Gulenko's IE subtype system

[JohnDo]

DCNH is starting to bore me. It explains a lot and everyone should be familiar with it but I came to the conclusion that people of the same type and same DCNH subtype are not in all cases real doubles.

I want to have a system where people of the same type, same subtype and same gender look like identical twins (except for race and age, of course). So it is necessary to break it down to 8 subtypes at least.

From now on I will use Gulenko's system with 8 subtypes. I don't know its official name or if it even got one. I will call it "IE subtype system" because it works with the information elements as tokens for the subtypes.

Unfortunately, there is not much information available. In this DCNH article there is a brief passage about it. Does anyone know if there can be found more information about it anywhere?

In this thread I described how to distinguish between DCNH subtypes by V.I. - this method works, believe it or not. Even more interesting: IE subtypes can also be distinguished by facial structure but it is hard to do that because the differences are subtle:

For the DCNH subtype system I discovered the following pattern:
base+role: circle
creative+vulnerable: square
ignoring+suggestive: rectangle
demonstrative+mobilizing: oval

This can be described more detailed for the IE subtype system:
base: circle
creative: square
role: angular circle
vulnerable: rounded square
suggestive: broad rectangle
mobilizing: broad oval
ignoring: thin rectangle
demonstrative: thin oval

[Aiss]

DCNH is starting to bore me. It explains a lot and everyone should be familiar with it but I came to the conclusion that people of the same type and same DCNH subtype are not in all cases real doubles.

I want to have a system where people of the same type, same subtype and same gender look like identical twins (except for race and age, of course). So it is necessary to break it down to 8 subtypes at least.

You'll have to go back to "everyone is unique".

[Jarno]

So it is necessary to break it down to 8 subtypes at least.

now we're talking.

You encounter twins (copies) among types sometimes.

My method how I arrived at 8 subtypes was:
I've written down a particular type of who I know most of, and looked at one particular twin subset.
I knew 4 of them. Then there was another twin subset, I knew 3 of them. Etc. On average I knew about 2,5.
In total I met 22 persons of that type, so I figured 22 diveded by 2,5 was most close to 8 and not 16.

I'm still figuring out, what makes them a separate catagory. But that copies or twins exist, is an observable fact, if you know a lot of people of one particular type.

another important thing to keep in mind is the difference in accepting and producing. That still holds. So you have 4 accepting and 4 producing subtypes.

[Brilliand]

I want to have a system where people of the same type, same subtype and same gender look like identical twins (except for race and age, of course). So it is necessary to break it down to 8 subtypes at least.

I suggest you move to a gradient subtype system. With six billion people in the world, I'm gonna guess there might be perhaps 5 other people like any given person, so you need a billion different types... that's 30 dichotomies. An 8-subtypes system will only have 7 dichotomies... Tcaudian dual-types+function (8) subtypes take us up to 11. Smilexian types are immediately infinite in number, though you could probably convert his system into a 4-subtype system (strong concrete, weak concrete, weak abstract, strong abstract) without much loss.

One thing that has a huge, not-type-related effect on personality is association of functions with physical objects/events... so make sure that these odd associations (i.e. ice cream reminding someone of their mean older brother) aren't being included in your typing system, or you'll never reduce people to a reasonable number of categories.

[JohnDo]

You'll have to go back to "everyone is unique".

Of course everyone is unique but I want to have a typology with 64, 128 or 256 types where two people of the same type, age and gender look like twins...

In total I met 22 persons of that type, so I figured 22 diveded by 2,5 was most close to 8 and not 16.

Yes, a system with 128 types seems to be appropriate. With only 64 types there are still visible differences...

I'm still figuring out, what makes them a separate catagory.

Just try it with IE subtypes and the pattern I detected. I'm sure it works like that. Maybe my descriptions ("angular circle", "square with rounded corners") are a bit confusing but I will post some pictures of celebrities to make it clear...

I suggest you move to a gradient subtype system. With six billion people in the world, I'm gonna guess there might be perhaps 5 other people like any given person, so you need a billion different types...

No, I don't think so. What I understand from it, "types" are categories which can be distinguished. Sooner or later we will arrive at a system where it is not possible to increase the number of types further because distinguishing between more types would be impossible. Some months ago I thought it was 64. Now I know that I was wrong and 128 types can be distinguished. At the moment I don't know if there are 256 types - but I will probably know it in some months...

You want a system like that? Good luck even if it is impossible because socionics doesn't explain everything about people.

Socionics only explains inborn characteristics of humans. Even with 128 types everyone is unique because everyone lives his own unique life...

