I think I've figured out how DCNH works

[lavos]

This was the clue that made me realize everything:

D = Earth
C = Fire
N = Water
H = Air

Now, it works this way:

D: Duality with N. Conflictor with H. Supervisee and Benefactor to C.
C: Duality with H. Conflictor with N. Supervisor and Beneficiary to D.
N: Duality with D. Conflictor with C. Supervisee and Benefactor to H.
H: Duality with C. Conflictor with D. Supervisor and Beneficiary to N.


Air and Fire have no Supervisors (controller). Air and fire cannot be controlled.
Water and Earth have no Benefactors (requester). Water and Earth cannot be demanded from.

Tell me what do you think.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

lol I conflict with Normies. And everybody knows I'm a flaming fag, so sounds about right.

Wouldn't dominant types supervise creative types tho instead of the other way around? Like "Stop being so creative and do something more logical and productive. I'm more dominant than you so you need to listen to me. Your creativity sucks and isn't making the company enough money!" idk

People say DCNH types can change, but I really felt C my entire life. Somewhat H too but they are duals like you said so that makes sense.

[lavos]

More onto what I think the last statements mean:

Air and Fire are not Material, so they have to be "moved" by requesting (gently). Earth requests to be "lighted" from Fire (being driven to activity), and Water requests a "gust of wind" from Air (to make a rain or a storm -- also being driven to activity).


Water and Earth are Material, so they have to be moved by force. Fire burns the Earth, transforming it, and Air dissolves the Water, causing clouds and precipitation.

I'm getting confusing with the analogies, but you get the idea.

Now, Fire and Water do not get along, since Fire evaporates water, and Water puts out Fire. (Conflictor)
Air cannot mingle with Earth, and Earth cannot mingle with Air (conflictor).

Fire burns Air, and Water mingles with Earth (duality).

[lavos]

lol I conflict with Normies. And everybody knows I'm a flaming fag, so sounds about right.

Wouldn't dominant types supervise creative types tho instead of the other way around? Like "Stop being so creative and do something more logical and productive. I'm more dominant than you so you need to listen to me. Your creativity sucks and isn't making the company enough money!" idk

People say DCNH types can change, but I really felt C my entire life. Somewhat H too but they are duals like you said so that makes sense.

Sounds logical, but in my experience they don't. That sort of behavior comes more from N's (the conflictor of C's as per this). D's usually value the inputs from a C, but if the D is a narcissist or has power over the C, they might "force," the C to become N. Does this mean they are their supervisor as per the ITR? No, only that they might have some more circunstantial 'force". In fact, that would be a reverse supervision, which is often not a good thing.

[lavos]

This scenario where a D steamrolls a C, I think what actually happens is that, since everyone has the 4 preferences in a determinate priority order (for example, I'm C-N-H-D), you will be forced to use another preference (in my case the second). This carries with it an integral change, as you will be using another centre different from your main centre. All very speculative but it's how I think it works. Anyone by force (but most likely an D) can steamroll another, force them to use another centre, and bypass the normal DCNH ITR.

Another example, an N might steamroll a C so that the C is forced to switch to D to be able to control the N.

[Squirrel]

Nice

[Squirrel]

Do you have anything about VI of DCNH ?

[lavos]

Do you have anything about VI of DCNH ?

You will probably find this thread useful (especially the posts by Tallmo) https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...e-subtype-DCNH

[lavos]

Do you have anything about VI of DCNH ?

I can probably produce some observations too, but I'll post them here https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ypes-Nicknames

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

This scenario where a D steamrolls a C, I think what actually happens is that, since everyone has the 4 preferences in a determinate priority order (for example, I'm C-N-H-D), you will be forced to use another preference (in my case the second). This carries with it an integral change, as you will be using another centre different from your main centre. All very speculative but it's how I think it works. Anyone by force (but most likely an D) can steamroll another, force them to use another centre, and bypass the normal DCNH ITR.

Another example, an N might steamroll a C so that the C is forced to switch to D to be able to control the N.

