Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 63

Thread: subtypes-finally, an explanation!

  1. #1
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default subtypes-finally, an explanation!

    At least an attempt at it. Feel free to criticise.

    Subtype theories were invented to explain the differences between individuals of the same type, which should also affect their relations with other types.

    There is one subtype theory, invented by Victor Gulenko which basically states that a person has a preference for either their 1st or 2nd function. For example:

    There are Two INTJs, one is intuitive subtype, the other is logical subtype.
    Both have:

    1. accepting
    2. producing

    But the logical subtype uses:

    1. accepting
    2. producing

    While the intuitive subtype uses

    1. producing
    2. accepting

    There is another theory, invented by Lord smilex, which says that a person can switch between types- either between their comparative and their own type, or between their look a like and their own type. The person who switches more to their comparative would be accepting subtype, whereas a producing subtype would be the one that switches between their own type and their look a like more. A recent consensus showed that this was not an unfounded theory.

    There is a confusion hovering over subtype theory on this forum,(and over all of socionics, for that matter!) and I wish to explain how I've combined both aspects of subtype theory into an explanation. An explanation as to why intuitive subtype INTJs(for example) are more "intuitive" and why they resemble their look a like more often than their comparative.

    We start out with four simple theses:

    1. iNtuition represses sensing
    2. sensing represses iNtuition
    3. thinking represses feeling
    4. feeling represses thinking

    and

    a person seems to use either their first or second function more than the other.

    With this in mind, we can say that an intuitive subtype of INTJ, since he uses his iNtuition more, would use his sensing less, and certainly would not resemble an ISTJ, and since his thinking is used less, this leaves a balance between his thinking and feeling, thus he feels closer to INFJ.

    So... an Intuitive subtype INTj has:

    1. accepting
    2. producing
    3. accepting
    4. producing

    but uses:

    1. producing
    2. accepting
    3. accepting
    4. producing

    And while a logical subtype also has

    1. accepting
    2. producing
    3. accepting
    4. producing

    S/he uses

    1. accepting
    2. producing
    3. producing
    4. accepting

    That could explain some of the obsrevations made both by Gulenko and smilex- one subtype prefers one creative output over its preceding accepting function, whereas another subtype prefers to use a different creative output over its preceding accepting function.

    This means that your subtype also affects your relations with your dual as well. An iNtuitive subtype INTj would probably be better paired up with a sensory subtype ESFj, because each type has the other's most repressed aspects as their most conscious ones, and a logical subtype INTj would be better with an ethical subtype ESFj. Unless of course, Im wrong in assuming that using your using conscious weak functions also makes you use your unconscious weak ones- this is still open for discusion in my book.

    So what do you guys think?

    1. Do you agree with my explanation?


    2. Do you think that subtype affects dual relations? if so, how?

    Debate away!

  2. #2
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,596
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default ?

    It may be true may be not. Can this theory explain how INTj can fit well with ISFJ? The fact that it fits with slightly different qualities of dual is not much difference from wat socionics says anyway. I am not sure if I have understood right what you wrote about this subtype thoery.
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

  3. #3
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: subtypes-finally, an explanation!

    Hmm, yeah, agree with Cheer I do.
    Good stuff.

  4. #4
    Creepy-

    Default

    That makes sense, it also explains our Logic/Ethic problems!

    Yay subtype!

  5. #5
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It does!

    Today Im gonna do a little fireworks display; Im gonna write out how each subtype resembles their own club as well as another one, while the other subtype resembles their own club too, but also another club opposed to the club of the other subtype.

    The four clubs:

    NT= intellectual
    SF= social
    NF= humanist
    ST= pragmatist

    NT, intuitive subtype= intellectual + humanist
    NT, logical subtype= intellectual + pragamatist
    SF, sensory subtype= social + pragmatist
    SF, ethical subtype= social + humanist
    NF, intuitive subtype= humanist + intellectual
    NF, ethical subtype= humanist + social
    ST, sensory subtype= pragmatist + social
    ST, logical subtype= pragmatist + intellectual

    Look over your own centers of interest and aptitude and see how they may correlate to your main club, but also to your secondary one. Then try it out with some people you know(if you know their subtype!) This can also explain differences in centers of aptitude and interest between members of the same type.

  6. #6
    Creepy-

    Default

    As far as the clubs go, "Humanist" is a far better name than "Idealist".

