16 Subtype Model

[Gilly]

I have decided that the idea of a 16 subtype model is ok with me.

For one, it prevents you from sticking everyone in a too-small box. Now I understand that, by expanding the theory to include 16 subtypes, or an additional type, I'm really just making the box bigger, so to speak. But I think that it's an appropriate box-expansion. Let me explain.

Personally when I think of what a "subtype" means, it's really just a way of isolating a person's general focus in the world from his or her actual personality. For example, I am probably EIE, but I have a lot of interests in the realm of Ti: symbolic logic, philosophy, political theory, religion, psychology, etc. I think of FeNi as "the bigger picture," the lense through which I view the world, and the things I focus that lens on and become accutely interested in tend to be Ti in nature.

To me, the flaw of talking about "subtypes" in the way that they are currently discussed leads to fallacies, such as assuming that an Ni subtype EIE is more like an LIE in terms of having stronger Te and weaker Si than an Fe subtype EIE. Now this may have some basis to it, in terms of relative functional strengths, but the idea that an Ni-EIE is "more like" an LIE leads to ideas like "an Ni EIE values Te more than an Fe-EIE," which may be true in some cases, but in reality, the use of an "emphasis" on an ego function in order to explain behavioral differences implies connections and transitions within the Quadra value system that may or may not be true; there very well could be an EIE who seems more withdrawn or phlegmatic in temperament, and therefore more like an Ni subtype, but in actuality places greater emphasis cognitively on Fe than, say, your typical cheerleader-esque female EIE who is more likely to be seen as Fe subtype, but who very well may have more pronounced practical interests.

Basically this is all about navigating the grey areas of the theory, and is incredibly imprecise, but it is ringing true with me and I'm going to run with it.

Input?

[crazedrat]

it just means you don't understand socionics

[Gilly]

No, I understand Socionics, and this notation is actually independent of how I understand the types. I just think functions are a useful and interesting way of denoting people's main focus in their lives, in addition to describing personality.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Hi Gilly. I'm curious as to what you think: How would 16 subtypes fit in with Ashura's observation that we only communicate through our ego functions as mentioned on other thread? I'm not sure how we can differentiate further than ego sub types, with or without what Ashura says.

[Gilly]

Again, I don't see this idea of "subtypes" as having an implicit or direct affect on a person's type; it's more a method of categorizing a person's active focus in life.

As for my thoughts on that particular observation of Aushra's, read what I posted in that thread:

http://the16types.info/vbulletin/sho...5&postcount=13

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Again, I don't see this idea of "subtypes" as having an implicit or direct affect on a person's type; it's more a method of categorizing a person's active focus in life.

OK. Why 16 then?

As for my thoughts on that particular observation of Aushra's, read what I posted in that thread:

http://the16types.info/vbulletin/sho...5&postcount=13

Yeah I saw it thanks.

[Gilly]

Because there are 8 functions with 16 plausible pairings, and in my view there is no point in assigning anything one function in isolation, because on their own the functions can't really say anything concrete or have any specific occurrences attributed to their use.

Were you looking for something beyond what my post in that thread might have an answer to? If so you're going to have to be a little more specific about what you're asking.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Because there are 8 functions with 16 plausible pairings, and in my view there is no point in assigning anything one function in isolation, because on their own the functions can't really say anything concrete or have any specific occurrences attributed to their use.

Yeah I agree with what you say that an element on it's own doesn't do anything unless it's a function as part of the whole psyche. I was thinking that you meant 16 sub types because perhaps you were looking at plus and minus functions which would give you 16 instead of 8. Although I think what you mean is that 16 sub types is that you can have a type with a focus of another type, ie "there are 8 functions with 16 plausible pairings." Which is a type not a sub type.

Were you looking for something beyond what my post in that thread might have an answer to? If so you're going to have to be a little more specific about what you're asking.

Yeah I just don't understand what you mean, so I'm asking to get more info so that I can know and say what I think better and possibly contribute to it.

[Gilly]

Yeah I agree with what you say that an element on it's own doesn't do anything unless it's a function as part of the whole psyche. I was thinking that you meant 16 sub types because perhaps you were looking at plus and minus functions which would give you 16 instead of 8. Although I think what you mean is that 16 sub types is that you can have a type with a focus of another type, ie "there are 8 functions with 16 plausible pairings." Which is a type not a sub type.