Hmm no offense but you do seem kind of 'softer' to me than other LIEs. Do you think that is based on your dcnh type maybe? Or maybe it has nothing to do with types and I'm just desensitized to assholes ((I grew up in a rough area where people were mean and critical)) and might also have something to do with our ages. You supervise me in socionics but I think I'm older than you so it evens out more.

My mom has a female LIE friend and she supervises me so badly I can't stand her lol. I also have an uncle who is a 75 year old LIE that is kind of insufferable to be around, but you have a softer edge compared to other LIEs it seems? I like it lol.

[Squirrel]

You will probably find this thread useful (especially the posts by Tallmo) https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...e-subtype-DCNH

this article and this article by @Sanguine Miasma are pretty good too

[lavos]

Hmm no offense but you do seem kind of 'softer' to me than other LIEs. Do you think that is based on your dcnh type maybe? Or maybe it has nothing to do with types and I'm just desensitized to assholes ((I grew up in a rough area where people were mean and critical)) and might also have something to do with our ages. You supervise me in socionics but I think I'm older than you so it evens out more.

My mom has a female LIE friend and she supervises me so badly I can't stand her lol. I also have an uncle who is a 75 year old LIE that is kind of insufferable to be around, but you have a softer edge compared to other LIEs it seems? I like it lol.

I'm a pretty chill LIE

I'm not the usual enneagram for LIE's (3,7,8).

[lavos]

this article and this article by @Sanguine Miasma are pretty good too

Dunno which elemental correlation is better, if his or mine. but I think it's mine.

[Squirrel]

Dunno which elemental correlation is better, if his or mine. but I think it's mine.

No problem

I'm not the usual enneagram for LIE's (3,7,8).

I will take this opportunity and ask you : what's your enneagram ?

[lavos]

I will take this opportunity and ask you : what's your enneagram ?

If it's not 3, 7 or 8, take a guess. Most logical would be 5 or 6. I've also been typed 9w8 before, but the truth is that (won't dodge or beat around the bush any more)...

I'm a 4w3

[Squirrel]

If it's not 3, 7 or 8, take a guess. Most logical would be 5 or 6. I've also been typed 9w8 before, but the truth is that (won't dodge or beat around the bush any more)...

I'm a 4w3

I'll admit I was a little surprised, but I know LIE-Ni 2w1 so it's not unusual to see such a strange correlation

Anyway, have you read the descriptions or Naranjo's traits' structure ?

[lavos]

I'll admit I was a little surprised, but I know LIE-Ni 2w1 so it's not unusual to see such a strange correlation

LIE-Ni 4w3 is rare, but they exist. I know a girl (some girl that was a cashier at a supermarket) that was also a LIE-Ni 4w3. She was 4-7-8 probably though. I'm 4-5-8.

I've never seen a LIE-Ni E2 before, except in fiction (Kaworu Nagisa from Evangelion). Ah I remembered another; Joshua from the videogame The World Ends with You.

Anyway, have you read the descriptions or Naranjo's traits' structure ?

I read stuff a long time ago when I typed myself. But if you have any interesting read to suggest, I'll take a look at it.

[Squirrel]

LIE-Ni 4w3 is rare, but they exist. I know a girl (some girl that was a cashier at a supermarket) that was also a LIE-Ni 4w3. She was 4-7-8 probably though. I'm 4-5-8.

I've never seen a LIE-Ni E2 before, except in fiction (Kaworu Nagisa from Evangelion). Ah I remembered another; Joshua from the videogame The World Ends with You.



I read stuff a long time ago when I typed myself. But if you have any interesting read to suggest, I'll take a look at it.

4 Sp

4 Sx

4 So

[lavos]

4 Sp

4 Sx

4 So

Thanks. I do not relate to the Sx descriptions, I relate more to the other two. But I do not think I am sp/so or so/sp. I'm pretty sure I'm sx/sp. I also think I have somewhat "retired" from being a four, or I have simply trascended some of the shortcomings of the type.

