[ame]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=402713313639862693&q=whatever3&ei= MV8VSMHpKoP8rQKzwMToBA[/ame]
a discussion of subtypes
[ame]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=402713313639862693&q=whatever3&ei= MV8VSMHpKoP8rQKzwMToBA[/ame]
I see subtypes as primarily a sort of nomenclature.
I'll try to pick people as examples who I don't think will take offense...
For example, I would see Machintruc as asubtype. This means that
I see this as the use of a subtype to say "I don't know if Machintruc is LSI or LII". So if I said Machintruc is LII-Ti, I mean "it's quite possible he could be LSI, I just don't know".
This is an example of a sort of cross-quadra subtype... it connects the person between quadras... not because they really are between quadras, but because from what I know about them, it's uncertain which of the two quadras they would be in... which of the two types with the same leading (or creative) function they would embody.
Other examples... I would see Discojoe as ESI-Se; Garmonbozia as IXI-Ni; Dolphin as SEI-Fe. In Discojoe's case this might make little sense with who he is irl. On the forum I seem to see anemphasis. But people have said that the
focus is more obvious through PM. Maybe if I met him in person I'd think "wow, Discojoe has a huge emphasis of
Then there is the example of Kristiina. I don't really identify her with a subtype, however she identifies with thesubtype of EIE. But IMO, the second most likely type for her would be IEI, rather than LIE. So if I were to say that she's EIE-Ni it wouldn't mean the same thing as it would in the example with Machintruc. In her case it would mean she's very certainly a Beta NF. ETA: Dolphin would be a better comparison here than Machintruc... with Dolphin I think the two most likely types are SEI and IEI.
Then there's Reyn_til_Runa... even though her posts are full of
ETA: I also see Minde as EII-Fi. But I don't really see a second most likely type. I think she's *very* EII.
Subtypes can also account for the phenomenon that some people more easily and perfectly fit into their type than others...
Going away from all of that, I had wondered to myself in a rather joking way if Dee were SEI-Ti, because I saw a large
Last edited by marooned; 04-28-2008 at 06:33 AM.
How trustworthy you are.
You don't even understand that model and now you're mis-educating other people about it. And it is NOT some logical blocked-in construct to try to defend and justify things and force things to fit into it, geez you're so missing the point.
And if it's stupid - why make half the video discussing it, and furthermore, if you don't understand it, then why would you try explaining it to an audience so that they can "objectively judge for themselves?" Would you not understanding it and falsely representing it give people that objective perspective for people to accurately evaluate for themselves? Bullshit.
Also, if you have a need to discuss that model, why don't you do it at socionix where he can discuss it too and not let it get misconstrued? What are your motives in discussing it here? Do you want people to rally around your dismissals of anything socionix and elicit validation for your write-offs? Or are you afraid that it has credence and you are afraid of people catching onto it, leaving you in the dust?
i like ur point about how if a type places no emphasis on a particular function then they shouldn't have a subtype placed on them and all ur other points related to that. good video
ESFp-Fi sub
6w7 sx/so/sp
I'm sorry, but I actually take some sort of offense when you say things like that, because you take for granted that machintruc is really aOriginally Posted by Loki
I see subtypes as primarily a sort of nomenclature.
I'll try to pick people as examples who I don't think will take offense...
For example, I would see Machintruc as a
The only thing you know for sure about his type is that the pieces don't fit together. He could be almost any type as far as you know, because he comes across as a person that has no clue whatsoever of what he is talking about, since he has misunderstood most of it.
Niffweed has at least one very important and totally correct point, namely that people should stop talking about subtypes if they can't determine the correct main type in the first place. He is totally correct in criticizing people who tend to say and believe that different subtypes of the same main type can be very different in behaviours and even temperaments. It is simply not the case that there exist for example LIIs that, becuase of their subtype, are more similar to some other type than the prototypical LII.
We should focus -- everyone of us -- on the main types before we even start to think about subtypes.
Lol.