Well it's not a subtype in the normal Socionics sense. However in the sense that it uses the Socioncis theory as a system of categorization, I see it as a "less important" classification with regards to personality; hence, "subtype." It's just using the core basics of the system to categorize a person's interests and activities as opposed to his/her personality itself.

Yeah I just don't understand what you mean, so I'm asking to get more info so that I can know and say what I think better and possibly contribute to it.

Ok, imagine that types refer to different colors of glasses, each color representing a possible dominant functional pairing. Wearing, for example, a pair of blue glasses may mean that you see the world tinted blue, but it doesn't mean that other colors disappear altogether; in fact you would be missing very important and meaningful visual information if you only saw the world in one color. I think of having a Socionics type as constantly wearing a pair of colored of glasses; this kind of "subtype" is simply a color you like to look at.

[JRiddy]

Interesting. Although the first thing I'd worry about is it being a convenient way to make an ad-hoc subtype explain all sorts of things that could be explained in other ways. That being said, I feel like there's something to this for some reason.

Interesting.

[Gilly]

Well personally I think a big obstacle in Socionics typing is the temptation to type people based more on the concrete factors in their life like jobs, interests, and so forth; ie, physicists being ILE, used car salesmen being SLE, small business owners being LIE, etc etc.

I think that, perhaps, it could be beneficial to even begin the typing process by "typing" a person's concrete interests and so forth, which would enable typers to separate that aspect from the typing process and help isolate the "whats" from the "whys," so to speak.

[Wynch]

My views on sub-type are actually similar to yours, Gilly, however I qualify it a little differently.

My view on sub-type, like Gilly's, is that emphasis on sub-type is not about the information element, but rather on the function itself. So while I type myself Ti-ILE, that doesn't mean that I believe my Ti is stronger than my Ne. Infact, I don't believe that Ne is "stronger" than Ti in what people would classify as an "ILE". Rather, I believe that each of these elements serves a different function in the ego depending on your temperament. As a Ti-ILE I see myself as being more focused on Ti creative than on Ne base. This doesn't make me more like an LII or more like an SLE, it simply means that compared to Riddy, I am more focused on the Ti creative aspect of being ILE than to his Ne base point of view. These sub-types then manifest themselves in understandable inconsistencies. While someone like Riddy tends to be more over-the-top and typical EP, someone like me is a little more grounded. I'm still very much EP in temperament, however you can see the difference in comparison. Similarily, the ways in which we approach problems will be a little different. Riddy tends to be more exploring, while I tend to spend more time classifying.

This can go on and on...

[munenori2]

I still don't get how there are 16 subtypes, Gilly. Do you mean if you're Ti-focused as an EIE that it's in combination with another element (Ne/Se?) or am I totally butchering what you're saying here?

[Gilly]

I still don't get how there are 16 subtypes, Gilly. Do you mean if you're Ti-focused as an EIE that it's in combination with another element (Ne/Se?) or am I totally butchering what you're saying here?

Well I would say that I am a TiNe-focused EIE; I guess I left that out. I don't think it makes sense to talk about a function in isolation when actually applying it to something.

[strrrng]

Well I would say that I am a TiNe-focused EIE; I guess I left that out. I don't think it makes sense to talk about a function in isolation when actually applying it to something.

TiNe-focused EIE...? lol...if you're dealing with blocks, shouldn't it at least correspond to your quadra, i.e. TiSe ? Either way, I find subtype pretty valuable, and generally agree with most of what you've said in this thread.

[Gilly]

Well my interests tend more towards the abstract, subjects that apply general rules or principles, things like symbolic logic and psychology, which is more like TiNe than TiSe IMO; it's less strictly "this is this and that is that; this is good and this is bad" than "well, this applies here, these thing correlate," etc. That is kind of vague but right now my mind is on other things

[strrrng]

Well my interests tend more towards the abstract, subjects that apply general rules or principles, things like symbolic logic and psychology, which is more like TiNe than TiSe IMO; it's less strictly "this is this and that is that; this is good and this is bad" than "well, this applies here, these thing correlate," etc. That is kind of vague but right now my mind is on other things

That makes sense. My interests tend to be along the same line. Tbh I would attribute it more to an Ni-->Ti focus than TiNe. The former tends to take that abstract holistic approach to things, looking for the systems/rules/etc. to sort of saturate this disposition. The latter seems a bit more methodical and precise to me. A lot of alpha NT's are scientists and stuff, lol. Ne isn't really *as* abstract as many people think, and I think a lot of traits assigned to it are really Ni facets. It looks at latent properties, yes; but it's more concerned with sort of dividing and aggregating a sort of parts-to-whole picture of the puzzle, basing abstractions on more "real world" things, in comparison to Ni.