[Squirrel]

Thanks. I do not relate to the Sx descriptions, I relate more to the other two. But I do not think I am sp/so or so/sp. I'm pretty sure I'm sx/sp. I also think I have somewhat "retired" from being a four, or I have simply trascended some of the shortcomings of the type.

How do you usually type instincts ?

If you use it as a separate theory of the enneagram number, you will likely not get an accurate result

I would suggest reading descriptions on this link because it's written by professional Enneagram authors, so it will be more accurate than any other descriptions you find on the internet
Maybe 4 is your heart fix

This types usually mistype as 4 :

2 Sp
2 Sx
3 Sx
5 Sx
6 Sp
6 Sx
7 Sx
8 Sx
9 Sx

[lavos]

How do you usually type instincts ?

I typed myself in stacking via the following mechanism: I believe there are intertypes between the different instincts. I also found my twin flame. This woman was sx/so, so therefore, I have to be sx/sp (Since I belive the "stacking duality" is between these two types). There are also other things I took into consideration, like being so last and sync-flow.

This types usually mistype as 4 :

2 Sp .
2 Sx

Not likely.

3 Sx

Nah. I'm not a narcissist. Nor ambitious or driven.

5 Sx

In my trifix, but not theoretical or logical enough to be a 5 (I guess?). Or too emotional I guess.

6 Sp
6 Sx

I'm not a six.

7 Sx

I'm not a 7. In fact, I'm more of an "anti"-seven (total opposite from a 7)

8 Sx

In my trifix. Not the main fix due to not being confrontational enough unless necessary. Not street smart or powerful in my daily chores.

9 Sx

It's possible. I was typed 9w8 once by someone (who did not know me too well though). I value peace a great deal, but I have no problem infringing it if it's necessary.

If you use it as a separate theory of the enneagram number, you will likely not get an accurate result

I would suggest reading descriptions on this link because it's written by professional Enneagram authors, so it will be more accurate than any other descriptions you find on the internet
Maybe 4 is your heart fix

Would you be interested if I show you some examples of LIE-Ni's 4w3 (from celebrities). You seem to be under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that they are even rarer than E2 LIE-Ni's (which they are not).

Here you have some:

Edward Speelers - Bing images (edit: okay he might be 6w7)
alec newman - Bing images (pretty sure he is 4w3)
Embeth Davidtz - Bing images (she might be 6w5)

[Squirrel]

Would you be interested if I show you some examples of LIE-Ni's 4w3 (from celebrities).

Sure I'm interested

You seem to be under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that they are even rarer than E2 LIE-Ni's (which they are not)

Actually no , I believe any enneagram can be any type

I have seen more weird combos , such as LII 2 ( yeah they exist ) and IEI 9 Sp , so LIE Ni 4 isn't a surprise ( I was surprised because you gave me an impression of 5 )

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Whoa. Whoah. WHOAAAAHH.

A LIE 4? Holy shit, my mind has been blown by how non-stereotypical that is. How refreshing. Like a Seltzer.

@lavos you are a beautiful snowflake.

[rizz]

FUCK YOU I'M FIIIRE BABY!

[Clarke]

This was the clue that made me realize everything:

D = Earth
C = Fire
N = Water
H = Air

Now, it works this way:

D: Duality with N. Conflictor with H. Supervisee and Benefactor to C.
C: Duality with H. Conflictor with N. Supervisor and Beneficiary to D.
N: Duality with D. Conflictor with C. Supervisee and Benefactor to H.
H: Duality with C. Conflictor with D. Supervisor and Beneficiary to N.


Air and Fire have no Supervisors (controller). Air and fire cannot be controlled.
Water and Earth have no Benefactors (requester). Water and Earth cannot be demanded from.

Tell me what do you think.

