INTps identifying with Dynamist description

[crazedrat]

My idea of dual-type theory is that the motor cortex of the human brain can have degrees of differentiation which vary from that of the brain structure socionics tries to (from on the outside looking in) model. So you end up with for example, an INTp who may have difficulty putting his own ideas into action. (from the standpoint of his being an INTp who wants to immediately get to work putting his plan into motion) For apparently 1/256 people, that works. For the other 15/256 INTps, it's more complicated, although it's still unclear I think exactly how. That's what we're trying to understand by developing dual-type theory. (labcoat and I)

This to me, sounds like you are speculating on the existance of a "dominant construct". If this is what you are doing, you are going to need to talk about the relationship between the IM type and the dominant construct; because at first glance it would seem, to me, the dominant construct is the thing which fixes a person into a particular IM type... and that whether this construct is well adapted, or poorly adapted, is a matter of what it is being seen relative to, in the world.. but if you were to put a person into a sensory deprivation bubble.. they would just be their IM type

[tcaudilllg]

This to me, sounds like you are speculating on the existance of a "dominant construct". If this is what you are doing, you are going to need to talk about the relationship between the IM type and the dominant construct; because at first glance it would seem, to me, the dominant construct is the thing which fixes a person into a particular IM type... and that whether this construct is well adapted, or poorly adapted, is a matter of what it is being seen relative to, in the world.. but if you were to put a person into a sensory deprivation bubble.. they would just be their IM type

I think that's what macintruc is working on: identifying what about the brain specializes it into a given type. Is that what you meant by "dominant construct"?

[crazedrat]

yes.. mostly, I think. although I don't see the point in trying to cross the language gap into neuroscience with this.. couldn't you operate on the assumption our mind operates logically.. the way any system operates, and go from there?
Also.. well, a dominant construct would be kind of like the information database against which new information is brought into comparison... kind of like if you learn a new word, you learn it in terms of its meaning to other words; and what it means is defined by other words... etc. Over time the word becomes assimilated in with the rest of the words you already knew.. it becomes "one of them"; it's seen in their terms... etc. And now the dominant construct has grown one object bigger. But if you were to look at a whole new language... like spanish, or something.. you would be trying to figure out spanish; an outside construct, in terms of the dominant construct english... that is where I can see dual type theory coming in to play. If English is an INTp language, and spanish is an ESFp language... in learning spanish, you come to understand it in English's terms.. After you learn spanish, you have an... English understanding of spanish. You and your construct are still an INTp, and english is still INTp... Spanish is still ESFp.. the place where they met, was XXXx; but spanish was never a part of you. You cannot lose your understanding of English, and retain your understandin of Spanish. English is a part of you, and Spanish has been assimilated into English. The terms which you understand in Spanish, are defined by English.... casa means house, mi llamo means my name, etc.
You are only a dual type ESFp when you are speaking spanish; and even then, accidentally... you have no internal understanding of ESFp, you are only rehashing an ESFp system which has been translated into INTp. So you are a false ESFp, who is really an INTp.. you are a false Spanish speaker, who really is speaking English in their head.
Etc.

[tcaudilllg]

yes.. mostly, I think. although I don't see the point in trying to cross the language gap into neuroscience with this.. couldn't you operate on the assumption our mind operates logically.. the way any system operates, and go from there?
Also.. well, a dominant construct would be kind of like the information database against which new information is brought into comparison... kind of like if you learn a new word, you learn it in terms of its meaning to other words; and what it means is defined by other words... etc. Over time the word becomes assimilated in with the rest of the words you already knew.. it becomes "one of them"; it's seen in their terms... etc. And now the dominant construct has grown one object bigger. But if you were to look at a whole new language... like spanish, or something.. you would be trying to figure out spanish; an outside construct, in terms of the dominant construct english... that is where I can see dual type theory coming in to play. If English is an INTp language, and spanish is an ESFp language... in learning spanish, you come to understand it in English's terms.. After you learn spanish, you have an... English understanding of spanish. You and your construct are still an INTp, and english is still INTp... Spanish is still ESFp.. the place where they met, was XXXx; but spanish was never a part of you. You cannot lose your understanding of English, and retain your understandin of Spanish. English is a part of you, and Spanish has been assimilated into English. The terms which you understand in Spanish, are defined by English.... casa means house, mi llamo means my name, etc.
You are only a dual type ESFp when you are speaking spanish; and even then, accidentally... you have no internal understanding of ESFp, you are only rehashing an ESFp system which has been translated into INTp. So you are a false ESFp, who is really an INTp.. you are a false Spanish speaker, who really is speaking English in their head.
Etc.

Yeah I think that makes sense.

[crazedrat]

For the word archaic... From what is written above it would seem to be talking about a types general processing power. An INTp, trying to assimilate an ESFp system into their dominant construct, is going to have to convert the data into a form unnatural, and relatively foreign to it. There will be more transformation involved, more work for the INTp... The ability to do this work, would be kind of like a types functional processing power. Short term memory, ability to access long term memory, ability to quickly transform the data... etc. It's kind of like the hardware setup on a computer, really. Archaic, would vaguely resemble a computers overall performance rating.
A lack of this "archaic power level" may act as a cap, to a certain extent, on a types ability to transform systems of data foreign to it; and particularly as those foreign systems are larger and more complex.
So maybe dual type theory, once again, could be considered
...
ill get back to you on this

[crazedrat]

content is subjected to the dominant information processin form for coherence. an ESFp has an easy tmie with a certain information, where an INTp has a more scattered & difficult time w/ the same transformation. It is only possible for information to be organized in terms of a form; from here, it is only possible to divide up the consonance/dissonance of a systems content in terms of a dual type. I have realized again tcaud you are right about dual type theory.. the question I have now is: how does a dominant information metabolism "see" other forms, in terms of functionality.. how does the translation process occur, what happens to the content in terms of its consonance/dissonance; or its splintering.. how does a form "see" other forms on a functional level. If we can work this out then I can write a computer program which will... be able to do amazing things. which is what I have been trying to do with this for quite a while.
Right now I am devoting my energy to this functional breakdown. I already have IM worked out in a diagram... but what I have now are a bunch fo Xs and ---s... where they all fit together in an IM form; but the specific meaning of an X or a --- is dependent on dual type; and a dissonant system (that is, one with a distant dual type) is larger and more complex then a consonant system (one with a close dual type.. in terms of functionality) ... it takes more breaking down for a system more abstractly removed.. etc.