Yeah, but for example, I am great at typing so people shouldn't criticize me when I speak about subtypes.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
why don't you just take what i say at face value?
why is whether i'm good or not at typing even relevant to this discussion? why can't you evaluate the subtype thing for what it is?
i'm objectively representing my view of it. i don't see any need to do anything else.
why don't you offer a counterargument here as to what the model is, if you feel so strongly about its legitimacy?
all right; i'll do that. the reason i haven't done so is because i didn't think anybody at socionix would be much interested in anything i have to say. i'm not interested in bickering about it, but i'll post this video there and let whoever wishes to defend it do so.Also, if you have a need to discuss that model, why don't you do it at socionix where he can discuss it too and not let it get misconstrued? What are your motives in discussing it here? Do you want people to rally around your dismissals of anything socionix and elicit validation for your write-offs? Or are you afraid that it has credence and you are afraid of people catching onto it, leaving you in the dust?
ftr i can't actually post there on this computer right now but i'll link this video to there when i get home.
Hey hey hey, I wasn't really speaking about what you said there! I was just replying to phaedurs.
Anyway, the subtype thing could be right, but how do you take into account that some people learn faster, some others learn slower, some other lurk for a long time before posting so they may be already knowledgeable etc etc...we should give everybody a chance.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
But what is the point of talking about subtypes when people in general on this forum are so bad at typing?
You are no doubt much better at typing than the average person here, but people talk about very subtle differences as if those differences were easily detected in the persons they meat, and even in the persons they interact with through the Internet. Niffweed is certainly right, as he does in that video, to criticize this type of behaviour. It is not scientific.
We have no real need for subtypes, at least not yet. People are so bad at typing correctly that I think we should focus all our efforts on educating people on how the real types are.
Ahhh okay, if you're looking to educate people then you're right. I mean, I am not really looking for that, so I'll still use subtypes.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Okay, you are allowed to subtypes if you don't make any typing mistakes ...
That would be absolutely illogical, thus completely impossible
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Interesting content, but I do think you discussed subtypes in general less than you attacked Ashton's subtype model, which, quite frankly, I would've devoted less time to.
yes, it looked like he sort of wandered into that. I only half listened to the part about Ashton's model... as I really would like to get one model down first before trying to look at others too much... (unless I think a different model will somehow enrich my overall understanding)
In general I quite agree about the subtypes shouldn't get in the way of actually identifying the correct type part... and it would make little sense for say an ILE-Ne to be more like an IEE-Ne than an ILE-Ti. To me this is just sort of obvious... an ILE-Ne who's more like a delta than an alpha, can't be ILE.
More like a delta than a BETA not than an ALPHA!
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
??? I was trying to be general... I wasn't trying to refer to Ashton's model as I know nothing about it that would in any way warrant my having an opinion on it.
An ILE-Ne is Alpha. An ILE-Ti is Alpha.
An ILE-Ne is more similar to a Delta than an ILE-Ti, which is more similar to a Beta, in comparison to an ILE-Ne.
That's not Ashton's model.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I think what I'm trying to say is that ILE-Ne should be more like ILE than a type of another quadra. If it's more like a type of another quadra than its own type, then why should it be ILE?
I agree that ILE-Ne would be more like delta (IEE-Ne) and ILE-Ti would be more like beta (SLE-Ti), but ILE-Ne and ILE-Ti should both be more similar to just plain ILE than they should be to either IEE-Ne or SLE-Ti (respectively)... if they aren't, how can they be ILE?
ETA: I incorrectly thought you were correcting me cause you thought I was referring to Ashton's model and misrepresenting it. Sorry about that.
Ooooh ok ok I got it know sorry...yeah I agree of course
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Yay.I edited my post by the way since you replied. Since I have to edit my posts 3,000,000 times as a rule after posting them.
Oh wait though... sometimes ILE-Ne would be more like LII-Ne than IEE-Ne though...
