Rick's Schmystem of Schmubtypes

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I haven't said subtypes don't exist! I have said that Meged's subtype system is, in my opinion, a poor one. I hardly intend to elaborate on it.

Well here is were confusion comes from, because it is difficult to work out exactly what you are saying if they do or don't exist: You start a thread calling it your system of subtypes, saying it is direct response to recent thread on subtypes, you clarify your position on subtypes about page 4 of the thread:

I think I should clarify my position on subtypes. There are philosophical or logical reasons for my position, i.e. that after enough discrete classification has already introduced in socionics, the value of additional categories at some point succumbs to the law of diminishing returns. For this reason I reject the Reinin Dichotomies as well.

The other aspect is more personal. There are few socionists who I have an abiding intellectual respect for, and none of the socionists who have invented or deeply espouse subtype systems are among them. These, I feel, have become bogged down in mental masturbation. The system has gotten the better of them.

I'm not sure exactly what that means, but you are saying you reject sub types, as you reject Reinin Dichotomies, either you think they exist but see no point in them, they need to be developed more, they don't exist, I don't know. I've been trying to find out by being mostly tactful on the thread, maybe I should be more direct, to clarify your position.

I would also be concerned if you reject something because who ever else likes it you don't have intellectual respect for. Unless you clarify more, it is like (to me) not liking a particular TV program because a certain person X or Y says it's good.

I also didn't say that the description "IEI-writer" meant that the person could write. I said that of all their activities, writer was the one they most strongly self-identified with. And yes, any type can be a writer, and that's the whole point of the additional classification - to introduce important qualities beyond, and unrelated to, their type that had a great influence on their behavior and, possibly, interactions.

Well that brings me back to this:

To what's been said here so far, I would add:

All artists are similar. All scientists are similar. All musicians are similar. All philosophers are similar. All corporate workers are similar. Etc. All these people have similar psychological and behavioral traits regardless of their types, and for the most part they were born with them.

I beg to differ, I know ENFj musicians and ISTp musicians, which are conflicting relations, how well will they get on working together as musicians? Not withstanding that everyone is an individual, i'm not sure what you want to do by grouping everyone who likes the same thing as being the same person - that they are all the same.. Or similar? Anyway I know plenty of corporate workers who are quite different from each other. These people are often there because they try to earn living to keep roof over their heads. Incase you don't know some people work out of necessity not because they love their job, hence how similar are many of them? (anyway being that Delta's value the individual anyway, I find it difficult to accept on a moral level also.) Makes more sense then to look at this sub type idea from a socionic point of view.

I think it only fair that your system of subtypes be subjected to some form of analysis, as you have been doing (quite dismissively at times - relating your own judgement of someones intellectual ability to them producing or having an interest in an idea - sub types in this particular case.) to other people. I wonder if people say the same about you. That's as my current understanding rude.

[iAnnAu]

Well here is were confusion comes from, because it is difficult to work out exactly what you are saying if they do or don't exist: You start a thread calling it your system of subtypes, saying it is direct response to recent thread on subtypes, you clarify your position on subtypes about page 4 of the thread:
I'm not sure exactly what that means, but you are saying you reject sub types, as you reject Reinin Dichotomies, either you think they exist but see no point in them, they need to be developed more, they don't exist, I don't know. I've been trying to find out by being mostly tactful on the thread, maybe I should be more direct, to clarify your position.
I would also be concerned if you reject something because who ever else likes it you don't have intellectual respect for. Unless you clarify more, it is like (to me) not liking a particular TV program because a certain person X or Y says it's good.

FWIW, I didn't think that Rick completely dismissed subtypes like you're claiming here. I think throughout this thread he has clarified a consistent position: that he's not ready to proclaim that subtype theory is inherently invalid, he has not come across anyone's description of such that satisfies him. Yes, he took a bit of a detour into alternative ways of expressing things that the 3/4-letter dichotomies seem to gloss over, and we had our chance to point out the gaps in the logic of the specific suggestions he made. But I got that his point was to acknowledge that people want something more than the given type descriptions, not to say "Here I am, all-knowing, and I proclaim: Don't use Meged's subtypes! Use somatotypes instead!"

I beg to differ, I know ENFj musicians and ISTp musicians, which are conflicting relations, how well will they get on working together as musicians? Not withstanding that everyone is an individual, i'm not sure what you want to do by grouping everyone who likes the same thing as being the same person - that they are all the same.. Or similar? Anyway I know plenty of corporate workers who are quite different from each other. These people are often there because they try to earn living to keep roof over their heads. Incase you don't know some people work out of necessity not because they love their job, hence how similar are many of them? (anyway being that Delta's value the individual anyway, I find it difficult to accept on a moral level also.) Makes more sense then to look at this sub type idea from a socionic point of view.

Again, you seem to be completely missing the point. Rick is saying that *even if* people are of types that would find little in common IM-wise, they could find a common passion. And I interpret passion where you see job. I don't know anyone who willingly identifies with working in an office. I work in an office, and if someone asks what my job is, I'll admit it, but that has nothing to do with who I like to see as myself! Two conflictor types who love music could very easily have a conversation about music; what is so unacceptable about that?

