a discussion of subtypes

[Elro]

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...

Now, what would be the implications if you added another dimension!?

[marooned]

Now, what would be the implications if you added another dimension!?

My head would explode.

(I don't know what would go on the z-axis)

[Logos]

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.

[Brilliand]

Ah, radial coordinate systems...

Now, what would be the implications if you added another dimension!?

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...

[Brilliand]

why? just take some weighted average of the reinin traits for the two nearest types and you can get infinitely many subtypes without any new "modeling work"...

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.

[Brilliand]

i didn't realize you were referring to, and wasn't myself referring to, the three-dimension thing. i thought that was just a joke??

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...

[marooned]

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 of in certain situations and a lot of in certain (other) situations. So in the former "certain situations" they might *appear* subtype, while in the latter set of "certain situations" they might appear subtype.

Or perhaps they could go for a few years seeming overly focused... and then later "calm down" and start acting so like they appear to be LII to the "untrained socionist."

This whole time nothing has changed about their type; they just expressed themselves differently...

Anyway, reiterating: good point.

[marooned]

sure, but there are other signs too. when i had mentioned club and quadra values -- i had looking at the entire type in mind. for example, look for their hidden agenda (ENTp-Ne will have stronger Fe but ENTp-Ti will crave it more.) or the ignoring function (ENTp-Ne will strongly subdue Ni but ENTp-Ti approaches ESTp-Ti -- where Ni is sought from others.) so it's a fair point, to beware of occasions -- or even phases perhaps -- when one function is augmented or surpressed unusually. but then there are lots of other functions to consider.

Yeah, but when the ILE in the example is going through an "over-emphasis on " phase, it will affect all of their functions anyway. You can't use "more" without using less , more , bla, bla, bla.

ETA: If subtypes are "fixed" then it's sort of like there are 32 types rather than 16... (in a way).