[FDG]

I really don't understand why people are so troubled by the temperament ring progression. It's natural, it's easy, it works, it's elegant. What else?

In fact, there are an infinite number of subtypes, if you divide the temperament rings in infinitesimally small intervals.

However, I agree with this:

Well personally I think a big obstacle in Socionics typing is the temptation to type people based more on the concrete factors in their life like jobs, interests, and so forth; ie, physicists being ILE, used car salesmen being SLE, small business owners being LIE, etc etc.

[JRiddy]

I really don't understand why people are so troubled by the temperament ring progression. It's natural, it's easy, it works, it's elegant. What else?

It says nothing. That's the problem with it. It basically says...we allow for all personal differences, which is precisely what having no system at all does with out all the muck with learning anything about temperament rings. It may be easy and "elegant", but it doesn't say anything new. At all.

In fact, there are an infinite number of subtypes, if you divide the temperament rings in infinitesimally small intervals.

This kinda of "natural" freedom can only lead to boundless ad hoc explanations: "Oh, I'm a little more aggressive of an INFj because I lean more towards the Fi sub type and a little more towards ISFjs." A more interesting set of questions would have been to ask, "Why does this particular INFj seem more Se? Am I conflating Se with something else that it's not? Are they really INFj? Do environmental factors play a role in this? If so, how?" The temperament ring is like saying that balloons float because they tend that way on the gravity ring. If we looked at the balloon like that, we would have watered down the idea of gravity, and missed out on the principle of the buoyant forces being greater than the gravitational forces.

Instead of trying to account for every possible difference, it's better to determine *what* differences we are accounting for, and take actual stances on types. Of course there are variations within types or within subtypes. Instead of trying to make a space for every single one, it's better to critically and openly ask, "what makes this case different?"

[ZTCrawcrustle]

I actually agree with the sixteen subtype system (it is more plausible than the temperament rings) and it reminds me of Filatova's observations on subtypes. She thought almost the same thing, except she said that cases where there was a vertical subtype in the vital functions exhibited mental problems. (Such as, for example, an EIE with LII subtype.)

As a Ti-ILE I see myself as being more focused on Ti creative than on Ne base. This doesn't make me more like an LII or more like an SLE, it simply means that compared to Riddy, I am more focused on the Ti creative aspect of being ILE than to his Ne base point of view. These sub-types then manifest themselves in understandable inconsistencies. While someone like Riddy tends to be more over-the-top and typical EP, someone like me is a little more grounded. I'm still very much EP in temperament, however you can see the difference in comparison. Similarily, the ways in which we approach problems will be a little different. Riddy tends to be more exploring, while I tend to spend more time classifying.

Just a question: How is what you described not an ILE that is more like an LII? You still have the temperament, but you are more grounded (IJ) and more prone to analysis instead of exploration. I agree that it does not make you more SLE, but the above are both traits that are closer to LII. You are not an LII, still have the EP temperament, and are still ILE, but you simply think a bit more like LIIs.

This kinda of "natural" freedom can only lead to boundless ad hoc explanations: "Oh, I'm a little more aggressive of an INFj because I lean more towards the Fi sub type and a little more towards ISFjs." A more interesting set of questions would have been to ask, "Why does this particular INFj seem more Se? Am I conflating Se with something else that it's not? Are they really INFj? Do environmental factors play a role in this? If so, how?" The temperament ring is like saying that balloons float because they tend that way on the gravity ring. If we looked at the balloon like that, we would have watered down the idea of gravity, and missed out on the principle of the buoyant forces being greater than the gravitational forces.

Instead of trying to account for every possible difference, it's better to determine *what* differences we are accounting for, and take actual stances on types. Of course there are variations within types or within subtypes. Instead of trying to make a space for every single one, it's better to critically and openly ask, "what makes this case different?"

