Subtypes are very useful and there isn't enough emphasis on them
There is enough emphasis on subtypes, and they have some use
There is enough emphasis on subtypes and we don't want any more, because they're not that useful
Subtypes have some use, but there is too much emphasis on them
Subtypes are useless; get rid of them
Opinions of Subtypes
I've been talking to a few people about subtypes, and they've said they think they're too vague, or make it seem as if someone's creative function is actually their base function etc. According to machintruc, subtypes don't even exist in classical socionics theory.
What are you opinions of socionics subtypes?
I agree. Some people have been saying this for a long time, but it's always been ignored.Originally Posted by ifmd95
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Can you be more clear in explaining this idea of "quadra rotation", ifmd95? Normally I understand you pretty well, but this is abstract stuff you're talking about. A lot of it just goes over my head, but I'm interested in it.
subtypes are useful because they focus more on the functions' relative interactions with each other instead of limiting them to "blocks."
4w3-5w6-8w7
i think he's referring to the notion of subtypes as being points around a certain temperament. Each point may fall into a quadra, or be inbetween two quadras, e.g.:
E(S)Tp -->
ESp -->
E(S)Fp -->
ESFp -->
ES(F)p -->
EFp -->
EN(F)p -->
ENFp -->
E(N)Fp -->
ENp -->
E(N)Tp -->
ENTp -->
EN(T)p -->
ETp -->
ES(T)p -->
ESTp -->
E(S)Tp --> back to beginning
Beta --> Beta-Gamma --> Gamma --> Gamma-Delta --> Delta --> Delta-Alpha --> Alpha --> Alpha-Beta --> Beta
the 12 subtypes he's referring to are the temperament sets excluding the inbetween-quadra (e.g. ETp) types
What an earth is the point of that theory?
It looks like just a list to me...
I don't think your subtype is part of your type, but it does help to describe your behavior, in a way that's related to Socionics.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
It's a way of defining what the subtypes are. How would you define them? One alternative would be to say the the producing subtype is more similar to their mirror than the accepting subtype (presumably this is the "mixed temperaments" that imfd95 mentioned).
I like the idea of subtypes existing around the quadra ring for each temperament. It allows for some sort of continuum in strengths and preferences while not totally messing up Model A. I believe this is a large part of Smilexian socionics.
As a type's showing which of their ego functions is most apparent to the outside world. That's all. There's no need for this quadra ring theory bullshit.
Too abstract and pointless.I like the idea of subtypes existing around the quadra ring for each temperament. It allows for some sort of continuum in strengths and preferences while not totally messing up Model A. I believe this is a large part of Smilexian socionics.
+ 1000000000000000000^100000000000000
+2^(2^(2^(2^(2^2))))
Biggest plus in history.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Yes, but that doesn't answer the question: what-is-the-point-of-this?
wait, what is the point of your saying so?
why on earth should you trust any of my typings that you know nothing about?
I don't see what's so abstract about it. It's very simple to understand, its just like a going to a higher resolution, so you can see the continuum with more detail.
Classically speaking, absolutely. I know what you're getting at; I just think it's a pointless addition to the theory, much like "+" and "-" are. Subtypes carry some weight, but that doesn't mean that they should affect intertype relationships.do you see Mike Tyson's significant-other (assuming they are subtype duals) being quite as satisfied with Mr. Lenin?
Do you see what's pointless about it?
What's abstract is that I lose interest after ten seconds of reading about this; I have no idea what ifmd95 is talking about. Why is that when I read paragraphs and paragraphs of what Rick has written at The Socionist do I not only not get bored, but actually enjoy it and derive great insight from it, whereas when I read the few paragraphs that ifmd95 has written on this theory of quadra rings and a continuum does my soul shrivel up inside? Quite simply, it does not relate to real life well enough. Rick has the perfect balance. This is why I care not for people who go overboard with their Ti systems, like machintruc, hitta and tcaudilllg. Master/Slave? Double-u tee eff? -Te +Si -Se +Ni? Luhmuhfao. None of this shit makes sense, and I frankly don't care about it. I care about real life, not theories for what people think is real about life.
