About subtypes

[edanius]

I've got a question about this whole subtype thing.

I know that socionics is not compatible with a theory of mixes between types, that is I/E, S/N etc are thought of as discrete rather than continuous, in order to assign different functions to different positions/roles.

But when it comes to subtypes, is there something in socionical theory that says (or requires) that the preference between functions 1 and 2 not be a continuous variable?

Are the subtypes fixed or do they represent ends in a spectra? And is subtype, like type, thought of as something that one is born with? Or can it actually be a learned behavior rather than a fundamental structure?

Allowing subtypes to be formed by environmental factors may actually be nature's way of making types more flexible. This might be beneficial in two ways. Firstly, it might allow for different "functional cultures" to be formed in different hunter-gatherer clans. Secondly, it might allow for a person to more easily adapt a sustainable role within the group, minimizing excessive friction with others.

Any thoughts? What do the mighty Russians say?

[Expat]

As far as I know, according to what Rick has said, there are many suptype theories but the one most people here seem to refer to is Gulenko's which is based on higher or lower preference of you base or creative function.

But when it comes to subtypes, is there something in socionical theory that says (or requires) that the preference between functions 1 and 2 not be a continuous variable?

I think subtype theory is mainly a way to fine-tune typing, which IMO works well in practice. After you know one type well, you can spot the differences in subtypes; or you can see why a person seems to be of one type but is actually of the subtype of anothers'.

I'm not sure what you mean with the "continuous variable". You mean, to the extent that the base and creative functions shift place? That would imply that there are only 8 types, like ENTj/INTp, which would have as subtypes: EN(T)j, ENTj, E(N)Tj, ENTj/INTp, IN(T)p, INTp, I(N)Tp as you move from preference to preference.

But that would go against socionics theory according to which there are 16 types, and there would be a sort of "wall" instead of the ENTj/INTp subtype.

Are the subtypes fixed or do they represent ends in a spectra? And is subtype, like type, thought of as something that one is born with? Or can it actually be a learned behavior rather than a fundamental structure?

This was discussed here:

http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2173

http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2007

My personal opinion is that it's at least possible to shift between subtypes.

[edanius]

Thanks expat...

I should have researched the forum better, then I would have found those threads

And no, I wasn't messing with the 16 types... I was simply talking about the "higher or lower preference of you base or creative function". That the relations between these preferences might vary a lot.

I'm not sure how one could say wether a person prefers the base or creative. How is prefernce measured?

Preference can only be assessed in relation to the median of the type I suppose. For example, if function use [U] is measured in the unit Aushras [Au], a normal ENTp might have:

U(Ne) = 300 Au, U(Ti) = 200 Au

A person with

U(Ne) = 500 Au, U(Ti) = 400 Au

would then be a EN(T)p, because the ratio would be tilted in favour of Ti when comparing with the median ENTp, in spite of the fact that Ne use is higher than Ti use.

Since both the base and creative functions are in the Ego block, we can conciously influence their use, right? Does this apply to the amount of use, or only to the application of that use? I suppose amount of use is influenced by ease of use (or strength as it is called, right?).

Does subtype refer to actual use (activity) of the functions, or the ease of use (strength) of the functions?

[ILENTp]

edit

[edanius]

Hooray, I got another person to adopt my denotations, if only for a post!

The fact that it is a PRINCE makes me all the more proud

[tempus]

"Does subtype refer to actual use (activity) of the functions, or the ease of use (strength) of the functions?"

While I've seen adequate descriptions of subtypes, I haven't really seen any adequate definitions. The first case would entail that subtypes are determined through environmental factors while the second case assumes biological origins for subtypes. If we are to accept the latter option as being valid, certain conclusions may be drawn.

Suppose that there are two ENTps of relatively equal intelligence. One is of the accepting subtype, one is of the producing subtype.

ENTp accepting subtype:

U(Ne) = 300 Au, U(Ti) = 150 Au

ENTp producing subtype:

U(Ne) = 250 Au, U(Ti) = 200 Au

As you can see, the accepting subtype is superior to the producing subtype in learning information. They are inferior in applying what they have learned. Conversely, the producing subtype is inferior to the accepting subtype in learning information, but is superior in applying the information they have learned.

However, these conclusions are only valid if subtype is genetically determined. Defining a subtype as a preference for a function regardless of its relative strength or weakness within the psyche renders these conclusions null.

[tempus]

"As you can see, the accepting subtype is superior to the producing subtype in learning information. They are inferior in applying what they have learned. Conversely, the producing subtype is inferior to the accepting subtype in learning information, but is superior in applying the information they have learned."

Of course, this summary compares an accepting subtype to a producing subtype of equal intelligence. An alteration of the level of intelligence will obviously have an effect on the capacity of a type to learn and to apply what they've learned. For example:

U(Ne) = 700 Au, U(Ti) = 300 Au (Accepting subtype)

U(Ne) = 300 Au, U(Ti) = 200 Au (Producing subtype)