I agree that not everyone has a clear emphasis on certain IM elements, so if you're defining a subtype as that, not everyone has subtypes. It can convey more information about someone's type if they do convey a clear emphasis on something and you mention that as part of their type though. I don't know enough about Ashton's system to comment on that.
Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.
I pity your souls
Re: imfd95
I think that's where using a "model" akin to this can lead... but still I would see it as closer to its own central type than one in another quadra.
?
Ah, radial coordinate systems...Re: imfd95
I think that's where using a "model" akin to this can lead... but still I would see it as closer to its own central type than one in another quadra.
?
Now, what would be the implications if you added another dimension!?
Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.
I pity your souls
My head would explode.
(I don't know what would go on the z-axis)
Niffweed, now that I have a face, a voice, and a sense of how you talk, I think that I have a better understanding of your posts. Thank you for the video. It was an interesting video and I mostly agree with it as not much actually deviates from a Socionics understanding. Most of it was just confusion at the irrational way in which subtypes are approached by others, which I agree with. Why do people try to understand the idea behind subtypes if they can barely understand the types themselves? Yeah, it rambles a bit on Ashton's understanding, which I find perplexing - why waste your time arguing against insubstantial arguments? - but the overall conclusion I tend to agree with you.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Yet another pair of complementary rival elements, resulting in a total of 8 quadras. The individual types would require some extensive modeling work to account for the number of elements not being a power of 2...Ah, radial coordinate systems...
Now, what would be the implications if you added another dimension!?
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
Weighted average? No, I was thinking of extending Model A... that graph doesn't explain the 16 types, but it doesn't replace them either. If we extended the graph to a third dimension, that would involve extending the entire model. It would probably involve three functions in each block, and some new rules for the order the functions go in.
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 was. I liked it enough to think about it and come to a conclusion. That is, I don't really make a thorough distinction between joking and seriousness... we joke around, and when we find something interesting, we figure it out. I would say it's an Alpha thing, but I haven't seen any Alpha say anything that quite matched it...
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
Oh the other thing I thought was a good point was how you would evaluate subtypes in the first place. Like if someone's ILE they might use a lot ofin certain situations and a lot of
Or perhaps they could go for a few years seeming overly
This whole time nothing has changed about their type; they just expressed themselves differently...
Anyway, reiterating: good point.
Last edited by marooned; 04-29-2008 at 04:34 PM.
Yeah, but when the ILE in the example is going through an "over-emphasis on, bla, bla, bla.
ETA: If subtypes are "fixed" then it's sort of like there are 32 types rather than 16... (in a way).
Niffweed that was a very interesting and insightful overview. Some people I noticed have responded negatively with what seems like the belief that your primary aim is to publicize your own "agenda" or something to that effect. I disagree with that and simply see that you've taken the initiative, as others have failed to, to provide people at the forum with a convenient and informative overview of a topic that is continually resurfacing.
It made me realize myself that people new to the forum are probably more likely to be intimidated when suddenly they see some strange system known as subtypes that many people somehow talk about as if they belong to some secret club whilst arrogantly not taking the time to provide information on what the hell they're talking about. If I've ever come off this way I apologize to those effected as it wasn't intentional. Anyways I made notes of some things while I was watching and have expanded on them in this post.
First of all, I think I'm pretty much a traditional subtypes enthusiast. Using subtypes has honestly helped me understand and maintain an interest in socionics. I don't use subtypes because I believe I understand everything so well that I'm compelled to show off to others. On the contrary I use them because they've helped me overcome certain stumbling blocks I've come across in my basic understanding. These stumbling blocks include problems and variations in intertype relations etc. Therefore I use subtypes in my posts because I think that some people will find them useful, as I did, and also because they provide a quick way of showing where I'm coming from. When I mistype someone it also helps me more specifically see where I went wrong, for example, if I mistype an INTp-Ni for an INFp-Ni I know that the severity of the problem is less than if I've mistyped an INTp-Te for an INFp-Fe. By being able to assess the severity of my own typing weaknesses I'm able to slowly overcome them, one at a time, in order of importance.