Am I right when I see this as a personal attack on my ability to identify what I am good and bad at, even though this fact has nothing to do with the current conversation? This isn't the first time you've said this before, you said "if you ever work out what functions you value" yesterday. If you have an issue either PM me, or start a thread about it. Issues like this shouldn't be used when discussing ideass that have nothing to do with them.
What did you edit, and why today?
What ifmd95 claims to observe in this thread is the exact same thing with the exact same results that I have been observing. There is plenty of other things that I say about socionics which are speculative or theoretical, but this issue is real and extremely important.
As a real life example, this autumn I was approached by a dual of extreme different subtype. So we were both at the extreme extrovert function subtype. We came close together very quickly and quicker than other subtypes would, due to both of us expanding energy in the extrovert direction, but neither one would actually budge or spend time accepting the other's input. We just sort of butted against each other and went our different ways due to neither one being willing to adapt to the other's direction. The dual dynamic was strong enough to create a great attraction, but basically, the situation was incompatible nonetheless. There are elements about me that are still ENTjish and there are elements about the other person that are INTjish, so there were moments and situations that worked as if we were actually contrary, or illusionary, or semi-dual. Basically, the situation was unstable, despite the main thread of dual attraction.
There is a wealth of understanding to be had from this area and the matter is strongly based on the functions themselves instead of abstract models like Model A. This is powerful.
Last edited by Smilingeyes; 11-02-2008 at 12:35 PM.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
My personal experience actually tends to reinforce that actually (that extreme sub-types experience more duality problems -fraying each other's nerves and working against, rather than with, each other.
For example although it might be expected that an SLE-Se and IEI-Ni match best I haven't found this to be true. An SLE-Se should require more Ni, and an IEI-Ni should require more Se... however, I find that Se subtypes are much less trusting of Ni. After all Strong Se makes a person pragmatic and concerned with achieving immediate results in the current moment. Also it makes people more protective of their own environment and less willing to listen to others. Thus I've found that even though I have, in the past, provided Se types with Ni, even if they do agree with me initially, they never actually make good use of it (i.e. Se type is doing stupid things and experiencing the consequence of doing stupid things. I tell them what the root of the problem is and they agree ("they'll say something like "yah, you're right") but later it's like they forget we even had the conversation. Furthermore they continue to come to me to seek advice about the same problems. After a few times of this I become more impatient and less polite and eventually I view the issue as a lost cause not worth my time and tell them, one way or another, to shut up. So in conclusion most of the Ni I "provide them" is useless.
I'm mentioning this because I've also found that SLE-Ses respond very well to Fe. It's like when I'm in a good mood it's easy for me to raise their mood. In fact they tend to respond well to almost any Fe-emotionally expressive interaction. I'm usually in Ni-mode and not overly expressive. When an SLE-Se subtype contrives to make me be expressive I can easily see through it and ignore it. They can't seem to tell that I'm politely ignoring them for their own good though and keep pushing until eventually they succeed but only end up with something they were really better off not hearing and then both of us are pissed off.
Also most of the Se they "provide me" is useless. One of my pet peeves is activity that lacks purpose. If there was one type that loved, above all else, to do things just for the simple sake of doing things it would be an SLE-Se. Although this is "ok" in itself the problem is that they then want to drag me into doing these purposeless petty things with them and not only that but they see it as doing me a favour. This leads to dumb arguments as they just don't understand why a person would want time to themself, after all, the one thing they can't stand above all else is being alone and bored. Not only that but Se subtypes gravitate towards the loudest, most crowded places around, exactly the kind of place a person such as myself tends to go out of his way to avoid. They take delight superficial conversation (you know, the kind of conversation you'll hear in a bar) and are much more "image conscious" than the Ti subtype. SLE-Se subtypes are more "trendy" just as IEI-Fe subtypes are more "trendy".
anyways blah blah blah you get the point. Basically I've found that I get along much better with Ti subtypes. In the end my interactions with SLE-Se subtypes have all led to me viewing them as superficial and impulsive and them vewing me as negative and boring. I'm wondering if this applies to the rest of the socion as well.
