# Dual-type theory



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Long story short - people can have more than one type and this is an observation I actually agree with, using myself as an example but also what I have observed in others. Wikisocion article: Dual-type theory - Wikisocion

So do you think this is likely or not? Does it agree with what you have observed or not? There's a reference on Wikisocion that Jung hinted at this in Psychological Types but does not provide with an exact reference. Could anyone clarify?


----------



## Avian (Aug 4, 2012)

I just had this in mind the other day and was saving it for later! I was even thinking of a tri-type theory, but I ended up feeling that dual would be proper. Same as you, I have observed much the same.

I myself have been stuck been INTJ and INFP lately, even though before it was INTJ/INTP probably because of an inadequate understanding of Jungs' description of perceiving and judging, which part of that is the side of your brain that you use most. Left brain dominant people are very systematic, good with words/numbers/charts/graphs, step oriented, overall logical. Right brain dominant people tend to be more artistic, philosophical, find a deeper meaning for music, generally less ego oriented and are more go with the flow. Left hemisphere dominant people tend to be more extroverted and more introverted when oriented by the right hemisphere. It gets interesting when you factor in a type that is left brain dominant but is more introverted such as an INTJ, maybe it could explain why both INTP and INTJ being intellectuals, view the world so differently even though they're both introverted - the dominant side of the brain seems to play a very active role.

There's also the middle path which is a balance of both hemispheres, both sides are interconnected so even if you're left or right brain dominant you would use the other side in useful ways as well. This balance could probably be explained as ambiversion, and I have seen from some of my reading of Psychological Types that this is healthier - of course too much of anything can be harmful, even an extreme orientation of hemisphere dominance. 

I went from juggling between two types of NTs to a INTJ and INFP, main reason being that I've gained some insight into why my intellectual desire is so strong, especially over the last four years or so, oddly I realized it while reading Fi. Fi is so difficult to spot, it really is, even Jung said something along the lines of not being able to properly give an intellectual account of Fi and Fi types in general - especially if it's in men but that's where a bit of Freudian psychology can help put that "rarity" into perspective. The other reason I'm thinking it could be both is because of how strongly I relate to the functions and their expressive behaviour in both of them when I choose to be more left or right brain dominant. 

Yea I do think duality of type is possible, kind of like the tri-type theory, with the wings you have "traits" from other types that are stronger then just being able to vaguely relate to it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Avian, I am uncertain of my brain use although after watching Nardi's speech on Google Talk, I think I use a certain portion of my left brain fairly well but in general I tend to prefer my right side. How this affects my type or creates type confusion I don't know, but it makes sense to me that I would feel that I relate more strongly to INFPs because it is the part of the brain on the left side that Nardi identifies is part of what makes INFPs INFPs that I relate to.


----------



## Avian (Aug 4, 2012)

LeaT said:


> @_Avian_, I am uncertain of my brain use although after watching Nardi's speech on Google Talk, I think I use a certain portion of my left brain fairly well but in general I tend to prefer my right side. How this affects my type or creates type confusion I don't know, but it makes sense to me that I would feel that I relate more strongly to INFPs because it is the part of the brain on the left side that Nardi identifies is part of what makes INFPs INFPs that I relate to.


Perhaps you should look into it a little more, Lenore Thomson has used the left and right brain dichotomy to describe the cognitive functions as either left or right hemisphere dominated. That interested me quite a bit because of my knowledge of "the left hand path" and "the right hand path" in occultism, I also noted that the publishing company is "Shambhala" which is theosophically oriented and that in itself weaves together a wide variety of fields and topics. While reading Lenore Thomson I definitely feel the authors' use of applying multiple disciplines.

I really want to see something done about this though, a persons' cognitive processes and behaviours are just too wide-ranging to narrow it down to one type, my idea is that you would have the main type that you identify with the most and then have a secondary one. It wouldn't box us in so much when typing ourselves because it could be possible, in this theory, to have two introverted cognitive stacks but the difference would be in left or right brain dominance.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Avian said:


> Perhaps you should look into it a little more, Lenore Thomson has used the left and right brain dichotomy to describe the cognitive functions as either left or right hemisphere dominated. That interested me quite a bit because of my knowledge of "the left hand path" and "the right hand path" in occultism, I also noted that the publishing company is "Shambhala" which is theosophically oriented and that in itself weaves together a wide variety of fields and topics. While reading Lenore Thomson I definitely feel the authors' use of applying multiple disciplines.
> 
> I really want to see something done about this though, a persons' cognitive processes and behaviours are just too wide-ranging to narrow it down to one type, my idea is that you would have the main type that you identify with the most and then have a secondary one. It wouldn't box us in so much when typing ourselves because it could be possible, in this theory, to have two introverted cognitive stacks but the difference would be in left or right brain dominance.


I agree about the boxing part as most people will ultimately feel they will not fully fall into either category to such a degree that it truly and fully describes everything about them. That's where I find enneagram being useful though.


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

> This page is about a theory constructed by a single western socionist. There might only be a handful of socionists who believe in it.


 interesting, interesting...

I don't quite understand what the author meant when writing about "energy" separate from information. Mental energy? Physical energy? (Not to mention that I can't find mass-energy separation laws relevant to the theory in any case).

I think it's quite similar to Enneagram tritypes - useful to explain why people who share the same type have slightly different traits. Nevertheless, I believe it's counterproductive to look for subtypes before understanding the basics and making sure that our chosen type is really how we process information. And it's an easy cop-out for people who want to convince others, and probably themselves, that they're a different type.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

aconite said:


> interesting, interesting...
> 
> I don't quite understand what the author meant when writing about "energy" separate from information. Mental energy? Physical energy? (Not to mention that I can't find mass-energy separation laws relevant to the theory in any case).
> 
> I think it's quite similar to Enneagram tritypes - useful to explain why people who share the same type have slightly different traits. Nevertheless, I believe it's counterproductive to look for subtypes before understanding the basics and making sure that our chosen type is really how we process information. And it's an easy cop-out for people who want to convince others, and probably themselves, that they're a different type.


I agree, and it's too bad the theory doesn't seem to be expanded upon actually. Need to know more! I agree that the theory itself is a little confusing when it comes to the energy explanation. I don't get it either but I think i get the gist of it and it seems interesting and it's something I have observed. I also wonder if this coincides with or is a different theory to shadow or inferior, or dual type in socionics.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Does this have anything to do with the DCNH subtype theory? That's also about some energy metabolism and people can create a second type out of it. E.g. you pick Creative and then pick Ne over Se and then pick an "auxiliary" too and hooray, you have the second type.

I don't see how the apprehending of information differs from the associated response, though... gimme some examples?

Btw, I'm quite balanced between right-brain and left-brain. The way I perceive the world is very right-brained by default, e.g. my sensory perception is right brained, Nardi links that to the area covered by O2 in his experiments, calls it an "abstract impressionist" visual system. However, in tasks I can easily go left-brained when I need it and I can be structured, precise, thorough. I will admit the right brained approach is more fun, but I'm really good with "left tasks", I was taught some of this sort of stuff very early in childhood. In tests I usually get around 55% right brain 45% left brain.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I don't know what is meant, although I don't think it's related to subtype. I think this is something different entirely, like an INTp appearing like an ENFj or something when such a situation requires it.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I don't know what is meant, although I don't think it's related to subtype. I think this is something different entirely, like an INTp appearing like an ENFj or something when such a situation requires it.


Ahah... I think I can appear a lot of types depending... Even ENFj!


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

LeaT said:


> Long story short - people can have more than one type and this is an observation I actually agree with, using myself as an example but also what I have observed in others. Wikisocion article: Dual-type theory - Wikisocion
> 
> So do you think this is likely or not? Does it agree with what you have observed or not? There's a reference on Wikisocion that Jung hinted at this in Psychological Types but does not provide with an exact reference. Could anyone clarify?


I've seen it before but it's doesn't explain much and seems too convoluted. If you want to subtype people beyond their MBTI/socionics type, enneagram and stackings are both established methods and have much more going for them than this dual-type theory.

Most popular subtyping system in socionics is this one and it only has 2 subtypes, that of dominant function and that of creative function: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/14-Type-and-subtype-descriptions-Meged-Ovcharov


----------