Second.

[kensi]

I have decided that the idea of a 16 subtype model is ok with me.

For one, it prevents you from sticking everyone in a too-small box. Now I understand that, by expanding the theory to include 16 subtypes, or an additional type, I'm really just making the box bigger, so to speak. But I think that it's an appropriate box-expansion. Let me explain.

Personally when I think of what a "subtype" means, it's really just a way of isolating a person's general focus in the world from his or her actual personality. For example, I am probably EIE, but I have a lot of interests in the realm of Ti: symbolic logic, philosophy, political theory, religion, psychology, etc. I think of FeNi as "the bigger picture," the lense through which I view the world, and the things I focus that lens on and become accutely interested in tend to be Ti in nature.

To me, the flaw of talking about "subtypes" in the way that they are currently discussed leads to fallacies, such as assuming that an Ni subtype EIE is more like an LIE in terms of having stronger Te and weaker Si than an Fe subtype EIE. Now this may have some basis to it, in terms of relative functional strengths, but the idea that an Ni-EIE is "more like" an LIE leads to ideas like "an Ni EIE values Te more than an Fe-EIE," which may be true in some cases, but in reality, the use of an "emphasis" on an ego function in order to explain behavioral differences implies connections and transitions within the Quadra value system that may or may not be true; there very well could be an EIE who seems more withdrawn or phlegmatic in temperament, and therefore more like an Ni subtype, but in actuality places greater emphasis cognitively on Fe than, say, your typical cheerleader-esque female EIE who is more likely to be seen as Fe subtype, but who very well may have more pronounced practical interests.

Basically this is all about navigating the grey areas of the theory, and is incredibly imprecise, but it is ringing true with me and I'm going to run with it.

Input?

very well put, Gilly.

The bigger question is how do we trace the lines of free-will and determinism having decided to go with a subtyping designation....is it really a type in it's own right or is it a form?

Edit: i forgot to ask...why only 16 subtypes ?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Way I see it is that with for instance an ENFj, if they have an Ni sub type, then they have more emphasis on Ni and less emphasis on Fe, so as the Fe emphasis goes down, basically their F function emphasis goes down. With less emphasis on F functions, emphasis on T functions-the corresponding functions of F - the T functions goes up. So saying that an ENFj has a Ti sub (as both Ti and Te goes up, but their preference is for Ti) then it's really the same as saying they are an ENFj Ni sub type.

If you have an ENFj with Te focus then it's really a PoLR fixation which is rarely a healthy thing in practice, but more emphasis on Ti isn't really unhealthy as it's a valued function. Still an ENFj Ni would have more emphasis on Te as well as Ti as they are opposites of the same thing - T functions. So ENFj Ni is the same as ENFj Ti.

Hmm..sorry if i'm missing something here.

[kensi]

Well personally I think a big obstacle in Socionics typing is the temptation to type people based more on the concrete factors in their life like jobs, interests, and so forth; ie, physicists being ILE, used car salesmen being SLE, small business owners being LIE, etc etc.

I think that, perhaps, it could be beneficial to even begin the typing process by "typing" a person's concrete interests and so forth, which would enable typers to separate that aspect from the typing process and help isolate the "whats" from the "whys," so to speak.

dido

[RSV3]

Way I see it is that with for instance an ENFj, if they have an Ni sub type, then they have more emphasis on Ni and less emphasis on Fe, so as the Fe emphasis goes down, basically their F function emphasis goes down. With less emphasis on F functions, emphasis on T functions-the corresponding functions of F - the T functions goes up. So saying that an ENFj has a Ti sub (as both Ti and Te goes up, but their preference is for Ti) then it's really the same as saying they are an ENFj Ni sub type.

If you have an ENFj with Te focus then it's really a PoLR fixation which is rarely a healthy thing in practice, but more emphasis on Ti isn't really unhealthy as it's a valued function. Still an ENFj Ni would have more emphasis on Te as well as Ti as they are opposites of the same thing - T functions. So ENFj Ni is the same as ENFj Ti.

Hmm..sorry if i'm missing something here.

This is a good point regarding the effect of subtype on function strength, i.e., that a person's subtype will impact all 8 functions. Increased expression of one function (1) suppresses the opposing intradichotomy function and (2) suppresses the opposing intrablock function (and vise versa).

