Talk:Dual-type theory

is exertion type considered inborn and unchangable? Bionicgoat 18:58, 18 July 2007 (BST)

Yep. It's the world in which you live, because we live in the energy that we create around us. If your exertion type were to change, you would literally live in a different reality. Tcaudilllg 01:20, 19 July 2007 (BST)

I have no idea which my exertion type is under this theory, to be honest Expat 14:51, 20 July 2007 (BST)

Ask yourself what aspects of :Te: you usually look at, then think about what kind of things you try to plan. Try to match the answers to these questions with information aspects.

Another way to find your exertion type is to ask yourself, "what kind of world do I live in?" For example, you might appeal to a higher authority as a means of agression (:Ti: function 7), but what kind of authority is it you appeal to? What is the substance of this authority? Is it force? Is it the necessity of interrelation? A feeling, or commonsense? Look at your functions a bit closer, and your exertion type will become apparent. Tcaudilllg 21:32, 20 July 2007 (BST)

Ok, these are thought-provoking questions and I think they are very valuable for socionics. I would say that there is a lot of Fi and Se in the answers, since the "authority" I appeal to is most often a sense of fairness and ethicality when dealing with individuals, so I would say that my exertion type is ESI, so I'm a LIE-ESI. I always thought that that was a natural consequence of having ESI as dual, but perhaps not. I will think more about this.Expat 20:39, 21 July 2007 (BST)

General critique

Just a commment: What I like about Tcaud's work is that it seems to recognize that Socionics concepts can be applied at different levels, and that one might be applying some IM element "in one way" while at the very same time, applying a completely different element "in another way." I'm not completely convinced that the notions of "metabolism" and "exertion" are the final word on what the "ways" are, but I'm open to the idea. I would like to see what it is that Tcaud sees in terms of what seems to be a tight "binding" between two IM elements.

This gets to the nature of the theory, in terms of just how much flexibility people have. In many ways, Tcaud's models are far more rigid and restrictive than classical Socionics. Classical Socionics just says that the ego block functions are preferred in some way, and that all functions are accessible and may be used. (I know we've had a discussion before about how Jung said that certain functions were "unconscious," but I'm not sure that applies to Socionics, except in that some unconscious beliefs or desires may be "bound up" with certain functions.)

In the Dual-type model, however, every single function in model A is paired with another one, and the relationship between "metabolism" and "exertion" is completely fixed, as if the various mental pathways were like those of a metallic mechanism rather an organic mind.

Rather than a one-way exertion model, the way I experience life is more as a bunch of different "modes" that I enter into to perform different activities. Sometimes, I express myself artistically. Other times I'm theorizing about something. Other times, I'm solving a problem, or figuring out the steps to solve something. That would suggest that my "exertion" is in a number of different directions. Of course, Socionics would suggest that there are some commonalities in the approaches I take to my different activities, which is clearly the case. But I'm not sure that a single fixed metabolism-exertion pairing fully describes all the possibilities and scenarios.

On another (minor) note, there's an interesting relationship between "exertion" and Augusta's notion of the "creative" (or "producing") function. According to that notion, a TiNe type would apply (or exert) in the Ne direction; it would seem then, that an "LSI-IEE" or "LSI-ILE" type would be quite similar to a more classical Socionics notion of LII type, as the base function is Ti, which results in an exertion (or creation, or production) in the realm of Ne. How would one distinguish between those notions? --Jonathan 16:41, 21 July 2007 (BST)

The difference is that that the creative function itself has a metabolic and an exerted component. Your perception of exertion as "aspects" of a function's work is right on: when we talk of a function, we see that there are many -- indeed, no less than eight -- ways to describe it. We can certainly set our energies to the observation; indeed, we are presented with the many sides of the information aspects every time we read a newpaper or a magazine, or even commit ourselves to discussion with a multitude of people. The question is where, with regard to these different approaches, do a person's talents really lie?

Consider, should Einstein (an exertion LII by my estimation) have been a painter instead of a physicist? Should he have focused on the vistas inherent in the possibilities he imagined over his focus on the conclusions drawn from within them? My position is no, because he would have never managed something more than an estimation, an vaguity in his work that would have offered the viewer ambiguity but little else. For him to have given prescience of his artistic tendencies over the feelings he created, would have represented an overcoming of himself by his subconscious. In the taking of this position, I am insisting that Einstein have a static exertion type; however I am quite frankly unable to structure the experience of a person who is perfect in everything they do despite personal feelings of inadequacy by themselves, which is exactly what such a "multitalented" person would experience. The like of this I cannot comprehend, it is beyond my experience or any recognized suggestions thereof.

I am familiar with the "modes" of which you speak; however, I am not certain they exclude the existence of a rigid structure. These other modes certainly have varying degrees of awareness, to be sure. What if -- and I'm just putting this out there -- there were another two "types", completely dynamic, that could give any one of the functions a window into another function's world? Obviously, one needs an organizational method in the personality by which to determine what goes where, with regard to information you reckon but don't immediately need... don't you think?

I do see the function order as a means for problem solving, for coherent cognitive expression. I am open, however, to a chaos representing ambivalence or ambiguity.

As for your request as regards the "binding" principle, we see things in continuity. One thing doing this is responsible for this thing doing that, etc. That's how structure works: cause has effect, is the cause of another effect. If we are going to see the functions as "structurable" at all, then we've got to see them as cause and effect, respecting the division of matter and energy. An object doing this causes this effect, which on closer inspection is doing this. That's how research progresses, and new discoveries are made.

I want to thank you for your critique. It was honest and very open-minded. Tcaudilllg 23:21, 23 July 2007 (BST)

Thanks. :) I was thinking, by the way, from what you said, that maybe the best way for me to understand this theory is to consider what each pairing looks like. This is different from looking at it from a "Model A" perspective (i.e., each IM element in each functional position). Rather, what would the definition of Te-Ti be, for example? Basically, the key is to have 64 definitions for the IM elements (not just using terms like external statics of...etc., but something closer to "operational definitions" that would allow one to recognize them, similar to the way one might see each of the 8 IM elements defined on this and similar sites). --Jonathan 14:31, 24 July 2007 (BST)

I've started on those.... Probably the best way to describe the IM elements is to match them up with real-world processes that they optimally describe. Because that would take years and require a large effort besides, the best alternative is probably an abstract discussion of their manifestations, as you say.

There is a thread on the16types.info, in General Discussion, which has some illustrations of the elements. This article itself needs to be fleshed out by a lot. Actually, it needs its own subcategory. That would be much more efficient, to have say a single article for each of the dual-element pairings. Really, one needs an army of researchers to do the elements and their pairings justice... which is exactly why I'm in school now, with plans for a Ph.D. by the time I'm 40.... Only then will I have authority necessary to make the financial case for their study, as I see it.

On the other hand Victor Gulenko has approached the system modeled by dual-type theory from another angle, with apparent plans to present his and others' findings at a conference this September, I believe; but I don't think there is enough enthusiasm for Russia alone to get the job done in a way befitting of the theory's potential.

Anyway, this is an interest of mine and I very much want to share it with others. I wonder what it would be like, to witness many people openly assisting in the development of a theory with no dissertation behind it. ...Such a thing is unprecedented in science. But if you would like to help me explain these things, then I'm open to that possibility. What is your opinion? Tcaudilllg 23:36, 24 July 2007 (BST)