[JohnDo]

* Domination along the primary axis generates the intragroup role of the motivator (psychologists call this the informal leader), and along secondary axis - role engine (formal leader).
* Creative along the primary axis contributes the acquisition to itself of the role of contactor, and on the secondary - role of group innovator.
* Normalizing along primary axis in a given role is the conscience of the group, and along the secondary - coordinator.
* And finally, primary harmonization leads to the role of decorator, and secondary - expert.

So the 8 subtypes have the following names:

--- motivator
--- leader
--- contactor
--- innovator
--- conscience
--- coordinator
--- decorator
--- expert

Let's have a look at some celebrities. I will start with INTj:

code --- subtype element --- type --- subtype function --- facial structure

Ti-INTj --- --- Coordinating Analyst --- base function --- circle:
Colin Powell


Ne-INTj --- --- Innovating Analyst --- creative function --- sqare:
Al Gore


Fi-INTj --- --- Conscientuous Analyst --- role function --- angular circle:
Frank Walter Steinmeier


Se-INTj --- --- Contacting Analyst --- vulnerable function --- rounded square:
Stefan Raab


Fe-INTj --- --- Motivating Analyst --- suggestive function --- broad rectangle:
Vladimir Putin


Si-INTj --- --- Decorating Analyst --- mobilizing function --- broad oval:
Ludwig van Beethoven


Te-INTj --- --- Leading Analyst --- ignoring function --- thin rectangle:
Christian Rach


Ni-INTj --- --- Expert Analyst --- demonstrative function --- thin oval:
Carl Jung

[JohnDo]

Some ISTJs:

Ti-ISTj --- --- Coordinating Inspector --- base function --- circle:
Heinrich Himmler:


Se-ISTj --- --- Contacting Inspector --- creative function --- square:
Alexander Lukaschenko


Ni-ISTj --- --- Expert Inspector --- mobilizing function --- broad oval:
Hans Eichel

[JohnDo]

Some ESTjs:

Ne-ESTj --- --- Innovating Director --- mobilizing function --- broad oval:
George W. Bush


Ni-ESTj --- --- Expert Director --- vulnerable function --- rounded square:
Joseph Stalin

[JohnDo]

ENFp:

Fi-ENFp --- --- Conscientuous Psychologist --- creative function --- square:
Heinz-Harald Frentzen



Se-ENFp --- --- Contacting Psychologist --- role function --- angular circle:
Ingo Appelt


Ti-ENFp --- --- Coordinating Psychologist --- vulnerable function --- rounded square:
Leo Trotsky


Si-ENFp --- --- Decorating Psychologist --- suggestive function --- broad rectangle:
Jenson Button

[JohnDo]

ENTp:

Ne-ENTp --- --- Innovating Inventor --- base function --- circle:
Nico Rosberg


Se-ENTp --- --- Contacting Inventor --- role function --- angular circle:
Jacques Villeneuve


Te-ENTp --- --- Leading Inventor --- demonstrative function --- thin oval:
Ron Paul

[JohnDo]

Ni-ESTp --- --- Expert Conquerer --- suggestive function --- broad rectangle:
Winston Churchill and Hermann Göring

[Beautiful sky]

Some ESTjs:

Ne-ESTj --- --- Innovating Drirector --- mobilizing function --- broad oval:
George W. Bush


Ni-ESTj --- --- Expert Director --- vulnerable function --- rounded square:
Joseph Stalin

Both are ESTp

[The Exception]

I want to have a system where people of the same type, same subtype and same gender look like identical twins (except for race and age, of course). So it is necessary to break it down to 8 subtypes at least.

Even identical twins don't always share the same socionics type.

[JohnDo]

Let's see how intertype relations work in the EM subtype system:

For the DCNH system Gulenko claims that "subtype duality" is the best relation:
Dominant with Normalizing: ---
Harmonizing with Creative: ---

For the IE subtype system it is quite obvious how it works theoretically:
Leader with Conscience: ---
Motivator with Coordinator: ---
Innovator with Decorator: ---
Contactor with Expert: ---

Just like in classical socionics where -base is -dual-seekig and so on...

I definitely know that I am an Expert Analyst (Ni-INTj) and that I find Contacting Enthusiasts (Se-ESFj) most attractive of all 128 types. Evolutionary psychologically it is clear that the perfect match must be the most atractive person - evolution didn't make mistakes there I think...

Some people don't need socionics because they just choose the most attractive partner which is naturally a good choice. But some months ago I didn't even know which type of woman I find most attractive. Socionics helps a lot to find out what kinds of humans even exist...