  7. #7
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerio
    NT, intuitive subtype= intellectual + humanist
    NT, logical subtype= intellectual + pragamatist
    SF, sensory subtype= social + pragmatist
    SF, ethical subtype= social + humanist
    NF, intuitive subtype= humanist + intellectual
    NF, ethical subtype= humanist + social
    ST, sensory subtype= pragmatist + social
    ST, logical subtype= pragmatist + intellectual
    .
    Your theoretical explanation was very good.

    According to this I'd probably lean towards logical subtype, but my duality seems somewhat more complete with ISFj sensory subtype, which is why I previously thought I leaned towards intuitive.

    I'm probably split, or with very slight preference towards one subtype. That would also be consistent with that test about preference about comparative and look-alike. I've now had both an ESTj and an ENFj boss, and I so far I have no preference for either type.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  8. #8
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Your theoretical explanation was very good.
    Agreed. Excellent work, polyfather.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    According to this I'd probably lean towards logical subtype, but my duality seems somewhat more complete with ISFj sensory subtype, which is why I previously thought I leaned towards intuitive.
    Dualism still has mysteries to me as well. I feel a lot more drawn to the ethical ISFjs and I'm definitely an intuitive ENTj myself.

  9. #9
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Funny how we all got the same scenario with the subtypes. I've always gotten along alot better with ethical subtype ESFps than with those nutty sensory subytpes(unless I have the subtype behaviors mixed up?).

    Im glad you guys like the theory, btw.

  10. #10
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,704
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Interesting theory Cheerio,

    My question is what is the difference between an INTp logical subtype and an ENTj intuitive subtype?

    I know what they produce and act on is different, but I would assume that they are very similar. I'm sure you can relate this vice versa and to tall types. This is why I am having trouble with the subtype theory.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-4w5-9w1

  11. #11
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Young_and_Confused
    Interesting theory Cheerio,

    My question is what is the difference between an INTp logical subtype and an ENTj intuitive subtype?

    I know what they produce and act on is different, but I would assume that they are very similar. I'm sure you can relate this vice versa and to tall types. This is why I am having trouble with the subtype theory.
    Oh, no no no. Those subtypings don't bring them closer together, quite the opposite. The logical INTp has a tendency to accentuate meaning he acts more often like an ISTp. The intuitive ENTj uses a lot of and acts often like an ENFj. Those two find a lot of situations in which they are conflicting, not similar.

    The subtypes don't change the producing/accepting quality.

    A much harder question is what's the difference between a Thinking INTp and a Thinking ISTp?
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree with Smilex, I don't know why some many people think mirrors are that similar.

    And I think the difference between producing ISTPs and INTPs is partially in how the world makes an impression on them. The other part is producing ISTPs are generally more aggressive and need to hit things in order to feel healthy.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  13. #13
    mimisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    821
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerio
    This means that your subtype also affects your relations with your dual as well. An iNtuitive subtype INTj would probably be better paired up with a sensory subtype ESFj, because each type has the other's most repressed aspects as their most conscious ones, and a logical subtype INTj would be better with an ethical subtype ESFj. Unless of course, Im wrong in assuming that using your using conscious weak functions also makes you use your unconscious weak ones- this is still open for discusion in my book.
    I must be the intuitive subtype then. That would explain why I get along better with the sensory subtype ESFjs. The ethical subtype is too much for me, I find them annoying as hell, to be honest.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    I agree with Smilex, I don't know why some many people think mirrors are that similar.
    The mirrors look-a-like a lot in mentality, but not in action. Mirrors think similarly, but do things in a different manner. On the other hand, in action, one looks closer to his/her comparative or look-a-like, but mentally he/she still belongs to that quadra.

    At least that's my theory.

  14. #14
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerio
    Funny how we all got the same scenario with the subtypes. I've always gotten along alot better with ethical subtype ESFps than with those nutty sensory subytpes(unless I have the subtype behaviors mixed up?).
    My boyfriend is ESTp logical subtype

    I think if I had seen this explanation of subtypes I would have realised I was intuitive subtype more quickly than I did... my sensing functions are quite obviously (to me and those around me) repressed to a fault, but thinking is only "half-heartedly" repressed, and while they still have the characteristics of the weakest part of my psyche they are certainly more active and sophisticated than their neighbours!