[RSV3]

Well I would say that I am a TiNe-focused EIE; I guess I left that out. I don't think it makes sense to talk about a function in isolation when actually applying it to something.

To summarize what you're trying to say, and to see if I'm understanding it, you're essentially saying that your psyche is one type and your primary focus area is another? If I interpreted your theory correctly (and correct me if I'm way off), then the next logical question to ask is why would an EIE have an LII focus area? Put another way, the primary functions used by an EIE are Fe and Ni; to say that you're focus (or interests) lie in Ti and Ne areas, would that suggest you are satisfying this interest through the use of your suggestive and demonstrative functions? Valuing your demonstrative function seems to be inconsistent with Model A, so I am left to assume you are eliminating (or at least modifying) the valued/unvalued function dichotomy of Model A? However it may just be that I don't have enough Ni to grasp what you're saying and have completely missed your point.

[ZTCrawcrustle]

Way I see it is that with for instance an ENFj, if they have an Ni sub type, then they have more emphasis on Ni and less emphasis on Fe, so as the Fe emphasis goes down, basically their F function emphasis goes down. With less emphasis on F functions, emphasis on T functions-the corresponding functions of F - the T functions goes up. So saying that an ENFj has a Ti sub (as both Ti and Te goes up, but their preference is for Ti) then it's really the same as saying they are an ENFj Ni sub type.

Only one problem. In this case, a rise in Ni use would trigger a relative drop in Fe use, but there is no reason why it would necessitate either a rise in Te or a rise in both logical elements.

[Gilly]

I really don't understand why people are so troubled by the temperament ring progression. It's natural, it's easy, it works, it's elegant. What else?

In fact, there are an infinite number of subtypes, if you divide the temperament rings in infinitesimally small intervals.

Personally I have no problem with the system of temperament ring progression. However I think that viewing EIEs as "Ni subtypes" because they seem more like an LIE/Gamma, or "Fe subtypes" because they seem more like an ESE/Alpha, can be incredibly misleading. So much in the way of functional preference and values is a direct implication of saying that someone places more or less emphasis on one of their ego functions; how can we assume that an EIE who seems more LIE has markedly more "Gamma" values than one who "seems" more ESE, but very well may have more significant practical interests/general focus on Te matters? Furthermore, if we assume that functional emphasis is directly related to functional values, why is an Ni-EIE, who theoretically still has less emphasis on Ni than an Fe-IEI, more "Gamma?" Why is an Fe-IEI more "Apha" than an Ni-EIE, being closer to SEI while Ni-EIE is closest to LIE, but still having less emphasis on Fe and more on Ni in the greater scheme of things?

I think designations of "subtypes" are better reserved for things that don't necessarily have direct implication on the functional values of types, and are more appropriately applicable to concrete aspects of people's lives, such as their occupations or pronounced interets.

[Gilly]

To summarize what you're trying to say, and to see if I'm understanding it, you're essentially saying that your psyche is one type and your primary focus area is another? If I interpreted your theory correctly (and correct me if I'm way off), then the next logical question to ask is why would an EIE have an LII focus area? Put another way, the primary functions used by an EIE are Fe and Ni; to say that you're focus (or interests) lie in Ti and Ne areas, would that suggest you are satisfying this interest through the use of your suggestive and demonstrative functions? Valuing your demonstrative function seems to be inconsistent with Model A, so I am left to assume you are eliminating (or at least modifying) the valued/unvalued function dichotomy of Model A? However it may just be that I don't have enough Ni to grasp what you're saying and have completely missed your point.

The mistake in your interpretation of my theory is this: my proposed subtypes have nothing to do with functional values or preferences as related to the Model A construct of a type; I am EIE, and I value Beta functions, and that is that. My proposed "subtype" has nothing to do with whether I "value" those functions in a Socionics sense; that's why this is in the Alternate Type Theories. If I thought I was making some breakthrough on the implications of Model A, I would post it in General Discussion for all to see and worship

All I am really doing here is "typing" my interests.

[RSV3]

The mistake in your interpretation of my theory is this: my proposed subtypes have nothing to do with functional values or preferences as related to the Model A construct of a type; I am EIE, and I value Beta functions, and that is that. My proposed "subtype" has nothing to do with whether I "value" those functions in a Socionics sense; that's why this is in the Alternate Type Theories. If I thought I was making some breakthrough on the implications of Model A, I would post it in General Discussion for all to see and worship

All I am really doing here is "typing" my interests.