Note that perfect matches have the same facial structure: Both Ni-INTj and Se-ESFj have a face which I call a "thin oval".

Even identical twins don't always share the same socionics type.

That is something I do not believe until I see it.

[FDG]

I want to have a system where people of the same type, same subtype and same gender look like identical twins (except for race and age, of course). So it is necessary to break it down to 8 subtypes at least.

Well, take into account enneagram type and place of origin (not just race! you need to be of the same, uhm, "body type") and you get closer.

Your system is kind of whacky, though. Those people aren't even that similar...

[JohnDo]

Well, take into account enneagram type and place of origin (not just race! you need to be of the same, uhm, "body type") and you get closer.

Your system is kind of whacky, though. Those people aren't even that similar...

What do you mean? It is very difficult to find people of the same type when working with 128. But Churchill and Göring are clearly Expert Conquerers and they somehow look like twins, don't they?

[Brilliand]

What's that "broad rectangle," "thing oval," "oblong world-eating triangle" stuff at the ends of the types in your earlier posts?

[JohnDo]

What's that "broad rectangle," "thing oval," "oblong world-eating triangle" stuff at the ends of the types in your earlier posts?

That's just what this thread is all about: the facial structure, what else should it be?! The reason for this thread is that I want to explain how to determine IE subtypes by V.I....

Brilliand, I'd like to guess: Is it correct that your face rather looks like a circle?

[Brilliand]

That's just what this thread is all about: the facial structure, what else should it be?! The reason for this thread is that I want to explain how to determine IE subtypes by V.I....

Brilliand, I'd like to guess: Is it correct that your face rather looks like a circle?

No, not really... more of a long oval.

[krieger]

Let's have a look at some celebrities. I will start with INTj:

Are these your typings or something I'm going to have to take seriously?

[jughead]

spend your time on making a video databank of women of each type, preferably all qualitatively attractive and then we can type ourselves based on which person we find the most attractive.

[JohnDo]

Are these your typings or something I'm going to have to take seriously?

Tit-for-tat response to this thread. I'm still thinking about the things you wrote, I'll criticize them sooner or later...

Why don't you just say if you disagree with some of my typings? Another question: How does your face look like?

spend your time on making a video databank of women of each type, preferably all qualitatively attractive and then we can type ourselves based on which person we find the most attractive.

Is it a joke or are you serious? It would definitely be a good idea.There are certainly a lot of people on this forum who have mistyped themselves and would realize it this way...

The only problem is that people who are not even able to type themselves correctly might also fail when it comes to determining their perfect match solely by attractiveness...

[JohnDo]

An 8-subtypes system will only have 7 dichotomies...

Yeah, let's talk about them...

This task becomes urgent when the group increases to 7-8 people. For distinguishing eight subtypes is added the additional scale - primary/secondary, which reflects the hierarchy of personal needs.

It must be noted, that theoretically there must be seven such differences (including the three already known polarities). However, the description of the entire spectrum of subtype dichotomies is not the object of this report.

There are 4 dichotomies Gulenko introduces:
Contact / Distant
Initiating / Terminating
Connecting / Ignoring
Primary / Secondary

Information elements are normally distinguished by the following 4 dichotomies:
Extroverted / Introverted
Irrational / Rational
Static / Dynamic
External / Internal

Note that Primary/Secondary and External/Internal are technically not the same.

And where are the other dichotomies? Might be interesting to know them for subtype diagnosis. But on the other hand: if 7 element dichotomies were useful someone would certainly have explored them...

[Brilliand]

But on the other hand: if 7 element dichotomies were useful someone would certainly have explored them...

I've seen +/- and Accepting/Creating used for elements, though these really just convert the element system to the type system. After that, I suppose we can add:

• Focused/unfocused
• Value-focused/value-unfocused
• Strength-focused/strength-unfocused

(For an unfocused element, the other two refer to the element that it is blocked with.)

With these dichotomies, we more or less have the 7-dichotomy system that you describe. Classifying each element as focused/unfocused would raise us to 12 dichotomies - one for each function position, plus the base four.

[The Exception]

That's just what this thread is all about: the facial structure, what else should it be?! The reason for this thread is that I want to explain how to determine IE subtypes by V.I....

Brilliand, I'd like to guess: Is it correct that your face rather looks like a circle?

JohnDo, how come we never get to see your face?

[The Exception]

Yeah, let's talk about them...



There are 4 dichotomies Gulenko introduces:
Contact / Distant
Initiating / Terminating
Connecting / Ignoring
Primary / Secondary

What's primary/secondary and where can I find more info on it?