While I myself find subtypes useful I agree with you that some people won't, and there's nothing wrong with that. In all honesty though I think that one's socionic type itself does influence, to a noticable degree, whether that person will accept subtypes. I'd be interested to see what others think of this... Basically, Ti-valuing types seem more likely to value subtypes. I'm not so well learned yet as to successfully argue the nature of this but there's enough examples on the forum that I think others will agree I'm not pulling this out of my ass. Even me, sure my Ti isn't strong but I do value Ti and having it as my Hidden Agenda has an effect on how I try to (even when I fail) understand things.
Personally I've always used subtypes in a very practical, more so than theoretical, manner. That is, whenever I'm attempting to apply socionics, on the forum or real life, I first try with the classical model so instead of subtypes being a primary focus they are used as seconday/backup/substitute tool to iron out the edges. As an analogy: say I'm a soccer coach and classical socionics represents the starting 11 of my team. Subtypes represents my substitutes. My strategy for winning the soccer game will be primarily based on utilizing my starting players (classical socionics). But should one get injured, or overly fatigued, I'm willing to bring in the substitutes. Ok this analogy is weak but I can't help it the Barcelona vs. Manchester game starts in half hour, moving on...
What I'm getting at is that people new to socionics should ignore subtypes. Once they've oriented themselves they can consider subtypes but more so for practical purposes/problems than theoretical.
Which brings me to my own understanding of basic subtypes. I see subtypes in a very simple and symmetrical way. There are two subtypes for each type: the leading and the creative subtype. A person's subtype is as likely to change as their socionic type, in other words it won't change. So if you were to believe that someone as changed their subtype then you've likely mis-subtyped them. That person's subtype didn't change, rather it was your view of the person that changed.
I mentioned that subtypes are symmetrical because a person's subtype has a noticable effect on their other IM elements and on their intertype relations. My understanding of this is still vague, it's like I know it's there but I have to think really hard in order to see the details. So my ability to explain this is akin to that of a person, who wears glasses, removing their glasses and explaining in detail what they see as they walk around a semi-familiar environment.
INTp-Ni as example. (Everything should be taken in context with Model A.)
When I label someone INTp-Ni they do not merely exhibit a relative emphasis on Ni. An emphasis on Ni has an effect on every other function.
so an INTp-Ni will exhibit
-more emphasis on Ni
-less Te
-weaker Si
-stronger Fe
-more emphasis on Se as a dual-seeking function
-less emphasis on Fi as a dual-seeking function
whereas an INTp-Te will exhibit
-less emphasis on Ni
-more emphasis on Te
-stronger Si
-weaker Fe
-less emphasis on Se as a dual-seeking function
-more emphasis on Fi as a dual-seeking function
This naturally will effect the person's intertype relations. An INTp-Ni has weaker Se, and therefore becomes more dependent on others to provide it. So by this logic an INTp-Ni and ESFp-Se are more exact duals.
Often on the forum someone makes a post to the effect of, "why didn't duality work?" Subtypes may be able to provide them with an insight.
Anyways I've said enough, others should feel free to expand on this or correct me where I'm wrong here, but this is basically the extent to which I have used subtypes and if I type subtypes one more time I'm going to shoot myself.
Finally, I've never heard of Ashton's system and quite frankly don't care to learn about it. It has had no effect that I know of on how I think or do things.
PHP Code:public class Waysubtype extends Type.Subtype.Subsubtype {
public float distinguishBetweenSubtleNuances() {
DateTime timeWasted = new DateTime(0);
for (i = 0; i >= 0; i++) {
everybody.wasteMyTime();
timeWasted.increment();
}
return timeWasted;
}
}
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
Alright, I just watched this comedy, and while I have many observations, I will only list one or two.
Niffweed, you say that people like to use ashton's model because it makes them feel smart, due to its neat, mathematical nature. This just shows your complete lack of understanding of the model. The mode and agenda aren't two set-in-stone life goals; they are merely areas of focus. In Ashton's model, the functions act relative to each other. Model A is the limiting model because it ties functions down to specific roles in specific blocks.