Okay, that makes sense.

[Gilly]

Only one problem. In this case, a rise in Ni use would trigger a relative drop in Fe use, but there is no reason why it would necessitate either a rise in Te or a rise in both logical elements.

In temperament ring theory, this is the implication. For example, as EIE -> LIE, you approach the "crux" of Ni as a second function, at which point Fe and Te are "valued equally;" such a type is unlikely to exist as a functional manifestation in an actual person, simply because people tend to prefer one over the other as a dominant trait in their behavior. However the idea is that functions are to be viewed in "blocks;" hence the quadra progression of FeSi -> FeNi -> TeNi -> TeSi -> FeSi ad infinitum.

[Khola aka Bee]

I get it

[Gilly]

Way I see it is that with for instance an ENFj, if they have an Ni sub type, then they have more emphasis on Ni and less emphasis on Fe, so as the Fe emphasis goes down, basically their F function emphasis goes down. With less emphasis on F functions, emphasis on T functions-the corresponding functions of F - the T functions goes up. So saying that an ENFj has a Ti sub (as both Ti and Te goes up, but their preference is for Ti) then it's really the same as saying they are an ENFj Ni sub type.

If you have an ENFj with Te focus then it's really a PoLR fixation which is rarely a healthy thing in practice, but more emphasis on Ti isn't really unhealthy as it's a valued function. Still an ENFj Ni would have more emphasis on Te as well as Ti as they are opposites of the same thing - T functions. So ENFj Ni is the same as ENFj Ti.

Hmm..sorry if i'm missing something here.

A slight discrepency: theoretically, an Ni-EIE values Te more than an Fe-EIE. However, an Ni-EIE also has stronger Ti than an Fe-EIE. How do we make sense of a type placing more emphasis on a conscious and vulnerable function when they are inherently more capable in the area of their valued function of the same kind?

Beyond all of the minor things that I have mentioned so far as inherent flaws in seeing the temperament rings as "fluid," as per Smilexian Socionics, I see temperament ring subtyping as mostly splitting hairs, when you consider the level of specificity involved in paring the entire human population down into only 16 types. Why bother saying "I value Fe and Ni, but Fe a LOT more than Ni," or "I value Fe and Ni, but Fe only a LITTLE bit more than Ni," when (a) you are already assuming SO much by lumping people together in such a manner, and (b) there is so much diversity inherent in 1/16th of the population? What's the point? On top of that, when you're that specific about such a large group of people, can you really even assume that you know where you stand in the greater scheme of things, given your limited experience of the sum total of people of your type who are out there? It's a bit ludicrous when you really think about it.

It really just makes more sense to type different areas of people's lives if you want to be more specific, rather than pointlessly fine-tuning what is already, as proposed, as a very precise fundamental understanding of a large group of people.

[ZTCrawcrustle]

In temperament ring theory, this is the implication. For example, as EIE -> LIE, you approach the "crux" of Ni as a second function, at which point Fe and Te are "valued equally;" such a type is unlikely to exist as a functional manifestation in an actual person, simply because people tend to prefer one over the other as a dominant trait in their behavior. However the idea is that functions are to be viewed in "blocks;" hence the quadra progression of FeSi -> FeNi -> TeNi -> TeSi -> FeSi ad infinitum.

I unfortunately have pretty much memorized temperament ring theory well enough to repeat it in my sleep. My statement was simply that a relative lowering of the frequency at which the base function is used does not power up the role. In simpler terms, an LSI-Se uses more Se and less Ti when compared with a regular LSI, but this does obligate the LSI-Se to also have or use more Fi. I'm saying that their implication is not a logical necessity.

[RSV3]

I unfortunately have pretty much memorized temperament ring theory well enough to repeat it in my sleep. My statement was simply that a relative lowering of the frequency at which the base function is used does not power up the role. In simpler terms, an LSI-Se uses more Se and less Ti when compared with a regular LSI, but this does obligate the LSI-Se to also have or use more Fi. I'm saying that their implication is not a logical necessity.