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    does anyone else think there can be 'bizarre' subtypes? like an intj or a esfj or whatever?

  16. #16
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
    does anyone else think there can be 'bizarre' subtypes? like an intj or a esfj or whatever?
    I've thought the same thing myself, actually. I didn't know where I fit in subtypes, so I was umm-ing and ah-ing and said " subtype?????"

  17. #17
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,634
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
    does anyone else think there can be 'bizarre' subtypes? like an intj or a esfj or whatever?
    They're called SLE and LSE
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  18. #18
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
    does anyone else think there can be 'bizarre' subtypes? like an intj or a esfj or whatever?
    If you mean a person who seems an awful lot like an INTj but demonstrates high , that could mean a) he's type INTj b) type ISTj c) the situation in which the person is observed is a misleading one.

    Basically though, it's just a question of nomenclature, sure we could change it but it would mislead a lot of people.
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    They're called SLE and LSE
    no no no. i think they are distinct. i was just using that as an example of a greater problem to be honest. socionics has no explanation for the "fringes" of any of it's perameters. for example if you take the sum total of associations that are called Fi and do the same with Te and you take say 23% of each and mix them together i don't think it would be wise to say you have a mixed Te-Fi type or some dumb shit like that. rather what if you viewed that list of associations as IT'S OWN FUNCTION and then created other functions that corresponded to that. for example let us pretend for a moment that function 2987402y027hgyth correlates to freshness, speed, and dark colors and function 7f20458hg2 correlates to ~freshness, ~speed, and ~dark colors. besides the fact that we don't know what ~x is (the contrapositive? the lack of said propert without its negations? the inverse of it? etc etc) there are not just a, b, c, and x, y, z, possible formations (where a, b, c, correlate to ~x, ~y, and ~z respectively). you can have a or b or c or z or y or x or xy or zca or cby or whatever else nnot just abc and xyz. in other words it would be naive to think that the functions are "units" of any sort not just in the sense of their actual physical representations but even in the language of socionics they are compositions of a host of variables that can be seen as independent of one another and should be seen as independent of one another. when something other than predicted behavior occurs the model should be changed to elaborate on that discrepancy rather than trying to force the data to conform to the model. for example i have seen extps who are genuinely loving and care for people selflessly. i think it would be a mistake to chalk that up to "having their Fe developed" or "being in a suitable environment" or some bullshit like that rather i think in some cases it is more or less native to their character. i think we make grave mistakes on this forum when extps say things like "i can be a jackass because i have weak Fi so its not my fault" because i doubt such sentiments are native to extps at all rather socionics is acting as a form of conditioning for individual behavior (on this forum I mean) in a manner that largely goes unnoticed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
    If you mean a person who seems an awful lot like an INTj but demonstrates high , that could mean a) he's type INTj b) type ISTj c) the situation in which the person is observed is a misleading one.
    or you are drawing an unnecessary distinction between seeming and being. another way to look at it... an intj who behaves in an manner is in that moment an subtype intj. again i am not advocating this pov just saying that that and istj can be seen as equivalents for that situation but the two have drastically different implications in terms of qualitative understanding of the person himself over time. another way to look at it... "type" is too rigid a view so it was replaced by a new form of staticism ie subtypes (which are too constricting in that they limit one's behavior to attributions to one's first and 2nd functions only) once the discrepancies viewed there become overwhelming subtype theory will be expanded to something more like relative type, development development, and fluctuation of functional predominance theory or something which will inevitably lead to breakdown in the entire theory altogether.

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
    Basically though, it's just a question of nomenclature, sure we could change it but it would mislead a lot of people.
    you can keep the same nomenclature and simply rearrange what it is directed at, how it is arranged, etc (at least initially)

  20. #20
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That was slightly aggressive, Pedro. I'm not going to get into this debate because you started it with making claims about my actions that do not hold water. Please try to be more open, I like you more that way.
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    237
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
    The intuitive ENTj uses a lot of and acts often like an ENFj.
    This is a nice theoretical perspective. I would be definitely an intuitive ENTj then. As an ENTj, despite my very strong thinking preference, I can often come off as an ENFj because I like to help people, guide them, etc. In fact, mentoring and coaching others has been highly satisfactory for me, despite my rational approach to it.

