Does subtype change?
I read somewhere that one can change subtype throughout our lifetime.
Info and opinions are welcome.
Edit: add quote
DCNH Subtypes: Empirical Portraits by Vera Borisova4) In contrast to the main type, subtype can change during one's lifetime, and not once.
Last edited by Hope; 11-08-2017 at 02:20 AM.
I doubt it personally. The idea of type or subtype changing seems far fetched. However, the strength of functions change and develop over time through life experience, but our primary strengths and weaknesses will remain regardless IMO.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I agree with Raver, I have found subtype to remain largely stable.
Hey, feel free to PM me with any opinions about my type
It can vary in strength, but not change completely from what I've observed. Two-subtypes at least, which are very distinct to the point that they can seem two different types to the trained eye. DCNH; I'm not sure. I think you have a main role there but can take on others when the situation requires it. Either that, or it doesn't change either.
Weren't you supposed to be unaware of what type you are?Originally Posted by Slade
i think subtype is a vague term that runs the gamut, as lavos said, from 2 type to "masks" which are potentially unlimited and are shades of personality that shift through time. 2 type seems very static. but the underlying picture within that can fluctuate a lot based on the vicissitudes of life. DCNH I think basically tries to capture that middle ground. the bottom line is the more you zoom in the more you see movement
i think the corolary to this is there merit in typing by quadra, temperament, or club, since I think there is variability commensurate to granularity and it flows both ways and for the more "slippery" individuals maybe the best method is to zoom out. in other words movement is a function of both granularity and "slipperiness" is something superordinate to type that occurs in some set of the population, and to get a good feel for someone you need to account for both those factors
so while most people are static enough that 2 type is stable across time, and some people are static that DCNH or even masks are too, some are slippery such that only quadral values or even something really broad like N/S or merry/serious is the only thing demonstrably static over time
in other words, I think it varies by individual, but for most 2 type will capture them and is unlikely to change
i think slipperiness might be a good thing, because it seems to indicate development, although in some cases it could be pathological as well. the bottom line is extreme integration/disintegration tends to blur the lines. socionics tends to aim at the zone of "average integration" its sort of how "average can be bad" in terms of strong deviations having potential for good and bad
I would find it hard to be rational subtype. This aspect is unlikely to change in me besides occasional mask I would rather leave it unused.
Now, there are people who as for example irrational base type themselves based on extroversion while in fact they are displaying rational side of themselves and then when they become more reclusive think that they become introverted subtype.
In DCNH this might be D<->N behavior.
So, it depends how one defines it.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
There are no subtypes in socionics.
While what is with other typologies knows as "subtypes" you should ask at those who offered them.
It brings up the question how exactly a subtype is formed imo - if it is made by certain circumstances chances are it can adapt to drastic change later?
DCNH type can probably change but it would be very rare. Probably requires a major life crisis so that the general attitude takes a totally different course.
99% of all people i meet has a clear distinct subtype.
I've found that its better to consider it to be unchangable. If you think your subtype has changed it probably hasnt.
When i've been following my friends development over years i have seen that the subtype strengthens itself. An old friend who is D-SLI has manifested D characteristics as an adult. He has married a normalizer as most Ds do. When younger he was a weaker D. Not so distinct.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I feel like its largely influenced by hormones
Females with high testosterone are D and C.
Males with low testosterone are N and H.
then explain.
you could be right, maybe its why old men tend to soften as they age and women tend to become more harsh, it probably has to do with relative ratio of T:E shifting. perhaps it could manifest through the lens of socionics as a subtype change
i feel like testosterone and estrogen are only two hormones (maybe the two with most impact), but I bet the actual factors include many more
Lots of female models/entertainers are D subtypes. Some very feminine imo.Females with high testosterone are D and C.
Males with low testosterone are N and H.
Check out young Agnetha Fältskog from ABBA.
D-ESE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKAVRQcoevk
Last edited by Tallmo; 11-09-2017 at 04:38 PM.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I don't think high T makes a woman unfeminine per se, in fact "dominant" might actually be a better word in general, since masculine/feminine are so culturally loaded
I think dopamine and serotonin may be major players.
The stereotypical cute girl next door is D subtype.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
yes it does change either through trauma or exhaustive persistence
I think, I might be sort of potential candidate for this. I have changed drastically due to certain events that I consider as major permanent change with some blend.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Please guys stop using DNCH subtypes because it's gonna make socionics completely impossible to be practically applicable.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
No. Type and subtype do not change throughout one's lifetime.
Thanks FDG! I fucking hate DCNH.
DCNH master race
all hail gulenko
What we need in this thread is video of subtype change. I think Gulenko has mentioned Steve Jobs as a potential candidate. Young Jobs is clearly C-LIE. When older he seems to be gravitating towards D. Maybe.
I have earlier mentioned the King of Sweden Carl XVI Gustaf as going from C-ESI to N-ESI during a period of 40 years. That might be the case, who knows, I would need more videos of him.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Why?
Someone having problems in understanding and managing variables in the system is not enough reason for information being banned, ignored or suppressed.
Obviously you are always free to do what you feel like.
It's not about me it's about what happens out there.
DCNH has a nice theoretical structure (really easy to understand) but what it talks about is not stable in real life.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Really? I'd swear that your claims are based in your personal fears of conceptual confusion.
I suppose you are saying that because you have made an extensive research to support such affirmation.DCNH has a nice theoretical structure (really easy to understand) but what it talks about is not stable in real life.
if anything often DCNH is more clear than base type. does FDG use enneagram? if so that's far worse than DCNH + base type. if you think base type is primary when it comes to understanding people, I agree. because DCNH tells you relatively little, because its only accent, not underlying quadral values and cognitive function, but to say using DCNH renders socionics not "practicable" is bizarre to me
I'm speculating there might be three levels. Going from simplest to most complex:
1. Tuning in on different aspects of reality by will (changes from moment to moment)
2. DCNH (relatively stable)
3. Type (stable)
So basically anybody can tune in their mind in different ways (IEs) unrelated to type.
and if this is made a habit during a long time it can become cemented as DCNH subtype.
The actual socionics type is then the rigid structure that we are born with, that gives us a certain pre-configuration and advantage in certain IEs.
I'm thinking that often when people say that they can "use" this or that function, they are not necessarily talking about position in type. It's more of an independent use of IE on the 1st level.
For example, meditation probably strengthens Ni, but independently from model A. If done for a long time it probably moves you towards H subtype.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I think so, if the output function, the creative function is getting used, eventually it will get to the stage where you have to absorb more information, so the base function then gets emphasis.
Better to be balanced between both, without undue emphasis on just one part, ie if someone is outputting too much, it's difficult to listen (absorb through base).
At least from the socionics perspective. Something about the phrase balanced sub-type sounds better to me, than unbalanced, ie subtype, which is an emphasis on one function in particular.
Not really. If stressed, you can mimic it tho. Maybe it's better for you if you pretend to be a diff subtype for awhile etc.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