I think it only fair that your system of subtypes be subjected to some form of analysis, as you have been doing (quite dismissively at times - relating your own judgement of someones intellectual ability to them producing or having an interest in an idea - sub types in this particular case.) to other people. I wonder if people say the same about you. That's as my current understanding rude.

While you brought up several good points in various posts, you have been fairly combative here & there, Cyclops. I'm not reading into Rick's behavior the way you are, and in my opinion after reading this thread, you've come off as rude - and he hasn't.
Please understand that when I see several pages of post after post of two forumites debating, it seems to me that one or both are talking past the other. In this case, your last several posts seem to simply hammer Rick for not wholeheartedly agreeing with you - when that shouldn't be important. You could very well be right in your views. But Rick hasn't said "No, you're wrong." He's saying "I have my own opinion."
Enough, I say! And of course that's only *my* opinion...

[Creepy-Cyclops]

FWIW, I didn't think that Rick completely dismissed subtypes like you're claiming here. I think throughout this thread he has clarified a consistent position: that he's not ready to proclaim that subtype theory is inherently invalid, he has not come across anyone's description of such that satisfies him. Yes, he took a bit of a detour into alternative ways of expressing things that the 3/4-letter dichotomies seem to gloss over, and we had our chance to point out the gaps in the logic of the specific suggestions he made. But I got that his point was to acknowledge that people want something more than the given type descriptions, not to say "Here I am, all-knowing, and I proclaim: Don't use Meged's subtypes! Use somatotypes instead!"

I'm not really trying to claim anything in my last post, i'm looking to clarify because i'm unsure what Rick quite means. As i've said already, which still makes sense, is that one can see, and using Rick as example, a clear emphasis on Ne in his ENFp framework, more so than many other ENFp's. So I am saying that type descriptions of any kind will only go so far, because the inherent nature of functions is that they are psychological, so we can see many different behaviours which we can identify with Ne.

I'm not sure what's wrong with Meged's ego descriptions. Rick did make a post about it but it seemed quite demanding when you consider it next to other descriptions, and as I mentioned earlier, socionics took some time to create descriptions anyway. So maybe this makes sub types seem a little vague. If he's not looking to dismiss them, fine. But I don't think using peoples builds etc is getting any better. It seems worse when what we perhaps should be doing, if it's needed, is work on socionic sub types. So yes it may be going round in circles.

And it bothered me that Rick from what I understand dismissed these said sub type descriptions before even reading them. I think it's fair to give them a decent approval first before they get pushed to one side, it seems.

Again, you seem to be completely missing the point. Rick is saying that *even if* people are of types that would find little in common IM-wise, they could find a common passion. And I interpret passion where you see job. I don't know anyone who willingly identifies with working in an office. I work in an office, and if someone asks what my job is, I'll admit it, but that has nothing to do with who I like to see as myself! Two conflictor types who love music could very easily have a conversation about music; what is so unacceptable about that?

In regards to your conflictor types easily having a conversation about music, what I said was work together, infact many bands are together due to favourable relations, many break up due to not getting on on a personal level, which in framework of socionics is got to be more relevant, cause they already have an interest in music. People in offices fall out more easily with their conflictor than their mirror, for instance. So to use an analogy here, seems we all have a common interest in socionics but it doesn't stop disagreements.

(And many people love working in offices. Some ESTj's and especially ENTj's I've known make it their life. My point is they aren't all the same, some aren't even similar, some are just there just there to make money, it's not a vocation or a passion for everyone.)

While you brought up several good points in various posts, you have been fairly combative here & there, Cyclops. I'm not reading into Rick's behavior the way you are, and in my opinion after reading this thread, you've come off as rude - and he hasn't.

I am sure Rick will agree with you because it's sort of in defense of him. But in fairness Rick has been defensive also. He hasn't looked at my various factual points and queries as a way to understand were he's coming from. I suspect he agrees with me more than he is saying, but I suspect stubborness is maybe not letting that through so much, and yes, ENFp's can be stubborn. Not wanting to speculate on someones motivations per se, but it seemed relevant to you wanting to post this.

I think my points covered what I see as rude, however, if it's tit for tat maybe both Rick and I should take a breather from this. Or I should, let him get on with his thread. I didn't expect it to draw out as much, but that in part has happened because I see value in sub types, more so it seems than Rick, and I wanted to try and explain their merit. Hopefully i've done that at least in part.

@ Rick, if i've derailed your thread, wasn't my initial intent.

[Rick]

Just some follow-up comments. I think Cyclops' and my disagreement over Meged's subtypes comes from personal convictions/experience: his, that the descriptions and concept are useful and applicable to real-life experience, and mine, that they are not, and that I disapprove of the general approach. As neither of our opinions are going to budge, I don't see any point in arguing any more about Meged.

