Jungian Dichotomies & Gulenko's Subtypes & Visual Identification

[JohnDo]

I find it strange that a Ti dominant contradicts himself so quickly, not saying you aren't Ti dominant, just that it's....interesting I suppose, in a way.

Your really seems to be weak. There is no contradiction at all in what I said.

1.) If you believe in Socionics you also have to believe in subypes if you want to be logically consistent. It is obvious that some extraverts are more extraverted than others.
2.) If you believe in Socionics you may find subtypes useful or not. Some like to use subtypes, others don't.

Now where is the contradiction? I also believe in the existence of condoms - but I don't like to use them. Where is the contradiction?!

[krieger]

1.) If you believe in Socionics you also have to believe in subypes if you want to be logically consistent. It is obvious that some extraverts are more extraverted than others.

Socionics has a reasonably strong supporter base. It is a phenomenom reportedly observed by a fairly large number of people. The number of people that support Gulenko's subtypes is much, much smaller. This is what the difference consists in and it's why believing in Gulenkan subtypes is much bigger gamble than believing in socionics already is.

[krieger]

JohnDo, why does the fact that some people are more extroverted than others instantly show to you that Gulenko's way of explaining this fact is the right one and that the fact should not be explained in some other way. Why create 4 gradations of extroversion and not 8? Why not 9 or 5? There are only dogmatic answers to this question, so ultimately it only comes down to who speaks with how much authority and how much support a theory has.

[Aiss]

IMO the only way subtypes make sense is that they're an indication of a different development, of strengthening - focusing on - part of the psyche, possibly because of circumstances - what types we interact with has an effect on us. It makes sense they'd be dependent of nurture and in this way only semi-socionical phenomena, as well as possibly changeable throughout life - and certainly not easily VIed, especially since types themselves are not, as new threads in VI subforum continue to prove.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Extraversion is a focus on the object, it doesnt necessarily mean you talk more which is personality.

People tend to try to use functions suited to their environment, so they may seem like a D at work but a N in evening you don't need sub types to believe in inter type relations which is socionics. Nor to explain normal behavior and certainly not individual personality need more than four sub types for that.

Your really seems to be weak. There is no contradiction at all in what I said.

1.) If you believe in Socionics you also have to believe in subypes if you want to be logically consistent. It is obvious that some extraverts are more extraverted than others.
2.) If you believe in Socionics you may find subtypes useful or not. Some like to use subtypes, others don't.

Now where is the contradiction? I also believe in the existence of condoms - but I don't like to use them. Where is the contradiction?!

[JohnDo]

JohnDo, why does the fact that some people are more extroverted than others instantly show to you that Gulenko's way of explaining this fact is the right one and that the fact should not be explained in some other way. Why create 4 gradations of extroversion and not 8? Why not 9 or 5?

1.) Gulenko discovered DCNH by experiments.
2.) It has to be possible to distinguish between the types.

[krieger]

1.) Gulenko discovered DCNH by experiments.

Russian socionists tend to have very liberal definition of what it means to "prove" something by means of an experiment. Chances are that whatever experiment Gulenko did would get rejected off hand by a serious, peer reviewing scientific institute. So anything you read about these supposed experiments is just propaganda. Show me a source to prove me wrong.

[xerx]

1.) Gulenko discovered DCNH by experiments.

Another experiment was run (a questionnaire) using 40 LIIs, which showed no clusters of 4 identifiable subtypes. But it balances out because that experiment is probably as sketchy as the ones he used to relate DCNH to socionics (which are not done in controlled laboratory settings).

Gulenko didn't "discover" DCNH though. He created it himself by borrowing many aspects from other typological systems.

I believe DCNH probably does exist based on my typing experiences. There are people of any type who either:
-care about success and mobilizing those around them.
-concerned only with the components of their ideas and only doing what interests them.
-concerned with fulfilling the demands of the group or society, or their own personal demands on themselves. And that others do the same.
-laid back, sociable, do their jobs then punch out and mostly just care about their friends and family.

And so on, to different degrees and levels of abstraction.

[JohnDo]

Another experiment was run (a questionnaire) using 40 LIIs, which showed no clusters of 4 identifiable subtypes.

Source?

But it balances out because that experiment is probably as sketchy as the ones he used to relate DCNH to socionics (which are not done in controlled laboratory settings).

Well, everyone knows that Socionics is not science but parascience because it lacks controlled studies. Carl Jung didn't do any experiments as far as I know, he just relied on observation, intuition and introspection...

Gulenko didn't "discover" DCNH though. He created it himself by borrowing many aspects from other typological systems.

Interesting question, is it a creation or a discovery? If it is real he "discovered" it, actually...

I believe DCNH probably does exist based on my typing experiences.

I know it exists. I've worked with it for about 9 months and there is clearly a correlation between DCNH subtype and face-shape...

[tcaudilllg]

There is no such correlation. Attitude, yes. Face shape, absolutely not.

I've seen plenty of INTj-ESTps in my life. No matter the subtype, they all look like Robespierre.

The creative subtypes are a little friendlier than the dominant subtypes, however. They are particularly more expressive.

[JohnDo]

I've seen plenty of INTj-ESTps in my life. No matter the subtype, they all look like Robespierre.

The only INTj-ESTp I know is the German entertainer Stefan Raab. Could you please V.I. him?

INTj-ISTps probably include Robespierre, Lenin and Rudi Dutschke (who is certainly unknown in America but was a famous revolutionary in Germany's 60s)...

[Crispy]

I've seen plenty of INTj-ESTps

INTj-ISTps probably include Robespierre, Lenin and Rudi Dutschke

I'm really confused.
Are both of you talking about Dual-Type theory? OR
Are both of you talking about 16 Subtype theory? OR
Is tcaud Talking about Dual-Type and John talking about 16-subtype?

I think I may be INTj-INTp in 16 subtype but I have no idea about Dualtype. Halp me!

[JohnDo]

I'm really confused.
Are both of you talking about Dual-Type theory? OR
Are both of you talking about 16 Subtype theory? OR
Is tcaud Talking about Dual-Type and John talking about 16-subtype?

In my opinion dual-type theory is nothing but Gulenko's 16 subtype theory. So I think I'm talking about both of them whereas tcaudillg believes that an INTj-ISTp is not necessarily H-INTj...

Currently no English material about Gulenko's theory of 16 subtypes is available. Are there any Russian sources that could be read by machine translation? I don't know...

What I know is that Gulenko's subtype system's are consistent:
2 subtypes: the fourth Jungian dichotomy is subdivided
4 subtypes: the first Jungian dichotomy is subdivided, too
8 subtypes: the second or third Jungian dichotomy is subdivided, too
16 subtypes: all Jungian dichotomies are subdivided

I'm still confident that dual-type theory describes the same phenomenon from a different perspective...

[Aiss]

I'm still confident that dual-type theory describes the same phenomenon from a different perspective...

Isn't the whole idea of dual-type that EM type is independent from IM type?

And not independent just like "any combination is possible", but independent as in "IM is responsible for this, EM for that, how they work together is dual-type", which is different from subtype's "focus" on a certain aspect of IM - strengthened IE or strengthened function, whatever interpretation you choose. So dual-type replaces a type and has a single subtype - possibly correlated since we tend to focus on aspects of reality we're good at, but not determined by it.

[Crispy]

Ya, from what I've read, it's hard to believe they're describing the same thing. But then again I don't know much at all about dual-type. I think the 16 subtype theory is fantastic if it works as you described. I think using the DCNH hypotheticals to see how close you are to neighboring descriptions is a valid enough way to find the 8 and 16 subtypes.