INFp-Ni
I very much agree with the phenomenon misutii talks about. It's the classical dual phenomenon of initually undervaluing one's dual. As a similar example there's a nurse in the place I work, she's exact dual to me. I end up being very distant of her, because we never ever have anything to talk about. We have very warm, but very distant relations, since I support everything she does and vice versa, but we can't handle similar information at all, so there's no area of contact. This has led some socionists into claiming that actually illusionary or semi-dual types are better than duals. In my opinion it's a matter of preference and adaptation. Each relationship has its own kind of dynamics, strengths and weaknesses.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
Just make her laugh. If she's interested she will laugh.
I think you're right about illusionary and semi-dual types being under-rated. Illusionary provide good assistance to our PoLR and there is more chance of sharing similar hobbies to initially get the friendship/dating ball rolling due to increased similarity in clubs.
Do you have a sub type Smilingeyes? I've read Gulenko saying that the rational sub type has a better duality fit with an irrational sub type dual, ie for me ISTp-Te with ENFp Ne. They also find themselves with more to talk about. I find this the case with me.
I don't have any reason to try to change my relationship dynamics with her. I'm very happy with the excellent functional but distant work partnership I have with her.
Exactly.
I'm Te. I think what's "better" is subjective. Otherwise, how could both illusionary and semi-dual be better than the dual, and if so which one would be the best? Should I prefer them better if they showed more Se and less Ne, or less Se and more Ne? I don't see any sense in supporting illusionary over semi-dual or vice versa. To me, personally, the distance of dual relations is a feature, not a bug.
First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.
I agree with what misutii wrote. (Also, what Smilingeyes and Cyclops wrote.)
Personally, I find the dual/subtype I'm supposed to get along with best somewhat boring compared to the other dual/sub-type.
Also, I've found semi-dual relationships to be the most passionate and deeply felt of all romantic inter-type relations. (In my experience, so far.)
I think subtypes are stupid and worthless. Whoever thought of them had too much time on their hands, and probably could have used that time to do anything other than pull nonsense out of his ass.
I think subtype is pretty important, actually.
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
That is a little extreme don't you think? I find subtypes useful. There are times where there are blatant or subtle differences in people of the same type (in terms of socionics) that I find subtypes accounts for quite well.
The only useless thing about subtypes is in relation to opposing quadras. But for both adjacent inter- and intra-quadra relationships there are definite effects.
Ceci n'est pas une eii.
thats really interesting actually, because I've read here numerous times before other people saying that semi-duals often turn out to be good friends but nothing more (prob. because of the supposed incompatibility of the erotic attitudes)
I've heard that too (Ganin) but i find it hard to believe IRL (siding with RSV3)...as you probably know.
ENTP:wink:
ALPHA
Actually, boredom and passion and attraction (in a non-socionical sense, thus, let us throw away "support" for the moment) are often based on traits that aren't extremely type related. When these traits aling with dual personality type, then the best possibile relationship comes out. We could further ask ourselves: are there weak, or strong, correlations between non-type-related traits, and type itself? If the latter question has "yes" as an answer, then it would mean that perhaps the only relationship that maximizes my "liking" is with a semi-dual, or illusionary (say, for example, that liking has a form of L=P*T where p is personality and t is other traits, so that both can act as a bottleneck to the total liking).
What Smilingeyes says with his relationship with the nurse is due to, in my opinion, lack of resonance in non-type-related traits. This is not negative per se, but it results in a relationship of distant mutual support. I have had a similar experience with a teacher in high school, and I think it is a perfect situation in formal settings.
The other phenomenon:
This, unfortunately, is often the result of lack of dual function early in life (so, not necessarily dual - an activity partner could somewhat suffice, even if not as much as a dual). Think of it like an experiment: if a kid has a dual advice in his early environment, he has been able to conduct many experiments in a controlled and safe setting on the effectivness of his own opinions vs the opinions of the duals on a variety of matters, and been able to identify those matters he is better off letting others handle. Adults have less and ability to do so, because their environment is less controlled and less safe, and moreover questions of everyday survival necessitate the usage of already tested methods.Thus I've found that even though I have, in the past, provided Se types with Ni, even if they do agree with me initially, they never actually make good use of it (i.e. Se type is doing stupid things and experiencing the consequence of doing stupid things. I tell them what the root of the problem is and they agree ("they'll say something like "yah, you're right") but later it's like they forget we even had the conversation.
