four subtypes

[Joy]

Are there descriptions of these anywhere?

[Gilly]

The other two being Super-Id functions? I didn't know that theory had actually been developed past conceptualization.

[Ms. Kensington]

detail had a thread

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=12416

wasn't aware this is was something that was circulated (the idea)

[aestrivex]

The other two being Super-Id functions? I didn't know that theory had actually been developed past conceptualization.

ostensibly she meant four subtypes a la something like LSE Te-Te, LSE Te-Si, LSE Si-Te, LSE Si-Si (this is terrible notation but you get the idea).


i seem to remember rick suggesting that these kinds of extended subtype systems exist among the crazy russian Ti-ists, whereas the estimative subtype is a gulenko creation.

[Ezra]

ostensibly she meant four subtypes a la something like LSE Te-Te, LSE Te-Si, LSE Si-Te, LSE Si-Si (this is terrible notation but you get the idea).

That's a horrible concept. What is the point?

[Joy]

Gilly had it right.

[Ezra]

As in which Super-Id function you use more? So if you're an LSE Te-Se, it means Te is more evident in you externally (and maybe internally) than Si, and Se is more evident than Ti?

It's still a shit idea.

[Joy]

No, I mean like...

ENTj subtypes:

Te: *insert description here*
Ni: *insert description here*
Fe: *insert description here* (Perhaps this subtype is too concerned with other people's feelings or is overly boisterous, etc.)
Si: *insert description here* (Perhaps this subtype tries to take care of people too much, gets too focused on his/her health, has problems with addictions, etc.)

[Ezra]

[QUOTE=Joy;282905]No, I mean like...

ENTj subtypes:

Te: *insert description here*
Ni: *insert description here*
Fe: *insert description here* (Perhaps this subtype is too concerned with other people's feelings or is overly boisterous, etc.)
Si: *insert description here* (Perhaps this subtype tries to take care of people too much, gets too focused on his/her health, has problems with addictions, etc.)[/QUOTE

What would be the point of this? You may as well just scrap sociotypes altogether.

[Joy]

Nah. Types are still types. Values are still values. Someone can be too focused on an unvalued function though.

[Joy]

To be clear, I'm not saying that there are four subtypes.

[tcaudilllg]

Joy, you confuse perception with action so much that I've decided to stop reading you. It's not worth my time, because you DO NOT understand socionics.

Nor do I suspect I could help you understand without the authority of a degree that you require of someone for your trust.

[Gilly]

No, I mean like...

ENTj subtypes:

Te: *insert description here*
Ni: *insert description here*
Fe: *insert description here* (Perhaps this subtype is too concerned with other people's feelings or is overly boisterous, etc.)
Si: *insert description here* (Perhaps this subtype tries to take care of people too much, gets too focused on his/her health, has problems with addictions, etc.)

Actualy those are Super-Ego; not sure that's ever been suggested before. I do remember past discussons of types like Ti-IEI, Si-ILE, etc., but I'm fairly sure it was just speculation.

[Gilly]

As in which Super-Id function you use more? So if you're an LSE Te-Se, it means Te is more evident in you externally (and maybe internally) than Si, and Se is more evident than Ti?

It's still a shit idea.

That's the Id block.

You guys both need to go back to the basics You should probably know this stuff by now (Joy perhaps moreso than Ezra).

[FDG]

There are infinite subtypes, given that there are infinite points on a curve.

[Gilly]

Joy, you confuse perception with action so much that I've decided to stop reading you. It's not worth my time, because you DO NOT understand socionics.

Nor do I suspect I could help you understand without the authority of a degree that you require of someone for your trust.

Tony, you confuse psychotic dellusion with reality so much that I've decided to continue not reading you. It's not worth my norepinepherine, because you DO NOT understand life.

Nor do I suspect I could help you understand without the inanity and unquestioning subservience of a degree that you would require of someone for your consideration.

[Joy]

That's the Id block.

You guys both need to go back to the basics You should probably know this stuff by now (Joy perhaps moreso than Ezra).

Yes, I do "know this stuff". I'm asking if there has been a four subtype theory, and if there have, whether or not descriptions were written. The two subtype theory isn't even truly "traditional" socionics. I don't see the harm in speculating that one could be more focused on one of their other two conscious functions (I don't see how someone could be most focused on an unconscious function though, so the other suggestion here doesn't make sense to me).

[Joy]

Tony, you confuse psychotic dellusion with reality so much that I've decided to continue not reading you. It's not worth my norepinepherine, because you DO NOT understand life.

Seriously though, tcaudilllg, it does not take a degree for me to trust someone, nor does a degree mean that I will trust someone. (Hmmmm I forgot that I'm an ENTj - ISTp in your theory. I can see where you're coming from with your post I think.)

[Gilly]

Yes, I do "know this stuff".

Then why did you reference the Super-Ego as the Super-Id?

I'm asking if there has been a four subtype theory, and if there have, whether or not descriptions were written. The two subtype theory isn't even truly "traditional" socionics. I don't see the harm in speculating that one could be more focused on one of their other two conscious functions (I don't see how someone could be most focused on an unconscious function though, so the other suggestion here doesn't make sense to me).

I don't think there have been any proposals worth investigating, no. But we could give one a go.

I think focus on Super-Ego functions would be just as easily denoted by the two normal Ego subtypes, and express the same tendencies in functional strengths and preferences. With super-id subtypes, you get functional strength/preference combinations that kinda go against the normal makeup of model A and normal subtype theory, which is the only real reason they would be worth investigating. For example, a Ti-IEI would be stronger in logic, hence weaker in ethics; normally we call this Ni-IEI, but this one has a higher preference for the Ti/Fe spectrum than the Ni/Se one.

[Joy]

Then why did you reference the Super-Ego as the Super-Id?

Hmmmm it appears I was mistaken when I said that you were correct. My fault for skimming too quickly.

I don't think there have been any proposals worth investigating, no. But we could give one a go.

I think focus on Super-Ego functions would be just as easily denoted by the two normal Ego subtypes, and express the same tendencies in functional strengths and preferences. With super-id subtypes, you get functional strength/preference combinations that kinda go against the normal makeup of model A and normal subtype theory, which is the only real reason they would be worth investigating. For example, a Ti-IEI would be stronger in logic, hence weaker in ethics; normally we call this Ni-IEI, but this one has a higher preference for the Ti/Fe spectrum than the Ni/Se one.

Yeah, I considered that.

The idea sort of revolves around the concept that a person's subtype is just their focus and it can change over time. I believe there are some who think that subtypes are inborn, so this theory would make less sense to them.

[Ezra]

Nah. Types are still types. Values are still values. Someone can be too focused on an unvalued function though.

So what's to say they don't actually value it? What's to say you're confusing their 5th or 6th function for a PoLR or third function?

[Ezra]

That's the Id block.

I realised that a while after I'd posted it.

(Joy perhaps moreso than Ezra).

"Perhaps"? She joined two years before me! That's a few months after Expat. Of course she should know this by now.

Then why did you reference the Super-Ego as the Super-Id?

THAT's what confused me. Because she said that, it made me fuck up. I thought she was referring to the Super-Id. So it wasn't my fault, it was hers.

[Joy]

I never actually typed that... lol. Just skimmed the thread and read Gilly's post the wrong way.