The point of this thread was to give an idea of my own approach to intratype variation and contrast it with the dominant approach, which is to introduce subtypes based on abstract categories. Since my approach isn't organized into a system, I highly doubt people will switch from existing subtype classifications to using my approach. However, maybe a few people who are fed up with the overly abstract tendencies of socionics will resonate with it, and maybe, eventually, these kinds of efforts will help to connect important ideas from socionics with empirical science.

[JuJu]

Where are these Filatova subtypes? I like that woman (or man, w/e.)

[RSV3]

I think there's a lot of potential to expanding socionics typology to include such parameters as somatotype (i.e., I agree that there are unaddressed factors that can be explored further); however from a semantics perspective, I think the dominant view of subtype should remain in place, since the word implies reliance on parameters already built into Model A--i.e., exploring how preference for either the leading or creative function manifests in one's personality. In other words, I agree with the substantive concepts but disagree with the terminology.

[FDG]

I would consider it a valuable addition to typing theory in socionics. However a valuable addition in the following sense: a good control parameter to eliminate in order not to skew type-diagnosys.

[Exodus]

I agree completely with Rick's philosophy on subtypes. After trying for a long time to understand and apply the accepting/producing system, I've given up and started working on another: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p.../Type_variants. Right now it's just a collection of observations and patterns, and it might always stay that way.

The same problem exists in theoretical physics (and any other field that involves a high level of ambition); whoever is going to be "the next Einstein" and discover something just as revolutionary as relativity will not find within existing theoretical frameworks (or trivial permutations thereof). Ditto for socionics - Aushra didn't discover it by just messing around with abstract definitions!

[FDG]

I agree completely with Rick's philosophy on subtypes. After trying for a long time to understand and apply the accepting/producing system, I've given up and started working on another: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p.../Type_variants. Right now it's just a collection of observations and patterns, and it might always stay that way.

The same problem exists in theoretical physics (and any other field that involves a high level of ambition); whoever is going to be "the next Einstein" and discover something just as revolutionary as relativity will not find within existing theoretical frameworks (or trivial permutations thereof). Ditto for socionics - Aushra didn't discover it by just messing around with abstract definitions!

These actually seem to be strongly related to enneagram types. Then, the problem becomes one of finding a socionics justifications for enneagram types. Actually, thinking about it some more, jrxtes propose a DHCN classification of subtypes (where D=dominant, H=harmonizing etc) that seems to be aligned with the variables you have found:

# talkative vs. reserved
# positive vs. negative

where 1) is connecting vs detaching (or something similar)
where 2) is noticing vs ignoring (or something similar)

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Something else to add to this. We have PoLR fixations which are generally regarded as unhealthy. Someone I know who I typed interestingly had what I think could be described as not a PoLR fixation, but indeed more like a Role fixation, in that they seemed to place a greater emphasis on their role function than what others do.

So perhaps with these ego sub types we have discussed, perhaps it's what could be described as an ego fixation, in that the person has an emphasis on a particular ego function more so than say would be generally expected. Now is an 'ego' fixation an unhealthy thing? I don't know, it's not quite like a PoLR fixation which for all intents and purposes seems to be detrimental. Focus on ego functions comes naturally to us anyway, it is basically healthy for us. Indeed maybe it is a concious choice to become and give more emphasis on a particular ego function, which over time becomes more so automatic, which in effect becomes a natural sub type, hence Meged observing a sub type change, if it happens, taking a number of years. Or maybe some people are just somehow naturally hardwired for such a thing than some others.

[krieger]

A system of subtypes will always be useless if it can not be used to derive new information from what one has already observed.

Socionics is useful, not because it tautologically shows you that there exists such a thing as an "analyst". It is useful because it tells us that an analyst gets along well with an enthusiast and badly with... whatever you describe ESFp as.

Perhaps more importantly, it tells us that when a person is Judging and Introvert, s/he is also Static. It tells us that when a person is Static and Thinking, s/he is also Merry as opposed to Serious. Each of the terms neatly fit together like this, each cross validating tons of other trait detections...

[Nico1e]

I'm bumping this thread because this is similar to the way I see subtypes. I'm thinking about this lately because I am actually making an effort to type people, which I really wasn't doing until recently.

I notice a 'verbose' subtype or 'terse' subtype variable in forums. You get people who write 100,000 massive walls of text over a period of a couple months, while other people write a couple one-liners now and then, and they're the same type. It's not merely because one group of them is spending lots of time online and the other group isn't. Some people just want to talk or write in a lot more length and detail than others do.

I'm not all that interested in deciding whether somebody's subtype emphasizes the base function or creative function more. I'm more concerned about knowing for sure whether I've gotten someone's type right in the first place! Somebody could seem like a subtype because they have been misidentified as completely the wrong type. So they struggle with trying to explain why their type behaves strangely, and they might divide it up into various subtypes.

So I'm interested in 'subtypes' that are caused by other factors, non-socionic factors.

[Absurd]

1. Are they an endomorph, mesomorph, or ectomorph?

What the heck, I don't see any mesomorph types of socionics types.