    Would you say the same about yourself?
    ENTj - intuitive subtype - 8w9, sp/sx

  22. #22
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eidos
    I would be definitely an intuitive ENTj then. As an ENTj, despite my very strong thinking preference, I can often come off as an ENFj because I like to help people, guide them, etc. In fact, mentoring and coaching others has been highly satisfactory for me, despite my rational approach to it.

    Would you say the same about yourself?
    I don't think I know enough of you to agree or disagree with your appraisal of yourself, sorry. :/ Also I'd like to make sure what you mean with your (quote thinking preference. Do you mean the preference of or do you mean that you just spend a lot of time thinking? If anything, my experience is that the intuitive subtypes of all the type cathegories, be it INFp, ENTp, or ENFj spend more time in deep thought than the feeling or thinking subtypes. The thinking subtypes OTOH tend to be more likely to argue and push their opinions.

    And as to the final question, do I like to mentor people? Well... yeah, it' ok, but it's still a means to an end. I'm still an ENTj. I know I can do coaching and mentoring well, but I don't like it as much as I like just being a part of a smoothly operating system.
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    237
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think I know enough of you to agree or disagree with your appraisal of yourself, sorry. :/
    That's ok, I wasn't looking for an appraisal

    Also I'd like to make sure what you mean with your (quote thinking preference. Do you mean the preference of or do you mean that you just spend a lot of time thinking? If anything, my experience is that the intuitive subtypes of all the type cathegories, be it INFp, ENTp, or ENFj spend more time in deep thought than the feeling or thinking subtypes. The thinking subtypes OTOH tend to be more likely to argue and push their opinions.
    Preference for thinking as I do not endorse entirely socionics theory, and agree with the MBTI perspective of differentiating individuals based on where they stand on the 4 personality dimensions. As to "Te", although I do not endorse functions theory fully because of its lack of empirical grounding, I can relate very well to its description and I would say that's what I do most of the time.

    It makes sense, theoretically, that the intuitive subtypes would spend more time in deep thought than the others.

    And as to the final question, do I like to mentor people? Well... yeah, it' ok, but it's still a means to an end. I'm still an ENTj. I know I can do coaching and mentoring well, but I don't like it as much as I like just being a part of a smoothly operating system.
    I like the smoothly operating system because I believe it will benefit people in the long run.
    ENTj - intuitive subtype - 8w9, sp/sx

  24. #24
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    They're called SLE and LSE
    no no no. i think they are distinct. i was just using that as an example of a greater problem to be honest. socionics has no explanation for the "fringes" of any of it's perameters. for example if you take the sum total of associations that are called Fi and do the same with Te and you take say 23% of each and mix them together i don't think it would be wise to say you have a mixed Te-Fi type or some dumb shit like that. rather what if you viewed that list of associations as IT'S OWN FUNCTION and then created other functions that corresponded to that. for example let us pretend for a moment that function 2987402y027hgyth correlates to freshness, speed, and dark colors and function 7f20458hg2 correlates to ~freshness, ~speed, and ~dark colors. besides the fact that we don't know what ~x is (the contrapositive? the lack of said propert without its negations? the inverse of it? etc etc) there are not just a, b, c, and x, y, z, possible formations (where a, b, c, correlate to ~x, ~y, and ~z respectively). you can have a or b or c or z or y or x or xy or zca or cby or whatever else nnot just abc and xyz. in other words it would be naive to think that the functions are "units" of any sort not just in the sense of their actual physical representations but even in the language of socionics they are compositions of a host of variables that can be seen as independent of one another and should be seen as independent of one another. when something other than predicted behavior occurs the model should be changed to elaborate on that discrepancy rather than trying to force the data to conform to the model. for example i have seen extps who are genuinely loving and care for people selflessly. i think it would be a mistake to chalk that up to "having their Fe developed" or "being in a suitable environment" or some bullshit like that rather i think in some cases it is more or less native to their character. i think we make grave mistakes on this forum when extps say things like "i can be a jackass because i have weak Fi so its not my fault" because i doubt such sentiments are native to extps at all rather socionics is acting as a form of conditioning for individual behavior (on this forum I mean) in a manner that largely goes unnoticed.
    You make some interesting points here. First I agree that socionics is often used by people of this forum to relativize and "excuse" themselves of taking certain responsibilities,(ie "Im not a sensing type so Im not responsible for doing my laundry" etc) and I think this has to do with the fact that on here, many people simply have only socionics as a common psychological reality to agree opon. Therefore we can explain everything by it, and when someone says something like they've had bad experiences with their dual its seen as "improbable" etc. Gugu Baba said he finds ethical ESFjs annoying as hell. I do too, and I though it was just a question of intertype incompatibility, since Im their conflictor, but appearantly not. Maybe those overly enthousiastic types really are just annoying for everyone; maybe there are just some facts of life in general people have to keep in mind when dealing with this stuff. These facts get mixed in with the "mathematicality" of socionics theory which then makes it very confusing to see what is and what isnt a factor caused by socioncs, how important those factors really are, and ultimately, how important of a factor socionics is amidtst all the other factors.