But doesn't it? Let's use arbitrary numbers to demonstrate using an LSI as an example and only focus on the mental block. Let's say a balanced LSI has the following breakdown: Ego block: 50% Ti and 50% Se; Super ego block: 50% Fi and 50% Ne. Now let's say we have an LSI-Se: Ego block 30% Ti and 70% Se; super ego block 70% Fi and 30 % Ne. Step by Step: (1) increasing Se will necessarily suppress Ti (you agree with this); (2) increasing Se will also suppress Ne (I think you would also agree you cannot be strong in both N and S, and that increasing one necessarily decreases the other--one of the key characteristics of a dichotomy); and (3) suppressing Ne and Ti will have the effect of increasing Fi. The numbers don't add up any other way, so it is a logical necessity.

A fundamental axiom of socionics is that one area of strength implies an opposite area of weakness, and one area of weakness implies an opposite area of strength.

[Gilly]

I unfortunately have pretty much memorized temperament ring theory well enough to repeat it in my sleep. My statement was simply that a relative lowering of the frequency at which the base function is used does not power up the role. In simpler terms, an LSI-Se uses more Se and less Ti when compared with a regular LSI, but this does obligate the LSI-Se to also have or use more Fi. I'm saying that their implication is not a logical necessity.

See, I don't have a problem with temperament/quadra progression. I DO have a problem with the fact that the common subtype systems are inherently inconsistent with them, along with the other reasons stated in this thread.

[ZTCrawcrustle]

But doesn't it? Let's use arbitrary numbers to demonstrate using an LSI as an example and only focus on the mental block. Let's say a balanced LSI has the following breakdown: Ego block: 50% Ti and 50% Se; Super ego block: 50% Fi and 50% Ne. Now let's say we have an LSI-Se: Ego block 30% Ti and 70% Se; super ego block 70% Fi and 30 % Ne. Step by Step: (1) increasing Se will necessarily suppress Ti (you agree with this); (2) increasing Se will also suppress Ne (I think you would also agree you cannot be strong in both N and S, and that increasing one necessarily decreases the other--one of the key characteristics of a dichotomy); and (3) suppressing Ne and Ti will have the effect of increasing Fi. The numbers don't add up any other way, so it is a logical necessity.

A fundamental axiom of socionics is that one area of strength implies an opposite area of weakness, and one area of weakness implies an opposite area of strength.

No, I do not. Not entirely. I will conclude with a mathematical evaluation.

a) you are thinking that there is a limit placed on a person's personality. (You placed a limit of 200.) I think that you can train your functions, but that the function balance cannot be disrupted in the course of doing so.

(AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT (But Not Related To This Thread): I have NOTHING against mcnew claiming he can improve his functions. I only have a problem with him claiming that he transcends type by doing so.)

I believe you can improve in your functions, as long as the balance of base - strongest, creative - 2nd strongest, role - 2nd weakest, PoLR - weakest is maintained.

b) you seem to be assuming function strength equals actual strength. It does not. Function strength indicates the frequency and rate of appearance of an element. That said:

c) you are also thinking that the increase of one block element leads to a decrease in the other block element. This is not true. Also, if it were true, I would say it is more probable that it would lead to a decrease in the super-ego, as it is actually unvalued. To demonstrate what I mean:

An LSI - Ti: 100; Se: 80; Fi: 50; Ne: 20

The ratio of Ti/Se must be > 1, and in the current case of regular LSI Ti/Se = 1.2
Let us assume that a subtype adds 10 to whichever Ego element.

An LSI-Se - Ti: 100; Se: 90; Fi: 50; Ne: 20

You are correct in saying that the ratio Ti/Se changes, which is what you first did. Now, Ti/Se = 1.1111
Ti is now less strong compared to Se.
However, this does not have to correlate neither with a change in Fi nor Ne. This is because although we talk about corresponding decreases in the flip side of the dichotomy, such changes are only there because of the increase/decrease of the ratio of the two elements of the dichotomy.

I operate under only one rule: Leading > Creative > Role > PoLR
By improving one function, there is more of an emphasis on it, but this only seems like a drop in the other because of the decreased ratio of their respective use and the utter incompatibility of their use.

(If you want to know why role > PoLR or wish to question this, 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 (and back to 1) was how the information flow occurs through the mental functions meaning each function receives less and less input from the function before it, which it needs to process and come up with answers.)