Here are some observations I've made about myself based on "DCNH Portrait: The Empirical Subtypes":
-I think that my current image should look like a C or N, maybe depending on my environment.
-I think that historically, I probably looked more like an H. I think I generally was a sort of peacemaker.
-I have probably taken N actions historically. I prized my own space being in the format that it was, and didn't care about the outside so long as it didn't infringe on my space.
-I would say that at least some of my actions on this forum have resembled H.

Here are my preferences for each type based on the descriptions of them on "DCNH Portrait: The Empirical Subtypes":
-D: I like this. It seems like an interesting person, and their communication style makes sense to me.
-C: A cool, but maybe confusing person.
-N: Okay person. I could probably get along with them, as long as they don't try to put my stuff in order. If we could build an understanding, that would be cool.
-H: Probably okay, but maybe too sensitive.

Here's what elements I have identified with historically:
-Young: Water.
-Teens: Somewhat fire.
-Now: Probably anything but air. Earth also seems unlikely.

Here's some additional information about myself that might be useful:
-My spaces generally look disorganized. However, I usually know how to access everything I need, or at least most things that I need. I generally have gotten pretty mad when these things have been disrupted.
-I think I generally like it when things seem to be ordered. Usually it seems to be impressive.
-I usually try to organize things so that they seem ordered to other people.
-My views seem to be adaptable to groups and powerful people at times. My attitudes towards conflicts tend to depend on the newness of the conflict (a new conflict is fairly disrupting, but a continued conflict is old news). I think that you could say that I sometimes normalize certain behaviors.
-I seem to sometimes break harmony if I think that something is incorrect. However, usually I'll be pretty diplomatic.

I think that this is a natural progression of events that has happened with me:
-A person I'm familiar with disrupts an object that I think should be in a certain location.
-I say something like "don't move that".
-They want to move it anyway.
-I basically tell them not to move it, and give my rationale.
-They don't listen to my rationale and move it.
-A fight breaks out.

I would guess that I'm a N type based on all of this information.

Edit: To add to this, I've observed that it's hard to ask me for things, but it's actually fairly easy to control me. At the very least, I've been historically manipulated. However, I know someone that might be an H, and it seems hard to truly control them. However, it seems easy to request stuff from them. I have a good relationship with the H, although they seem more like Benefactor to me in that I tend to admire them. I generally don't think that I'd greatly admire most H's based on the description.

Generally, we could say that I request stuff from H, but H doesn't usually request stuff from me.

Edit 2: So I think I've observed the following:
-I'll tend to be more averse to control, and react against it. This should make me look more unable to be controlled, but it's ultimately probably a fear reaction. I seem to ultimately be controllable.
-The likely H I know tends to look more controllable, but they actually can't be easily controlled. They might look this way because they can be easily requested from.
-The requests towards the H can be harsh in nature, and they'll usually accept them to keep the situation peaceful. However, I'd say that it would be hard to truly establish control over or manipulate the H.

[Clarke]

lol I conflict with Normies. And everybody knows I'm a flaming fag, so sounds about right.

Lol oh no.

Edit: I said this because I think that I'm an N type.

[lavos]

This also might mean the following:

The two real conflictor quadras are the adjacent same Se or Ne valuing quadra. In other words, Gamma and Beta are enemies (water and fire) and delta and alpha are two totally different worlds (air and earth).

[Clarke]

So I have the following knowledge about my family life:
-Me and my mom have always conflicted with each other.
-My reactions to my mom have always been N-related. They look like N concerns.
-My mom appeared to be a sort of D in her actions (she was pushy), but she didn't really have any presence. She created a sort of presence by being vocal, but when she left, it wasn't the same loss that I expect from "dominant" people. Though maybe I'm not that perceptive on this point. It's possible that I'm only analyzing loss, and not really analyzing the gain of her not being in the same space.
-My mom used to be different. Apparently, she used to be a nicer person.

I think that my mom might've been a C type, but my presence in the house changed her into a pseudo D. I would say that if any element fit her, it would probably be Fire, at least from what I've seen of her.