I've seen +/- and Accepting/Creating used for elements, though these really just convert the element system to the type system. After that, I suppose we can add:

• Focused/unfocused
• Value-focused/value-unfocused
• Strength-focused/strength-unfocused

And more info on these three?

[Brilliand]

And more info on these three?

I basically made them up, using the subtype system that JohnDo proposes in this thread.

• Focused/Unfocused: An element is Focused where it is in your psyche if it's in an Accepting function position (1,3,5 or 7) and you're an Accepting subtype (1,3,5 or 7), or it's Producing and you're Producing.
• Value-focused/Value-unfocused: You're Value-focused if your subtype is one of your valued functions.
• Strength-focused/Strength-unfocused: You're Strength-focused if your subtype is one of your strong functions.

This layout of subtype dichotomies is in line with the attitude that the three ego functions that aren't in your ego are just side aspect of the one in your ego, and the same for the perceiving functions (the ones not in your ego are secondary aspects of the one in your ego). I call this an "attitude" because it's no different from Model A in implication; it just calls most of the Model A layout irrelevant because it can be derived from the ego.

[JohnDo]

JohnDo, how come we never get to see your face?

Because I am the reincarnation of Carl Jung - and I want to keep it a secret

What's primary/secondary and where can I find more info on it?

Unfortunately, a brief passage in Gulenko's DCNH article on wikisocion is our only source for what I call the "IE subtype system". So we have to work it out on our own - or force some Russian speakers to translate more articles...

[JohnDo]

I basically made them up, using the subtype system that JohnDo proposes in this thread.

• Focused/Unfocused: An element is Focused where it is in your psyche if it's in an Accepting function position (1,3,5 or 7) and you're an Accepting subtype (1,3,5 or 7), or it's Producing and you're Producing.
• Value-focused/Value-unfocused: You're Value-focused if your subtype is one of your valued functions.
• Strength-focused/Strength-unfocused: You're Strength-focused if your subtype is one of your strong functions.

Sounds interesting but that's not how the dichotomies can be derived from the base dichotomies...

Example:
Ni-INTj = distant, initiating, secondary
Ni-INTp = distant, initiating, secondary

Then you can derive things like:
- distant*initiating = connecting

But Ni is INTj's unvalued and INTp's valued function. So your dichotomies are certainly not the ones Gulenko thinks of. In other words: The remaining dichotomies can be found by using element dichotomies, not function dichotomies...

[JohnDo]

Base subtype dichotomies:

(I)nitiating / (T)erminating --- introduced for acc/prod subtypes ( ~ Irrational/Rational)
(D)istant / (C)ontact --- introduced for DCNH subtypes ( ~ Introverted/Extraverted)
(P)rimary / (S)econdary --- introduced for IE subtypes

= CTP (Contact, Terminating, Primary)
= CTS
= CIP
= CIS
= DTP
= DTS
= DIP
= DIS (Distant, Initiating, Secondary)



"Reinin" subtype dichotomies:

CT, DI = Fe Te Si Ni --- connecting
CI, DT = Se Ne Fi Ti --- ignoring

CP, DS = Fe Se Ti Ni --- aggressive (?)
CS, DP = Te Ne Fi Si --- peaceful (?)

TP, IS = Fe Fi Ne Ni --- internal
TS, IP = Te Ti Se Si --- external

CTP, CIS, DTS, DIP = Fe Ne Ti Si --- realaxing (?)
CTS, CIP, DTP, DIS = Te Se Fi Ni --- hard-working (?)

[krieger]

Why don't you just say if you disagree with some of my typings?

I don't just disagree with your typings. I think you are dangerously overconfident in your ability to divide people up in catagories that are more precise than 16 types already were, because experience has shown that people in general can't even come to agreements on said ordinary socionics types. In half of the cases you list, the main type of the person would be widely contested already, let alone anything you say about their subtype.

I also don't deal in opinions on the types of people, only in arguments. Since you list none whatsoever, your typings are invalid by default as far as I'm concerned.

[JohnDo]

In half of the cases you list, the main type of the person would be widely contested already, let alone anything you say about their subtype.

I'm aware of that, it is actually one of the major reasons why I think using subtypes is necessary. Just let me explain:

Assume the 8 Analysts I mentioned are all typed correctly. Then imagine someone would call Bill Gates an INTj for example. As Gates' face is rather a square the question would be: An INTj like Al Gore or an INTj like Stefan Raab? Obviously neither the first nor the second! So Gates is obviously not an INTj and I can tell you that without arguments, just by pointing at INTjs I know. Gates is almost a "twin" of Günther Jauch, even though not quite. ENTj.