And if anyone is trying to feel smart, it's you - by making videos about topics like you're some mediator.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Niffweed - thanks for the video. You made a lot of sense to me.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
My current thoughts on subtypes, subject to change and improvement:
Let's see if I can make this coherent.
First, I tend to see types as flowing along the conscious functions of the temperaments. So, in the case of IJ (or static-rational), TiNe --> TiSe --> FiSe --> FiNe and back to TiNe. They're all "next to" each other. With this way of looking at things, the subtype progression would look like this - INTj-Ne --> INTj-Ti --> ISTj-Ti --> ISTj-Se --> ISFj-Se --> ISFj-Fi --> INFj-Fi --> INFj-Ne --> INTj-Ne. So, an ISTj-Se would look more like an ISFj than an INTj. Figures A and B kind of show what I mean.
While I tend to think that one can't "jump" outside of one's own temperament, not on a permanent basis anyway, I do think that there's merit to the idea that focus on a perceiving function makes you look less rational and more irrational. So, according to that thinking, an INFj-Ne might look somewhat like an ENFp. I'm not settled on that, though.
Second, I like the idea of graduations in emphases on functions. It just... makes sense to me. I like the flexibility in it. That's not to say there aren't distinct types and that those types aren't sort of settled into place. But I do think it means that one uses the functions more or less, especially depending on the needs of the environment.
Here, a picture will help, I think. (I'm a visual learner.)
Figure A.
The thick black "clock hand" is pointing squarely at INFj, aka EII or FiNe. That clock hand represents what I think is one's "true" type. Now, I haven't decided yet if that clock hand can move or not, if one's "true" type can change or not. At the moment, I am inclined to think not; or, at least, it would take vast amounts of effort and energy to do it, so much so that it's quite rare.
The thin pointer, which resembles a speedometer hand or something similar, is, as you notice, pointing more in the direction of Fi. This pointer represents which function(s) one is concentrating on or using most at this moment in time. This one I do think is mobile, perhaps more so for some than others. It reacts to the needs (or perceived needs) of the environment, though it might also reflect innate preferences.
For example, I consider myself an EII who tends to focus a lot on Fi. So Figure A can be a representation of where I am on average. However, there are times when I think I need to use other functions, like when in a highly physical or challenging environment.
Figure B.
Here, the clock hand is still pointing to FiNe, but the pointer has gone in the direction of Se.
I'm still INFj, but I'm now using Se along with Fi.
A way to show the same thing using Model A might be this:
Figure C.
Here, in Figure C, is the EII with a focus on both Fi and Ne, but more on Fi.
Figure D.
And here is the same type, but now with a focus on Se along with Fi. (Figure A corresponds in idea to Figure C, likewise Figure B to Figure D.)
Now, I think as long as the "true" type remains, the blocks in Model A apply (as far as I understand them, anyway). So, Se will still be the PoLR to the EII, even if they use it a lot and have gotten used to using it. This, I suppose, gets into the idea of the "health" of the type, where their pointer should be versus where they feel it needs to be.
Another thing I am unsure of with regard to the pointer - I'm not sure exactly which functions it can point to. For example, does it "jump" to another temperament? Or point to the unconscious functions?
Third, as far as the unconscious functions go, I don't really know enough to say with any certainty what they're doing in terms of subtypes.
For example, if the conscious pointer is pointing in one direction, perhaps there is a corresponding subconscious pointer. If so, I'd think it'd be pointing at the matching function(s). So, the EII-Fi's subconscious pointer would be toward TeSi. Anyway, that's an idea.
Whew! That was a lot. But, after so much time learning, some things are beginning to reveal their forms to me. It's still pretty nebulous, though, so I don't mind comments and critiques.
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
Nif, I just watched this video for the first time today... Very good info--really made me think a lot. I agree with your assessment.
Thanks.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
