Something you guys might already know about subtypes

[Ms. Kensington]

So I was thinking again as I do from time to time about subtypes and I realized that I was thinking the wrong way about subtypes and model A. I'd previously been thinking that a producing subtype of say, ExTp is more like the other accepting subtype. Like, a producing subtype ENTp is more like an ESTp. But now I see that a producing subtype ENTp is only more similar to a producing subtype ESTp. This makes me think about how some types that aren't supposed to be similar according to model A might seem more similar. It's like temperament similarities. Like, a Ji producing subtype is similar to other Ji producing subtypes.

[aestrivex]

duh

[Ms. Kensington]

well, do you guys think that it's possible for an ENTp to be more like an ESTp then, regardless of subtype? It seems like that sort of statement has been floating around on these forums for quite some time by multiple people.

[aestrivex]

well, do you guys think that it's possible for an ENTp to be more like an ESTp then, regardless of subtype? It seems like that sort of statement has been floating around on these forums for quite some time by multiple people.

more like an ESTp than what?

[Jarno]

I think it depends on what part of the person you're attention is focused on.

You can see similarity's in types, if they are both producing or both accepting.

But you might also conclude that an ENTP producing, might look somewhat more like an ESTP because of the less emphasise on Ne. Although it doesn't really work this easy in reality.

[Expat]

well, do you guys think that it's possible for an ENTp to be more like an ESTp then, regardless of subtype? It seems like that sort of statement has been floating around on these forums for quite some time by multiple people.

I'm not sure of the context in which you are phrasing your question; it seems to me that you're assuming a general consensual understanding of how subtypes work; so perhaps you should be explicit about those, before we can comment.

To give a general answer to your question: I think there will be ESTps who will be obvious in their use of Ti, in their EP temperament, and their generally Fe attention seeking; but not so obvious in their use of Se, so one might wonder - at first - whether they are ESTps or ENTps; the same working the other way around for some ENTps. These would, then, be Ti subtypes of ESTp and ENTp.

[Ms. Kensington]

thanks for responding, expat

yes, you're right, i don't feel confident enough talking about a general consensus.. so sorry for the inconveinence, all. But yeah.. i had thought people on the forum generally would use the phrase, "so and so is producing subtype, so they are more like their lookalike". I took that to mean that they will be more like their lookalike than one of an accepting subtype (niffweed). So that to me implied that the accepting functions were sort of limited quantities that would be accessible within a single individual. My change in thought came to be that an individual of producing subtype would not "use more" of his lookalike's base function, but would appear similar to other producing subtypes of his own type and his lookalike's type. The importance of that to me is the implication that one's type is more inflexible than I had previously thought, and had previously thought the forum conceded.

the bit at the end of my first post was significant to me because i had been attributing similarities between types of different quadras to subtypes allowing a certain type to "use more" of the other quadra's functions; with the change in thought I see it as similarities in temperament, not functions.

[BLauritson]

I don't know if you've seen it already or not but there's a post here by XoX which outlines one of the more common subtype theories (or at least what I perceive to be more common) - http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=12650.