The only people that I have found to be able to consistently listen to dual advices are those that either have a dual parent, or a dual brother or sister, or a dual tight-knit best friend. Even more unfortunately, in this case the intuitor is in worse position to change things (the intuitive nf even more), given that its role is one of advisor, in intuitive matters. Inmatters, I have been able to take action to prevent failings of my dual on the matter, yet if they choose not to listen to intuitive advice there is nothing I can do (otherwise, I would be using Te).
My opinion on relationships with subtypes: I have found thesubtype (in real life, so no offense to any se subtype isfj here!) of ISFj to be quite incompatible with myself. I think of myself as a mixed subtype ENTj, yet it seems much easier to get along with Fi because
Last edited by FDG; 11-23-2008 at 10:08 AM.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
ah yeah, true... so that fits with Juju's experience (assuming he is irrational)
Yes this rings a chord with me. I've severed relations with a semi-dual and a couple duals in the past few years due to this in fact. What's the point of talking to someone if they just don't get it? Others might consider this cruel but I made sure these people had a social support network in place (in one occasion going out of my way to insure this). Such superficial relations of convenience are best ended ASAP in my opinion (for the long-term benefit of all parties involved). It's like the flu you get from the flu-shot vs. possible outbreak of Ebola.The only people that I have found to be able to consistently listen to dual advices are those that either have a dual parent, or a dual brother or sister, or a dual tight-knit best friend. Even more unfortunately, in this case the intuitor is in worse position to change things (the intuitive nf even more), given that its role is one of advisor, in intuitive matters. In
I agree with Ezra and find this system to be not only useless but counterproductive. Even though there is the same level of activity between types with the same temperament, there is very little similarity between them.
The only difference between Lenin and Tyson was that one was that one was born into a poor black family and was not especially intellectually gifted and the other one was born into middle/upper class and was, intellectually, elite. Had Lenin several fewer points of IQ, perhaps he would have been known as the first Russian boxing champion.
Continuing with my main point, why do you think that the subtype similarity lies between types of the same temperament? That is true in a minority of cases, and only when the individual already has an emphasis on his leading function. A SEE with Fi subtype does not somehow magically gain a better understanding of Ne. There is no reason for that other than supposing that this somehow leads him to ignore his Se-base function. Since creative functions are linked to the input they receive from the leading function, a creative subtype would only have more output from his creative function and receive more input into it. That's it. It does not reveal the door that leads an SEE into the realm of Ne.
Furthermore, types of the same temperament are more intune with each other energy-wise, but they by no means share their goals or understand each other. Kinship relations are hypocritical to each other while having different goals. Business relations are alien to each other in viewpoint. Super-ego relations only really get along if they leave each other alone; their outlooks on life are so different that someone of their combined type would be clinically insane.
ifmd95 or someone else may wish to retort with a theoretical existence of equally mixed temperamental functions (equal portions of Ti & Fi, Te & Fe, Ne & Se, or Ni & Si). This "existence" does not exist, for the simple reason that such an existence would violate the conditions set by Model A.
Personally, I also disapprove of VI that includes subtypes. As far as I am concerned, a person's genetics are a better explanation for why the same type looks different in photos. Yeah, I'd go with genetics.
What you are doing is not theoretical. It is hogwash. This "demarcation" that ifmd95 found "boring and superfluous" and "of no theoretical depth" stands; these arguments are boring, superfluous, of no depth whatsoever, and supported by scant evidence.
Your time would be better spent looking at reasons outside of socionics for why there are intratype differences. I suggest looking at lifestyle, family, biography, close relations, medical problems, life-changing occurences, the person's current girlfriend/fuck buddy/sex toy, the person's imaginary friend, the schools he/she attended, the person's private interests, what philosophers he has read in his lifetime, consider how each philosopher affected him at that point in his life, the books he has read, the books he has read when happy or that lead him to be happy, the books he has read when depressed or that made him depressed, how his favorite sports team is doing, how he regards his job, when the last time he had a vacation was, which Victoria's Secret model he would most like to bang, how he is in the sack, how comfortable he is with his sexuality, and how alchemy affects his daily life before I would look at the way your cooky theory sees his subtype.
You relate everything to temperament and your "cycle" revolves around the temperament. Your system is focused on similarities between the temperaments. That is why I made my statement.