Edit: I think a scenario where I was actually H and changed to a N could also work if she could be classified as D. That would be more realistic, since N might've been a sort of defense mechanism. Maybe my tendency to be manipulated was due to resembling N or other factors.

I don't know why she would've appeared to change though.

Edit 2: After some thinking, I think that my first line of thought was probably more correct. I was controllable through pushy behavior as a kid. It was only through rationales that I was able to really resist controlling behavior.

My guess was that she would've turned into a D to control me better, since a C approach wouldn't work. But once I somehow gained the ability to avoid being controlled as much (maybe through some kind of reasoning), I wasn't controllable by her anymore. This might still let me get controlled by others, though, which I think is what's happened.

Edit 3: I tend to have trouble figuring out whether I'm a core/leading H or N due to a combination of fairly bad memory and poor self awareness. I'll add some some information here about myself:
-Generally, my role in relations between other people was to be a sort of mediator. I didn't like conflict in general.
-In group projects, I tended to be the person who corrected mistakes. I never liked the idea of having mistakes in work. Generally, I was fairly useless at other roles. This might've been due to the nature of group work (I work easier alone).
-Usually, when there's a conflict, I think I tend to take a diplomatic approach first. When I'm not diplomatic, usually I see it as some kind of fair play or it's because something of mine has been disrupted somehow.
-Despite liking bluntness, I actually can get affected by it emotionally, and it can be painful. I would say that I fear people saying certain words. However, I don't realistically expect alternatives. Usually, when there's a problem, it's much better for me if information is out in the open, because otherwise I'm prone to speculation.
-I used to be a highly sensitive person.

In addition to the above information, I have the following perceptions:
-While I like D now, I don't remember liking D people naturally (as a teen or younger).

These considerations actually make me think that I'm likely an H that normally takes an N approach, and expects and sometimes wants the world to operate in a D way. This would mean that my likely 4 letter type is probably HNCD. It's also possible that I'm overcomplicating things.

Some additional information that might be useful is the following information about the progression of my life skills:
-As a kid, the first skill I generally had was in art. Art seems to be a creativity or intuition related activity.
-I would say that at a pretty young age, I developed a sense of ethics.
-Later, maybe around highschool, I would say that I came up with creativity that could properly be utilized, such as potentially storywriting skills.
-I would generally say that during my life, I've been able to be able to problem solve, but I haven't really been able to monetize. I had problems being actually productive, or creating productive systems.

This progression of life skills could indicate that I developed functions in the following order, if my memory is correct: Ni-Fi-Ne-Te. This roughly seems to correspond to HNCD if those letters could be developed in a linear way over time.

This would generally explain why I appear to be an INFP in MBTI, which could make me look like an EII in Socionics.

Once again, these conclusions assume that I'm correct about myself, and that I remember things properly. It also potentially assumes that I understand DCNH concepts/theory.

Edit 4: So, I would generally say that I always identified with the element of water. If I were to choose my element priorities, it would be the following: Water > Fire > Earth > Air. Fire and earth might be interchangeable depending on sort of their meaning. Fire can be an interesting element or a destructive element, and my feelings about it as a destructive element are generally mixed. Earth is stable, but also boring and maybe stifling, and I generally don't like certain types of boring or stifling.

It's also important to note that sometimes, I type people by the image that they seem to present. So I think that my typing of the H person might've been wrong. They might actually be a NH-type person.

Edit 5: To add to this, my mom's preferences usually revolve around "clean" or "airy". She likes light, airy things. In contrast, I usually like things that represent the dark underground. This has been something that we've never really been able to understand about each other.

[Clarke]

So this all potentially means that your subtype dual is the person who has the duals of your letters in the same order. For example, a HNCD person would have a CDHN person as their dual.