    or you are drawing an unnecessary distinction between seeming and being. another way to look at it... an intj who behaves in an manner is in that moment an subtype intj. again i am not advocating this pov just saying that that and istj can be seen as equivalents for that situation but the two have drastically different implications in terms of qualitative understanding of the person himself over time. another way to look at it... "type" is too rigid a view so it was replaced by a new form of staticism ie subtypes (which are too constricting in that they limit one's behavior to attributions to one's first and 2nd functions only) once the discrepancies viewed there become overwhelming subtype theory will be expanded to something more like relative type, development development, and fluctuation of functional predominance theory or something which will inevitably lead to breakdown in the entire theory altogether.
    Its funny you mention this, because just last night I had come up with a theory which explains the subtypes by an interaction of the information from one block(in the model a) to another. The problems is what I mentioned above; not knowing how much of a factor socionics is to begin with, and thus the theory itself remaining changeable and thus fickle becuase it doesnt rest on any solid proof of anything to begin with.

    There has been research done in terms of the importance of socionics btw, Im just pretty disorganized in my knowledge of it at the moment becuase theres alot to soak in, but Ill make sure to analyze what has been done in the past in terms of actual experiments (conducted by socionicsts and hopefully also nonsocionicts) to determine the significance and influence of socionics as a factor. This is what will determine the dissolution or survival of socionics, not the strcuture of subtype theories(or any other theory) in and of themselves.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
    That was slightly aggressive, Pedro. I'm not going to get into this debate because you started it with making claims about my actions that do not hold water. Please try to be more open, I like you more that way.
    i'm sorry that was not meant to be an attack. i often use the word you in the sense of you (all) and forget that my usage is only known to myself. implied had a quote in her sig once, i believe, that said something like, "what is personality aside from what you do?" which is a frame of reference that offers us unique advantages. i'm merely pointing out that it is unlikely that there is some sort of distinction between the person and their actions or in a different sense people are what they are swirling collections of matter that interact with one another in particular ways AND (this is to the infps) this does not necessarily conflict with a more romantic view of how things are.

    so once again the problem is in my opinion that socionics doesn't explain certain states where the functions cross like ultimate love (in the sense of losing yourself in the other person ?) combined with perfection of state and being ( ?) that is found in monastic circles. personally i find it hard to think that any p and j functions are connected to one another.

  26. #26
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,704
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
    Quote Originally Posted by Young_and_Confused
    Interesting theory Cheerio,

    My question is what is the difference between an INTp logical subtype and an ENTj intuitive subtype?

    I know what they produce and act on is different, but I would assume that they are very similar. I'm sure you can relate this vice versa and to tall types. This is why I am having trouble with the subtype theory.
    Oh, no no no. Those subtypings don't bring them closer together, quite the opposite. The logical INTp has a tendency to accentuate meaning he acts more often like an ISTp. The intuitive ENTj uses a lot of and acts often like an ENFj. Those two find a lot of situations in which they are conflicting, not similar.

    The subtypes don't change the producing/accepting quality.

    A much harder question is what's the difference between a Thinking INTp and a Thinking ISTp?
    Interesting, I guess that clears things up for me. Personally, I believe there are more than two subtypes for each personality type. Like I bet it is possible to have an ethical ISTp or an intuitive ESTj?
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-4w5-9w1

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
    I don't think I know enough of you to agree or disagree with your appraisal of yourself, sorry. :/ Also I'd like to make sure what you mean with your (quote thinking preference. Do you mean the preference of or do you mean that you just spend a lot of time thinking? If anything, my experience is that the intuitive subtypes of all the type cathegories, be it INFp, ENTp, or ENFj spend more time in deep thought than the feeling or thinking subtypes. The thinking subtypes OTOH tend to be more likely to argue and push their opinions.