Are there a lot of SEEs that produce theoretical output? You also missed the fact that, if Lenin did resemble a type other than SLE, it was LIE. His outputs were as theoretical as they were meant to be put into practice.
As for the rest, upbringing is the most important thing. You are comparing a guy who grew up in gangs to three guys who were smart enough to get into universities (only Lenin actually graduated). Furthermore, consider what they were involved in: Tyson - boxing, Stallone and Lundgren - acting, Lenin - politics. Which of these is more likely to come up with theoretical output?
If you truly want to compare SLEs, you have to look at somebody like Lenin and Churchill. However, there you have more of a distinction with what type of output, as Churchill liked to write historical books and Lenin theoretical works.
Gulenko did not observe what you say; his observation was more that each acts differently (one takes the lead, another comes up with ideas, another checks and corrects, another ties everything together) while remaining fully true to their type. Gulenko's model is completely independent of socionics and Model A, while remaining a part of it. He also did not even consider that there were changes in quadra relations with each of his subtypes, as his subtypes are not more or less like any of the quadras. His final conclusion of eight subtypes per each type also goes against your observations of an irrational subtype preferring someone with a rational subtype.
That's enough on Gulenko. The nearing of the relationship between mirrors does vary quadra relations. Take an LIE. An LIE, especially LIE-Te, will prefer the Delta quadra, which has his semi-dual, his benefactor, his kinship, and his supervisor (2 beneficial relations, 1 so-so, and 1 negative), to the Beta quadra, which has his illusion, his beneficiary, his business, and his supervisee (there are no real "good" relationships here, mainly so-so and negative while the illusion can be fine). I will not write it out, but an ILI will be closer to Beta for the exact same reasons. As an ILI type comes closer to a LIE type and vice versa, their relations with each quadra improve or worsen, respectively.
This is not to mention that individual values can make someone value another quadra through no correlation with the subtype. I know an LSE who loved the Soviet Union, although, individually, she hates the type of policies they pursued.
Finally, the quadras and clubs are there for a reason. Rotating them around does upset the balance of intertype relations. I do not see why it would not.
A difference of how we think of type: I do not see temperament as relatively useful, easily discernable on a case-by-case basis, or useful before actually typing.
Anyhow, as I've mentioned before in other threads, a creative function will not exceed the strength of the base function. The second it does that, it becomes the base function as the person starts to rely more on the input from it than the input from his former base function.
Completely don't understand what you mean.
Who is isolating Se? Why is it reduced? How can it be isolated? Why would that matter? How does the base correspond to a mixture of Ne and Se? How is the connotation of this sentence even possible (that Ne and Se want to mix in the base function)? Why do I get the feeling I'm reading stringed words with no logic behind them? How would this mixture be as strong? How is such a mixture possible? Are Se and Ne not alternate concepts to the same thing? Why would this mixture be as strong? Why would this mixture work or be possible in the first place? What does the last sentence even mean (other than apparently being a Jesus parable)?
I understand that, but you mentioned them going in a full ring. Moreover, a LII-Ti would not be more like an LSI. They would analyze, think through single thoughts rather than look at many different factors more then a regular LII. By itself, this is in no way more LSI. The reverse would not be true for an LSI. A LSI-Ti would not necessarily seem more like an LII in the willingness to consider other possibilities, or more like an ESI, if you were going to make some +/- argument.
What is to say they are or have to be?
I fully support imfd95 on the matter (probably I've already stated it on the thread, but restating does not harm); I actually do not understand how what he says is not obvious to everyone. It's enough to look around yourself and you will notice the fine differences that, for example, become less and less prominent the closer you move on the temperament ring (i.e. an ENFP-Fi and an ESFP-Fi are very obviously much more simlar (actually, they are very similar) than an ENFP-Ne and and ESFP-Se). It's...obvious.
That's because you have not observed and understood enough, not because his points lack logic. All your questions are obviously related to the fact that you have never been able to observe that phenomena in action.Who is isolating Se? Why is it reduced? How can it be isolated? Why would that matter? How does the base correspond to a mixture of Ne and Se? How is the connotation of this sentence even possible (that Ne and Se want to mix in the base function)? Why do I get the feeling I'm reading stringed words with no logic behind them? How would this mixture be as strong? How is such a mixture possible? Are Se and Ne not alternate concepts to the same thing? Why would this mixture be as strong? Why would this mixture work or be possible in the first place? What does the last sentence even mean (other than apparently being a Jesus parable)?