Your subtype conflictor, maybe I'll call them a dual-conflictor in this case, could be someone who has your letters in a similar order, but in conflicting positions. For example, a HNCD person's dual-conflictor would be a DCNH. In this case, all of the letters are conflicting, but because they're in a similar order they might seem like an enticing and understandable person. In the dual-conflictor case, I think if the two get together, one or both of them will adapt to the other by using their second letter. An HNCD would behave like an N around the DCNH, and the DCNH might try to make the HNCD happy by using C characteristics. I'd imagine that in these situations, one or both of the partners would have a constant sense of nagging that things aren't perfect. Depending on the partners' personalities, they might just ignore that nagging. I don't know what the implications are of the 3rd and 4th letter.

I'd imagine that for other types, such as the HCDN with the DNHC, these interactions are probably less rewarding because the second letter isn't the dual of their partner's first letter. They probably have a different interaction style.

[Clarke]

There's a few things that I don't understand. They're the following:
-Why do I seem to have a high amount of Fi? I say this because I seem to fit EII descriptions except for certain parts, like the Se weakness. I think that if I was H first (which would correspond with Ni), I would identify well with the ILI description for Ni.
-Why do I seem to like logic in potential partners? I think that I seem to like Te in particular. I'm not sure about this historically.

I've noticed that in cases like this, I usually seem to have to apply personality systems to myself and my own experiences before I can understand them, which probably fits the EII's Ti role in some descriptions. I've historically liked to choose non-humanity fields, and I've historically liked to do math for almost fun, but I don't know if this is necessarily any kind of proof that I can do logic well if it's separate from the human dynamic. I don't really understand the definition of "do logic well" in this case.

I historically don't fit the Filatova EII's Se weakness, and by Model A I shouldn't have Si in the Super-Id block. I should also have the decisive dichotomy, which wouldn't make sense to have if I'm right about my dad's typing. I suspect that he's a SLI, which shouldn't cause me to be decisive. I do seem to have aristocratic characteristics (I put a high importance in groups and see people as a sort of group representative), though I tend not to introduce myself or necessarily even always define myself by my grouping.

Historically, I've liked people that seemed capable, usually in an environment where they can show skills like gaming PvP. Due to this, I've also liked soldiers, although I think that the first type of soldier I liked was a more intelligence-based one, like a sniper. Since a certain age, strategists and commanders who dispense facts have been interesting to me. I would generally not say that I was confident in my attraction towards people, especially based on looks.

Edit: I guess I didn't mean to make anyone sift through emotional content. I thought it might be relevant if information about my own type is used for understanding DCNH as a theory, and it's potential applications.

Edit 2: I currently have this nagging feeling that I'm wrong somehow. I just seem to have a natural like for D's, or at least kind D's. It's the C types that, while interesting, seem to somehow operate in a way that I don't understand.

Generally, I'd say that I've taken the role of an expert rather than a designer, but I'm not completely sure about this. If I'm right, that would fit H secondary. While I've been good at design work, I haven't really had a high amount of confidence in it. However, I have historically had more confidence in my expertise.

[lavos]

@Clarke, have you discarded LII-Ne as an option?

[Clarke]

@Clarke, have you discarded LII-Ne as an option?

I don't think I value Si or Fe. I also don't seem to be emotivist.

[Clarke]

I don't think I value Si or Fe. I also don't seem to be emotivist.

So actually, I once had a romantic relationship with someone who I think was a LII. I'd have to read more about the LII description to make sure, but he seemed like a NT type, and I think he seemed to value Fe and maybe even Si. Our relationship had the following characteristics:
-It was explosive and full of debate. The main source of debate was that he believed in a democratic Utopia with no money. I thought that a Utopia like that would be impossible.
-We had similarities. He and I both thought that working at a job was boring, and wished we didn't have to do it.
-We had differences. He left school because he hated doing math, thinking it was useless in principle. I stayed in school because I knew and/or was told that it was important for my future. I didn't understand his rationale for leaving school.
-We put different value in health. I used to go to bed at a pretty decent time. However, he believed that staying up late, despite having school the next morning, was completely okay and that I should tough it out. I ended up following his rationale.
-He had a greater pool of knowledge than me, which made him seem fairly intelligent to me. I think that I usually absorbed the facts that he said.

