environment is selecting for it, you will have people believe it is equivalent to success, because in the near term it is. when this happens its just another form of corruption, but its when the system itself stops valuing competence, almost by definition. the trick here is to have actual competition where merit can be tested. what usually happens is these confidence people try to simply get control of the situation in a way where they're never questioned or meaningfully compared or tested, because it would expose the emperor has no clothes, its the problem with "too big to fail." I imagine this process isn't all bad with people who emulate confidence alone actually picking up real abilities along the way, and that the doomsday scenario of nothing but conmen at the top is more an expression of fear than reality on the ground... it can happen, but at the same time all it takes is one truly competent person to come in and embarrass them. I actually think this is why so many people are afraid of embarrassment because they in some sense buy in to the idea that image matters on a deep level. whatever side they fall on (competent or pretender) they tend to realize how strong it is, but they don't realize that side of things (social appearance) is only ever one side of things. if you really are doing things correctly embarrassment should have no force over you even if you think you're on the "right" side of things, because almost everyone does anyway. but the one's who have the most to fear are charlatans. in other words, a quantum of unpleasantness inheres in embarrassment for both sides, but there is always more unpleasantness to embarrassment for the pretender. and that knowledge should inoculate the competent one against some of their fears. in other words, on balance that embarrassment is a mechanism, favors the competent, if they're actually competent. people try to offset this dynamic by getting really good at pretending so as to hedge their bets, but it is all one small step away from being blown away by the reality that underlies everything. there is a measure of faith to this idea because it reaches forward in time, thus God becomes a living principle in the life of anyone who sincerely relies on this belief. and it is God who underlies the relief such a proposition confers, this is I think what the bible means when it says "Yes, my soul, find rest in God; my hope comes from him"

[Exodus]

Imagine that your function stack is a hierarchy of how good you are at things. Your dominant function is what you're the best at, your suggestive or PoLR is what you're the worst at. In every profession or activity there's a hierarchy of how good people are at it, and those people that are the best end up as leaders. Leaders are generally D subtypes. The guys that are the best at what they do, do what they personally are the best at. When you focus on the top of the hierarchy inside of yourself, you reach the top of the hierarchy in the real world. Let's define Te as "business logic", as it is defined in model G, for the sake of making an explanation. If you are LIE, then Te is what you do best, and choosing business as your career will make you the most likely to excel at something. Most of the best business men are probably LIE or LSE. If you are some other type, you will not reach the 1% of the 1% in business, because you're at a natural disadvantage. Working super hard won't help, because everyone at the top works super hard, the only factor that remains is that they have a natural advantage and you don't. So that's my take on why D subtypes have a "focus" on the dominant function, they become D subtypes by building on their strongest part. If I'm SLE, and you're SLE, then Se is the thing that we both do best. But if I focus more on developing Se than you do, then I'll be better than you at the thing that you're the best at, making me superior to you. I'll be the leader in the Se domain, and excelling in one area of life makes you confident, not only in that specific area, but in life in general.

^ Reason #n why DCNH is fundamentally flawed.

First of all, every type - essentially by definition - focuses on their type strengths (the leading function in particular). Why would someone naturally focus on areas that they are worse at and cause psychological distress? In reality this is usually induced by environmental pressure.

The second problem is the association of dominance with the EJ temperament (I'm not sure if that's what you're alluding to with your example but it is a part of the theory). Dominance and intense focus really has to do with Se, not Te. If the theory was instead something like "certain people focus more intensely on the leading function, and others are more diffuse/balanced" then it could be reinterpreted as a "meta" version of Se or Si, as an apportioning of existing mental focus. But this is not how it is usually understood and presented.

[Bertrand]

you need to distinguish between trying to do something via weak functions and doing it via strong functions. why would someone naturally focus on areas they are worse at? uh why wouldn't they? the requirements of the world are vast, and peoples strengths are limited. its not that this doesn't happen its that it can't not happen. if you're saying how do people "naturally" fall into careers that they meet with via inferior ways of doing things, its because if evaluating this aspect of life falls into weak functions, again, why wouldn't they? and in any case no one is perfect, even the strong. adapting to one's environment in the sense of competence and therefore D is not something everyone manages, and that isn't impossible, its obvious. the environment is complex beyond the capacity to adapt to in every way, thus it becomes a matter of lining up strengths with needs in a specific environment in a way that confers benefits beyond the norm and over time (the relationship need not be absolute, simply better than other available options i.e. dominance is a product of competition). the fact that everyone sees the world through their lens doesn't mean they've "naturally" adapted to the environment within the meaning of competence. it is like the parable of the sower. your question ultimately asks "how could nature set people up to land themselves in careers or life situations they're incompetent at??-that wouldn't be very natural!" its like, uh, yeah, actually that is %100 natural. if nothing else mental retardation exists (i.e.: IQ) so there will always be a scale which gives rise to a pareto distribution. the fact that everyone interprets the world through their strong functions doesn't mean they're well matched, and since the environment is one half of the equation, it doesn't mean its unnatural for it to have its say, or somehow outside the scope of "natural" because its feedback from environment. the entire point of the psyche is it develops, not just within the span of one life (but that too), based on feedback from the environment, but as a matter of long term environmental/individual interplay, i.e.: evolution. your point takes for granted a view of the universe that is overly subjective because it rejects adaptation as a match with the environment as somehow outside the scope of the natural. it essentially defines the role of the objective world into a meaningless corner and makes the psyche out to be always fully adapted as a matter of logic, and "the environment" the "unnatural" cause of any mismatch, as if all humans are inherently perfect (one suspects this is just the goal all along, with other people also being perfect a sort of necessary concession in order to define oneself as perfect), and if the environment doesn't recognize that too bad for the environment, thus D is just sloughed off as an illusion created by man's illogic, in total and literal disregard for the extroverted standpoint, as if man really was truly one-sided at their core, and not just you. what stands out in your posts is an unconscious will to power manifest in subjective logic which simply sets up a world wherein one is king (via the intellect) and everything flows from the supremacy of the subjective intellect, and even God and the physical world both are brought to heel, in a way that deludes itself into thinking because one can pay lip service to them it means this hasn't occurred, as if lip service isn't preconditioned by a dismissive attitude. so of course DCNH has no place, because it introduces other people and the environment in a way that infringes on that project of yours

[Sanguine Miasma]

Just label hormones (or something similar) as something that produces similar effects IE's be done with. Just try out different drug cocktails.


I think DCNH can be changed or at least directed via drug therapy but there will be serious side effects.

Healthier version could be physical exercise or lack of it.

[Bertrand]

I think there's real truth to that, but at the same time it would destroy a lot of the personal meaning to those experiences, even if they can be measured in hormones. its also one step away from making the environment control adaptation with the implied problem and solution to literally everything--drugs. you already see this play out a lot with technologies that work, although for not fully understood reasons, to address exactly these sorts of issues--like testosterone replacement therapy and so forth, not to mention anti depressants

[Sanguine Miasma]

I know that ADHD medication morphed one ESI-C into ESI-D. That was very unfortunate turn in her personality if you ask me.

[FDG]

I know that ADHD medication morphed one ESI-C into ESI-D. That was very unfortunate turn in her personality if you ask me.

When I use Ritalin (not as medication just as a stimulant) I feel more like a N subtype I think.