Actually, this reasoning is not sophisticated enough. The error lies here: you think that creative-Fi stronger than base-Ne and base-Se is equal to base-Fi. But creative-Fi and base-Fi are two extremely different functions: base-Fi is rational, empowering, pliable and creative-Fi is irrational, limiting, obstinate (just to name a few differences - there are a lot more). An EP with stronger Fi than Se or Ne will have stronger creative-Fi, not base-Fi.Anyhow, as I've mentioned before in other threads, a creative function will not exceed the strength of the base function. The second it does that, it becomes the base function as the person starts to rely more on the input from it than the input from his former base function.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Of course an IEE-Fi is more similar to a SEE-Fi than an IEE-Ne to a SEE-Se. The first two focus more on their Fi environments; the latter two each focus on their own respective base functions. This does not mean an IEE-Fi has stronger Se, nor that a SEE-Fi has stronger Ne, nor that an IEE-Ne has stronger Ti, nor that a SEE-Se has stronger Ti. You are putting causal links and comparisons where there are none.
All of my questions are related to how what he said was strung words. Se is not isolated, nor can it be, since to function each element needs inputs from other elements. Se is reduced in magnitude to Fi; this does not have to allow a better use of Ne, nor does it in most instances. Ne and Se cannot mix in a base function because they can barely mix at all. I imagine you draw this from "people can use both to some extent," but that is not mixing in a base function; instead the person has a separate base function element and a separate role function element, which, depending on the fluctuation for an irrational, can be used at varying degrees to each other. This does not constitute a subtype. Such a mixture would not be strong or perhaps even possible, as it would actually require a mixture of mindsets that are always set against or deny each other.
What I actually think is happening in your thought process is the following:
A SEE-Fi subtype cares more about his Fi than does a regular SEE. But to preserve his temperament, he accepts more Ne. A SEE-Se subtype cares less about Fi. To preserve the temperament balance, he cares more for Ti. This is adding causation where there are none. A temperament does not need to be preserved because a temperament is not strictly defined. A SEE-Fi pays more attention to his Fi environment, and consequently less attention to his own Se goals or gains, but this in no way necessitates that he is better at accepting others viewpoints other than perhaps the ESI's propensity to listen to others to prefer the relationship. A SEE-Se listens less to his Fi environment and is more concerned about his Se goals and gains. He will try to win or be on top in more situations than a regular SEE, but this again does not mean he will consider a victory in a Ti framework that does not grant a benefit in his Fi environment a victory.
If a SEE-Fi is less self-oriented, he must have more Ne. If a SEE-Se is more self-oriented, he must have more Ti. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
No, you think that an element in the creative function is automatically changed with respect to its core functioning. You also mistakenly think that the accepting-producing function dichotomy comes not from function power levels but just exists. The above two fallacies are why you think that such a system is possible.
All the differences between base-Fi and creative-Fi come from the fact that the base holds most of a person's thought process, only allowing the other mental functions to appear in continuously decreasing stretches of time and frequencies. Thus, a base-Fi maintains constant thought, while a creative-Fi bursts through at moments, bestowing insights that the person sees as important and subjects to his base's rumination. As the creative function strengthens, its outbursts become more frequent and more constant, taking over the base's role as soon as it becomes stronger than the base. (It would be quite pointless to consider the stronger element subservient to the weaker one. Moreover, the stronger element would now subject insights from the weaker element to its own goals and needs.)
I may be mistaken, but you gave the impression that you also thought a creative element was subject to the rationality of the type. This is wrong and I would point out that Model A was not explicitly developed with the dichotomies in mind. (Also I have no idea what you meant by this - "creative-Fi stronger than base-Ne and base-Se is equal to base-Fi" [the latter part I get more or less] - but I do not seem to think the first part.)