[Gilly]

Does anyone see what I mean about arbitrary dividing lines and ultimately pointless distinctions yet? Honestly, why bother?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

a) you are thinking that there is a limit placed on a person's personality. (You placed a limit of 200.)

No. This is an assumption on your part. What is being said is that it is relative to the person.

I think that you can train your functions, but that the function balance cannot be disrupted in the course of doing so.

So far no one has agreed or disagreed with this, I think. However terms like 'function balance' are eroneous unless explained. So at the moment an irrelevant statement.

(AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT (But Not Related To This Thread): I have NOTHING against mcnew claiming he can improve his functions. I only have a problem with him claiming that he transcends type by doing so.)

What is this type trancending you mention (and why do you bother to mention it.)

I believe you can improve in your functions, as long as the balance of base - strongest, creative - 2nd strongest, role - 2nd weakest, PoLR - weakest is maintained.

Why? Can't expect people to take you belief as face value, unless of course you are just stating an opinion, not using it as a valid contradiction.

b) you seem to be assuming function strength equals actual strength. It does not. Function strength indicates the frequency and rate of appearance of an element. That said:

And this very quote contradicts the one you make above it.

c) you are also thinking that the increase of one block element leads to a decrease in the other block element. This is not true. Also, if it were true, I would say it is more probable that it would lead to a decrease in the super-ego, as it is actually unvalued. To demonstrate what I mean:

OK. Just to clarify what you are doing. You are saying it isn't true, then you proceed to conduct an argument that it is true:

An LSI - Ti: 100; Se: 80; Fi: 50; Ne: 20

Why these figures?

The ratio of Ti/Se must be > 1, and in the current case of regular LSI Ti/Se = 1.2
Let us assume that a subtype adds 10 to whichever Ego element.

An LSI-Se - Ti: 100; Se: 90; Fi: 50; Ne: 20

You are correct in saying that the ratio Ti/Se changes, which is what you first did. Now, Ti/Se = 1.1111
Ti is now less strong compared to Se.
However, this does not have to correlate neither with a change in Fi nor Ne.

When an individual in this example uses more Se, why do you assume that Ti still has to equal 100? What RSV3 has said is using percentiles of functions. Your figures are unrelated to the point.

This is because although we talk about corresponding decreases in the flip side of the dichotomy, such changes are only there because of the increase/decrease of the ratio of the two elements of the dichotomy.

By improving one function, there is more of an emphasis on it, but this only seems like a drop in the other because of the decreased ratio of their respective use and the utter incompatibility of their use.

Well, now you seem to be agreeing with what you disagree with. In reality, you don't make sense.

(If you want to know why role > PoLR or wish to question this, 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 (and back to 1) was how the information flow occurs through the mental functions meaning each function receives less and less input from the function before it, which it needs to process and come up with answers.)

Irrelevant (again) to the discussion of having a stronger ability in T necessarily weakens the corresponding F. You can also produce more with less input, depending on your relative strength and ability at something. For instance, I can talk about a hobby I have far more knowledge in from a comparatively little input from someone else..ie someone just has to ask me a question, and what is produced is far in excess to someone with less knowledge-or ability/natural preference. (compare this to a dominant accepting function going into a creative sub type.)

[Gilly]

I think ZT is trying to say that function development is not a zero sum game; that you can make Se "stronger" without making Ne "weaker." This is erroneous in my understanding of Socionics. If a function's strength is determined by how much time we spend using it, how aware of it we are, is it really possible to just "create time" to use a function more? 24 hours doesn't stretch just because LSI wants to "build up his Se." Assuming we are using at least one "set" of functions all the time, it is impossible to make one function stronger without making the other corresponding function weaker.

Also, in my understanding, having "stronger" or "weaker" creative function, relative to the dominant function, is essentially irrelevant UNLESS it is implied that there is a greater or lesser focus on the other possible pairing function. Functions work in pairs; no concrete instance can be interpreted by a single function without attaching it to one of its particular pairings. An instance of "using Se" is either using it with Ti, or using it with Fi. Thus the only way to "separate," in the case of an LSI, Se from Ti, is to use it with Fi.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

@Gilly, I see your point.

Also.. Sorry for derailing your thread a little bit. I'll stop going on about various theories here and focus on what your saying.