During or after our relationship, I started to take on his characteristics and his debate style. I've wondered for a while whether that was a possible sign of a look-a-like relationship, but that wouldn't explain why I seemed to have the decisive dichotomy. So far, the best explanation for that has been that I've been a decisive type that has taken on aspects of other types (such as SLI potentially Aristocratic characteristics), rather than a type that has taken on decisive characteristics.

My viewpoint that a democratic Utopia with no money was impossible was probably taken at least partially from my upbringing (at least one potentially Delta parent), but the fact that I was defending it might still mean that I was somehow intellectually distrusting or obstinate. I'm not sure if I'm understanding the dichotomies right.

I'd guess that the LII's element was fire.

[lavos]

That doesn't sound like a LII. Hating math and moneyless "utopia".

[Clarke]

That doesn't sound like a LII. Hating math and moneyless "utopia".

He thought that math was a pointless exercise. It wasn't that he couldn't do the math, it was that he didn't see its utility in his future. Maybe that's more like the ILI.

Similar to what I'm guessing is Ti valuing, he regularly questioned most societal knowledge. I'm not sure why he latched onto the Utopia idea. He seemed to like this video that talked about it, and the video had this viewpoint that everyone could be convinced to create this Utopia if they just stood together and did it. To me, it just wasn't realistic.

He thought that money was corrupt in principle and/or that it didn't have any true value. My understanding of his viewpoints might not be correct because this happened years ago.

[lavos]

He thought that math was a pointless exercise. It wasn't that he couldn't do the math, it was that he didn't see its utility in his future. Maybe that's more like the ILI.

Similar to what I'm guessing is Ti valuing, he regularly questioned most societal knowledge. I'm not sure why he latched onto the Utopia idea. He seemed to like this video that talked about it, and the video had this viewpoint that everyone could be convinced to create this Utopia if they just stood together and did it. To me, it just wasn't realistic.

He thought that money was corrupt in principle and/or that it didn't have any true value. My understanding of his viewpoints might not be correct because this happened years ago.

I agree with him (and I'm LIE-Ni, fwiw).

[Clarke]

I agree with him (and I'm LIE-Ni, fwiw).

I can't imagine how you would convince everyone to just stand up and accomplish something together. You would need some kind of cultural movement to get others motivated to try to bring this society into reality. I don't think the society would go well once it becomes reality either. It seems exploitable, especially if someone with the right amount of charisma and the right understandings about how to exploit systems gets some kind of social power, and manages to acquire the resources for themself. I haven't really thought about this viewpoint at length recently, so I don't know if my understanding of that as a flaw is actually realistic.

I tend to see money being corrupt in principle as kind of a pointless line of thought. It still appears to be useful for trading.

Edit: Imagine a society where you could just grab anything for free. What would stop anyone from grabbing more items? Social credit only matters if you're subject to it.

Edit 2: Historically, and even now, it's not that I wouldn't want this society to exist. I'd personally like to have a society where people can just get items for free, and there's no real power structure. I just don't think it's possible. I also think that bringing a society like that into existence would be potentially risky.

[lavos]

It requires changing the mindset of humanity first. Condemn selfishness and not worship it. Also, some system would have to be put in place, it would not be a "free-for-all". But no money = no dehumanization. Money dehumanizes and reduces everything to numbers, or objects.

[Clarke]

It requires changing the mindset of humanity first. Condemn selfishness and not worship it. Also, some system would have to be put in place, it would not be a "free-for-all". But no money = no dehumanization. Money dehumanizes and reduces everything to numbers, or objects.

I guess I have this belief that humanity can't be changed. We just seem to have an instinctual level of selfishness.

I also don't see the problem with reducing everything to numbers or objects for some reason. I guess I think that's a valid perspective on life.

Edit: I guess I could say that I don't understand why putting a price on anything dehumanizes it. It seems to just assign the value that someone thinks is appropriate for that item. I think that this might happen naturally, even without money ("I would pay 2 cows for that horse").