I would not use VI at all. His thinking in no way reflects an ILE or an ILE's opinions or an ILE's views. Lenin did what every tactician does: took the theoretical foundation (Das Kapital and Marxism) and applied it to the actual scenario. It in no way was more or less like an ILE. He wrote his works as a way of sharing his view and showing them to be credible as Leninism was a far shoot-off of Marxism, as Marx did not even consider a communist revolution in an agricultural country like Russia possible. Similar to Lenin, every communist revolutionary in Asia has come up with a new theoretical doctrine to apply specifically to his country.
Your examples and claims do not project the situation accurately. One, you suppose that theorization lies in Alpha when theory is as much a part of Beta. Two, more than intelligence, the disparity between the four comes from living conditions, which you do not address. Three, aside from individual differences, I see no correlation in the choice of profession and lifestyle
They can, but they do not have to. I'm talking about what must exist. Theoretically, there could be a politician/artist who also won a Nobel Prize in literature. Oh, wait, that's Churchill, the regular SLE.
Neither do I support Gulenko's views. You can create a system of infintite subtypes, but that does not mean that it is either useful or practical to our understanding. His system, at least, goes outside (or into the depths) of socionics to understand type nuances because he recognizes that the each of the different identicals are in no way less representative of their type. Your system assumes that because a type has behaviors that are not typical of his type, his type relations change, he likes one club more or less, or that he somehow goes out of his quadra.
The divide is quite large, once you experience it. The fact is that mirrors are the worst relation in the quadra, and correspondingly have vastly different relations.
No. Activity partners in the long term, aggravate and irritate each other, which can evetually lead to a breaking of relations. Activation relations need periods of "cooldown time" and may need an interlocutor to get back into contact and maintain the relationship. A semi-duality relationship can be more stable and beneficial, honestly speaking.
You can say that semi-duality is generally universally more pleasing than illusionary. The first provides the individual with what he craves; the second provides the individual with what he finds useful, but might be able to do without. Illusion relations can be strained while semi-duality ones are generally pleasant and mutually beneficial.
If by comparative you mean kinship, then no. Kinships can at the very least understand each other or share similar interests. Business relationships are called so because they function best when kept at hands distance, as each tends to irritate the other at close range. The "threat level" people experience with kinship is due to the possibility for the closeness of that relationship, as people do not regularly even interact with their business relations unless they have to. (Ganin quite possibly confuses his own type.)
Given equal circumstances, a type will prefer his benefactors to his beneficiaries and prefer interacting with his supervisee than with his supervisor. Over the course of an individual's lifetime, these trends would become fairly obvious unless he lived in an environment that heavily promoted interaction with one and not the other.
A LSE would never block an ILI's base; he would only be weak in it and the relationship may grow strained without the ILI realizing what is going on. Similarly, an ILI would have much more problems dealing with PoLR hits that he could not fight off.
I'm not. As this person is very close to me, I know that what she likes/values is the extremely Beta ST-generated environment of the USSR. She harshly criticizes some of the same policy procedures and faults of the USSR when they happen today.
Neither does it mean that it is logical to rotate or interchange them.
I do not think this addresses the issue I raised. Because socionics is a theory, many have misconceptions about how it translates to the real world or how some of the functions manifest. Socionics deals with thought processes, which are not necessarily revealed by outside demeanor or behavior. Thus, a person we do not know well can be one way, when in reality they are quite different. We can either reevaluate their type, or we can turn to theories of quadra/club change.
Arguments cannot correlate to clubs, for fairly obvious reasons. Anyhow, arguments can relate to quadras, but neither can they change type relations, as, in the quadra itself, "outer quadra arguments" can be used to check your quadra if its philosophy goes out of hand.
Then why does is it a rotation along the temperament ring? Why not a rotation along benefit relations or on supervision relations? If anything, the former relates to changeable, observable qualities over a person's lifetime (while not instituting any change in relations), while the latter is partially included in Filatova's subtype system, and does come with subsets of relationship change. If you are not arguing for temperament, then there is no reason to keep the temperament in your subtype system as I have already shown it makes little sense. (If not right away obvious, the two rings I mentioned both still change club and quadra.)
I would suggest you stop using socionics, accept that it tries to group 6 billion people from all over the world into 16 types, accept that people are different because of different experiences or indoctrinated life values, that people have been exposed to a certain element in their environment or had an occurence that changed their particular thought on the manifestation of an element or elements, and that socionics will never adequately describe all the people you know.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