    And as to the final question, do I like to mentor people? Well... yeah, it' ok, but it's still a means to an end. I'm still an ENTj. I know I can do coaching and mentoring well, but I don't like it as much as I like just being a part of a smoothly operating system.
    You think an Intuitive ENTP spends more time in deep thought than a Logical ENTP? Why? Their Intution is Extraverted. The Logical ENTP was described as being more pensive (if that even exists at all).

    Gulenko wrote,

    "Don Quixote (ENTP)
    Finder is terminal (intuitive)
    (developing - from the Eng. inventor)

    It differs in terms of excellent scent to the new. He frequently becomes the author of many inventions and discoveries. Unsurpassed generator of ideas. In its proposals it is very daring. However, easily throws the bored matter and is thrown to new - more captivating. It is capable to appear itself, also, in the business. For it are characteristic the dynamics, a rapid speech, a large quantity of gestures. In it frequently the dense build, courageous appearance, whiskers, if the discussion deals with the man. Great significance is attached to exterior view.

    Finder is initial (logical)
    (extracting - from the Eng. extractor)

    Self-centered and pensive person. It draw the ideas, which do not have direct connection with the reality, for example philosophy, religion, bioenergetics and t, d. its favorite occupation - to compare between themselves different logical systems. Type of office scientist. Asthenic figure is characteristic for it. It is angular in the motions, is not turned attention to the exterior view, little it worries about the health."

    Or, translated by Schroodinger's cat,

    "ENTP
    Intuitive Subtype

    He ["differs in terms of excellent scent to the new" - not sure what that means]. He frequently becomes the originator of many inventions and discoveries. Unsurpassed generator of ideas. In his suggestions he is very daring. However, he easily drops a project if he is bored with it and he then feels drawn to a new, more captivating project. Capable of working well in business. Dynamic, talks rapidly, with many gestures. Frequently of stocky built, courageous appearance, whiskers (if a man). Great significance is attached to external appearance.


    Logical Subtype

    Self-centered and pensive. His ideas do not have direct connection with reality, for example philosophy, religion, bioenergetics etc. His favorite occupation is comparing different logical systems. A type of office scientist. A very slim figure is characteristic for him. Angular in his movements, does not pay attention to external appearance, worries little about his health. "
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  28. #28
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Rocky, very kind of you to bring this up.

    It seems that you understand deep thought in another way than I do. The intuitive ENTp in that description is quite active and animated while the thinking subtype is brooding and quiet. You take this to mean that the person who spends more time quiet is more likely to spend more time in deep thought. I do not find it to be so.

    I would like you to consider two sentences in the descriptions:

    Thinking:
    its favorite occupation - to compare between themselves different logical systems. Type of office scientist.

    Intuitive:

    He frequently becomes the originator of many inventions and discoveries. Unsurpassed generator of ideas.

    I find in my experience that the people of the thinking subtype are detail-oriented and practical. Their base of knowledge more shallow but their wish to gain advantage from their work greater. He spends his time looking for specific facts from his environment.

    The intuitive type is naturally more abstract, his area of interests wider and as he only cares about the principles, he looks behind details. The crucial thing I'd like you to note is that when wildly spouting out new theories, the intuitive subtype is not very aware of his environment. The state is close to a trance and I tend to refer to this kind of state when I talk about deep thought.
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

  29. #29
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks to you too Pedro, very gentleman-like

    The ideas you proposed were quite good mostly but I'm not quite sure if I can agree on a couple of the points. Would it be possible for you to start a new thread with a well-formed thesis about the subject? (I wouldn't like to completely derail this thread with this conversation)
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok, then we disagree. I tend to see the Intuitive subtype as the Sigmuend-Freud-say-any-new-thing-that-comes-to-mind-without-thinking-it-through, type. But maybe that's just me.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  31. #31
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


    EDIT: No, that would be the sensorics you are talking about.
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What?
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  33. #33
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
    i'm merely pointing out that it is unlikely that there is some sort of distinction between the person and their actions or in a different sense people are what they are swirling collections of matter that interact with one another in particular ways AND (this is to the infps) this does not necessarily conflict with a more romantic view of how things are.
    I don't understand the significance in relation to why this is directed at infps?

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Se i am not sure i can. maybe you can start a thread and ask me questions about what i mean or something?