Maybe this is an Enneagram thing. Otherwise, maybe it's somehow related to Quadra values. There's still a possibility that I might be an EII.

Edit 2: So actually, culture seems to have some effect on selfishness, as different cultures seem to have different understandings of how much selfishness is appropriate. However, I think that we also might have developed from the most aggressive type of human. It seemed that the aggressive humans had out competed the more democratic, diplomatic ones.

Something like this requires some kind of scientific testing, and I'm not really sure how to ethically set up that kind of experiment. It would be interesting if we were able to set up a sort of bubble Utopia. Basically, we would make a money-less Utopia separated from the rest of society. Unfortunately, outside factors (politics, resource access) could make this fairly hard to do.

I think that the bubble Utopia would need to operate for many generations. Actually, something like this might be a good project for Mars, if it wasn't valued territory.

Edit 3: So, while I said that the aggressive humans out competed the democratic ones, I failed to connect this to selfishness. I don't know if the aggressive humans were necessarily more selfish than the more peaceful humans.

Edit 4: It's possible that I connected "aggressive" with "exploitive", and somehow that became "selfishness".

Edit 5: So I think generally, as a principle about humanity, people don't like to lose resources. However, they're not opposed to gaining something.

If you could portray a Utopia as gaining something without risk, people would be more likely to embrace it. Therefore, I think that the bubble Utopia might be the best pathway towards making the money-less Utopia real. The average person isn't likely to resist the creation of a bubble Utopia, as long as it doesn't take away a resource that they value (such as an important section of mars, or an important section of first world country land). Once the bubble Utopia is created, and appears successful, then it might be easier to convince the average person to embrace the true Utopia.

Some possible obstacles to this are the following:
-Political/economic interests would try to sabotage the bubble Utopia to prove that it fails conceptually. They would do this because of a potential interpretation that they can't easily profit off of the bubble Utopia, or that it would disrupt their established order.
-There might be some kind of resource problem in the bubble Utopia. For a Utopia to be functional, it needs to have access to the right resources. A possible resource I see being a problem is something like rare earth metals for developing technology, if the Utopia wanted to take itself that far. I'm sure there's probably simpler issues, maybe related to standard metals.

I've kind of derailed the thread a bit.

[Renna]

So actually, I once had a romantic relationship with someone who I think was a LII. I'd have to read more about the LII description to make sure, but he seemed like a NT type, and I think he seemed to value Fe and maybe even Si. Our relationship had the following characteristics:
-It was explosive and full of debate. The main source of debate was that he believed in a democratic Utopia with no money. I thought that a Utopia like that would be impossible.
-We had similarities. He and I both thought that working at a job was boring, and wished we didn't have to do it.
-We had differences. He left school because he hated doing math, thinking it was useless in principle. I stayed in school because I knew and/or was told that it was important for my future. I didn't understand his rationale for leaving school.
-We put different value in health. I used to go to bed at a pretty decent time. However, he believed that staying up late, despite having school the next morning, was completely okay and that I should tough it out. I ended up following his rationale.
-He had a greater pool of knowledge than me, which made him seem fairly intelligent to me. I think that I usually absorbed the facts that he said.

During or after our relationship, I started to take on his characteristics and his debate style. I've wondered for a while whether that was a possible sign of a look-a-like relationship, but that wouldn't explain why I seemed to have the decisive dichotomy. So far, the best explanation for that has been that I've been a decisive type that has taken on aspects of other types (such as SLI potentially Aristocratic characteristics), rather than a type that has taken on decisive characteristics.

My viewpoint that a democratic Utopia with no money was impossible was probably taken at least partially from my upbringing (at least one potentially Delta parent), but the fact that I was defending it might still mean that I was somehow intellectually distrusting or obstinate. I'm not sure if I'm understanding the dichotomies right.

I'd guess that the LII's element was fire.

EIE? Some Beta NF seem to have interest in “Utopia” kind of thing.

Devalued math seem a sign of weak T.