I also don't deal in opinions on the types of people, only in arguments. Since you list none whatsoever, your typings are invalid by default as far as I'm concerned.

I completely disagree. Typing is first and foremost an intuitive process! The only good argument is finding "twins"! What do you think how I arrived at my typings of those celebrities? I just compared them to people I know in person, of course. There is no other way of producing reliable typings. You need to know people of all types, then you can compare celebrities to them...

Example: Göring is obviously Churchill's "twin" so I hope we agree that they are the same type in the IE subtype system with 128 types. Arguments are useless! Just use introverted intuition to see that they are "twins"! In my opinion they are Ni-ESTp. What's your opinion now?

[Krig the Viking]

I don't just disagree with your typings. I think you are dangerously overconfident in your ability to divide people up in catagories that are more precise than 16 types already were, because experience has shown that people in general can't even come to agreements on said ordinary socionics types. In half of the cases you list, the main type of the person would be widely contested already, let alone anything you say about their subtype.

I also don't deal in opinions on the types of people, only in arguments. Since you list none whatsoever, your typings are invalid by default as far as I'm concerned.

I agree with all of this.

I completely disagree. Typing is first and foremost an intuitive process! The only good argument is finding "twins"! What do you think how I arrived at my typings of those celebrities? I just compared them to people I know in person, of course. There is no other way of producing reliable typings. You need to know people of all types, then you can compare celebrities to them...

Example: Göring is obviously Churchill's "twin" so I hope we agree that they are the same type in the IE subtype system with 128 types. Arguments are useless! Just use introverted intuition to see that they are "twins"! In my opinion they are Ni-ESTp. What's your opinion now?

As an LII, I find Ni "gut feelings" about things like that to be a good place to start, but not nearly enough for a reliable conclusion. Reliable conclusions can only be reached by a combination of sufficient evidence and accurate logic.

[JohnDo]

As an LII, I find Ni "gut feelings" about things like that to be a good place to start, but not nearly enough for a reliable conclusion. Reliable conclusions can only be reached by a combination of sufficient evidence and accurate logic.

1.) I actually try to work this system out logically. That's just what I'm doing...
2.) In socionics there is no "evidence" at all because it is no science. Some people call it "evidence" when socionist A claims X and socionists B and C agree. That's not really "evidence", you know? It is just affirmation...

[Krig the Viking]

1.) I actually try to work this system out logically. That's just what I'm doing...
2.) In socionics there is no "evidence" at all because it is no science. Some people call it "evidence" when socionist A claims X and socionists B and C agree. That's not really "evidence", you know? It is just affirmation...

I mean in terms of typing people. It's one thing to have a gut feeling that two people are the same type. It's another to have evidence and logical deductions backing that up. There are quite a number of lines of inquiry that can be used -- body language, facial expressions, word usage, intertype relations, etc. Intuition alone based on physical appearance can point you in the right direction sometimes, but as far as I'm concerned it's not enough for a trustworthy conclusion on someone's type.

[JohnDo]

Intuition alone based on physical appearance can point you in the right direction sometimes, but as far as I'm concerned it's not enough for a trustworthy conclusion on someone's type.

Well, it always depends on you knowledge. According to Sergei Ganin V.I. is the fastest and most reliable method but takes years to master. I agree with him even though I still need more experience to rely on V.I. alone in the future. Body language and facial expression are always parts of V.I., of course. Nevertheless, I'm sure that looking at the facial structure helps a lot...

[JohnDo]

Rubens Barrichello, Si-ESFj, square


Richard Dawins, Ni-ESFj, rounded square


David Coulthard, Ti-ESFj, broad rectangle


Bill Cosby and Gerhard Schröder, Ne-ESFj, broad oval


Franz Müntefering, Fi-ESFj, thin rectangle

[xixi]

Because I am the reincarnation of Carl Jung - and I want to keep it a secret

so would that mean you're an 'expert analyst', and on that account, have a thin oval face?

[Gilly]

Just FYI your P/S dichotomy is just Abstract/Involved. Which is good, because it's an under-recognized dichotomy that is very helpful in understanding IM theory, but I felt it was necessary to point out that it's not a new dichotomy.

[JohnDo]

so would that mean you're an 'expert analyst', and on that account, have a thin oval face?

Excactly.

Just FYI your P/S dichotomy is just Abstract/Involved. Which is good, because it's an under-recognized dichotomy that is very helpful in understanding IM theory, but I felt it was necessary to point out that it's not a new dichotomy.

Where can I read about it? On wikisocion I can't find anything about Abstract/Involved...