    @ishy perhaps i was just being presumptuous but infps seem to blithely reject anything that even hints at the possibility of determinism to a greater degree than other personages. i would like to note that i am not advocating that point of view just noting that it is an equally valid way to interpret conditions that can otherwise be thought of as influenceable

  35. #35
    Creepy-

    Default

    @Pedro: I see. I agree with you, actually, but I think the external persona can conflict with the internal persona for whatever reasons. But I never claimed people were particulary congruous by nature.

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    understandable but some like to nitpick

  37. #37
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,596
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default My subtype theory

    I think I started to understand subtype theory and I am pleased that we are talking about the differences within the type and some other factors which affect inter relationships.

    I am not to sure what subtype I am as regards to this theory. If somebody has got any idea or perceive me as one of sybtype, please, say that. I look more like ESFP and this is the way I interact with new people: I am not that shy. I can say something shocking with unemotional face so that people will think very long why I have said this, why I have said it to them and if there was any particular meaning in that. Logical types can go nuts but ethical types seems to be ok. No surprise people find difficult to understand me.

    I don't know if people have to be one of the subtypes or as somebody in this thread said already: may be there are more subtypes?
    I personally think about myself as thinking or + subtype. I am reasonably strong on both and and they don't bother me too much but I do like to think a lot about . I also like to analyse things ( ?). So I would say through my life I have developed my Superego block to a degree that gives me fun. What is fun for me - I call my subtype!

    So we can assume that there are 3 subtypes of ISFJ: ethical, sensorical, thinking. It would be too whild to say intuitive subtype because it is a problem area. Then "three subtype theory" will kinda disagree with the original subtype theory which states that thinking supressess feeling and on the opposite. So may be there is a form of ethical thinking which is not supressed by logical thought!? And what does it mean ISFJ as etical subtype? Social humanist: butter with butter? may be ther is no just ethical or sensorical or thinking ISFJ but ethical sensorics and ethical thinking ?

    Next, shall we have a look at the blocks. I believe that somehow first four functions or EGO and SUPEREGO blocks are more important for types than SUPERID and ID. Why? Ego is about reality, here and now, and Superego is more or less plan for the future -direction to improve yourself and achieve things (lighthouse). Why on earth should I look for the partner which will cover my sleepy unconscious and subcounscious?

    For example, my third function is why should I look for the partner strong in , just because I would be afraid than my chair or table will fall apart and I will have nobody to repair? Or may be I am in need of extra adrenaline through taking risks and experimentations? No, I would rather go with the man who is strong in and will sit and eat on the floor. Of course, just will not be enough, he has to have a strong developed so that we could understand each ohter and not to have stupid quarrels about litle things. So I need an INTJ - ethical subtype!
    My INTJ is not an idiot and he is not pushing me on my problem area. Once he did and I just had to explain him why I don't like this kind of
    jokes. So may be there is no logical or intuitive subtypes of INTJ but intuitive thinking and ethical thinking subtypes of INTJ?
    And if I woud be ethical sensorical and not ethical thinking subtype, may be I would be more interested in more energetic and physically strong partners like ENTJ, ESFP (which I did!). Could anybody wrap up my thoughts into a nice theory?
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

  38. #38
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There are really only two subtypes, according to Gulenko's theory: producing and accepting. You are producing if your subtype is your main judging function, and accepting if it's your main perceiving function. You sound more like the accepting ( ) subtype ISFj, mostly because of your outgoing tendencies and what you said about sometimes seeming like an ESFp.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  39. #39
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here's a way to determine your subtype (or at least this is how I think of it): Decide whether you have more in common with your mirror or comparative, and your subtype is the main function of whichever one you choose.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gilligan87
    There are really only two subtypes, according to Gulenko's theory: producing and accepting. You are producing if your subtype is your main judging function, and accepting if it's your main perceiving function. You sound more like the accepting ( ) subtype ISFj, mostly because of your outgoing tendencies and what you said about sometimes seeming like an ESFp.
    Wrong.

    Producing is using your second (creative) funciton, and accepting is using your first (dominant) function. This is because, for a perceiver, their perceiving functions are accepting and their judging funcitons are producing. For a judger, their judging funcitons are accepting and their perceiving functions are producing.

    And Gulenko called the producing "initial" and the accepting "terminal".

    oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=2000
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •