# Thread: Background info on those subtypes

1. ## Background info on those subtypes

I notice that the subtypes seem to be for preference of one of the ego blocks: either the leading or creative function. Is it significant in some specific way that an individual would give more importance to their creative function than their leading function (or vice versa)? I'm curious as to your thoughts here.

2. what do you mean, is it significant?

3. ## Re: Background info on those subtypes

Originally Posted by munenori2
I notice that the subtypes seem to be for preference of one of the ego blocks: either the leading or creative function. Is it significant in some specific way that an individual would give more importance to their creative function than their leading function (or vice versa)? I'm curious as to your thoughts here.
I think i know what you're talking about... do you mean your leading function should be considered more important to your type than your creative because of the order and nature of these functions?

4. ## Re: Background info on those subtypes

Originally Posted by munenori2
Is it significant in some specific way that an individual would give more importance to their creative function than their leading function (or vice versa)?
You're jumping to conclusions.

The concept of subtypes does not mean that, say, a Ne-INFj would give more importance to Ne than to Fi. It means that a Ne-INFj would give more importance to Ne in comparison to a Fi-INFj.

5. Originally Posted by niffweed17
what do you mean, is it significant?
Basically, I was just asking what the whole thing meant, or if it implied anything about the person's functions.

liveandletlive, yes, that was pretty much the line of thought I was following.

Expat, so this is a pretty stupid and arbitrary way to put it, but are you saying that Fi is valued highest in both subtypes, but that the relative difference in importance between that and the Ne-creative is smaller for an Ne-INFj (though that's assuming that the value of each function is comparable to one another and that the 1st function is supposed to be valued most)? Like this (where the top is valued most and the bottom valued slightly less so, with the >< marks to denote the relative differences between how the subtypes use or emphasize their functions)?

Fi-INFj / Ne-INFj
Fi > Fi
Ne < Ne

6. Originally Posted by munenori2
Expat, so this is a pretty stupid and arbitrary way to put it, but are you saying that Fi is valued highest in both subtypes, but that the relative difference in importance between that and the Ne-creative is smaller for an Ne-INFj (though that's assuming that the value of each function is comparable to one another and that the 1st function is supposed to be valued most)? Like this (where the top is valued most and the bottom valued slightly less so, with the >< marks to denote the relative differences between how the subtypes use or emphasize their functions)?

Fi-INFj / Ne-INFj
Fi > Fi
Ne < Ne
Yes that's pretty much it.

Subtypes are not universally accepted in socionics, nor are they really necessary - - Rick for one thinks that they are supefluous.

To me, they're a convenient point of reference when thinking, or talking, of types and individuals of the types, and the "existence" - or their convenience - becomes clear as you get to know, and type, many individuals of the same type.

For instance, I know several people who are ISFj. Some of them I was inclined to type as INFj for a time - indeed, in some cases, I did type them as INFj at first, but a deeper acquaintance showed me that ISFj was correct.

In the case of other ISFjs, it wouldn't occur to me to consider them as possible INFjs; if anything, I'd wonder if they might not be ISTj instead, or perhaps quieter ESFps - meaning, the Se is more visible.

Those "ISFjs who might be mistaken for INFjs" are usefully described as ISFj-Fi; the "ISFjs who might be mistaken for ISTjs" are usefully described as "ISFj-Se".

And that is precisely what you get if you compare Meged's descriptions, for instance.

Now, whether subtypes really "exist" to the point of influencing all functions, dichotomies, etc -- that gets complicated. Especially because there are also individual variations.

7. Thanks. That clarifies things a lot, Expat.

8. is awesome

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•