Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Subtypes?

  1. #1
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Subtypes?

    I've noticed that there is some sort of spectrum/range into which each type can be placed. Therefore, in one person's subjective typing system a person can be LII, yet fairly similar although different types in someone else's - e.g., EII or ILE.

    It might even have to do with subtypes.

    For instance:

    An Fe-ESE might be perceived as "EIE" by some LIIs (those who place greater emphasis on Si), or an Si-ESE as an "SEI" by others, depending on their subtype. I think if one were to put the pieces together, there would be an overall framework into which every type can be placed that is consistent with this notion of a range of subtypes and their resulting relations; the nature of socionics could even be so strange that to one LII an "SEI" activation partner is objectively an IEI (their dual is SLE), yet there is still some objective overarching mathematical scheme to explain human behaviour that fits reasonably well with Model A.

    On top of this, there are probably other key information elements which are hidden within the individual IMs. (E.g., consider an extremely warm, caring E2 ESE versus an outgoing, friendly E7 ESE.)
    __________________
    LII

  2. #2
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    I've noticed that there is some sort of spectrum/range into which each type can be placed. Therefore, in one person's subjective typing system a person can be LII, yet fairly similar although different types in someone else's - e.g., EII or ILE.

    It might even have to do with subtypes.

    For instance:

    An Fe-ESE might be perceived as "EIE" by some LIIs (those who place greater emphasis on Si), or an Si-ESE as an "SEI" by others, depending on their subtype. I think if one were to put the pieces together, there would be an overall framework into which every type can be placed that is consistent with this notion of a range of subtypes and their resulting relations; the nature of socionics could even be so strange that to one LII an "SEI" activation partner is objectively an IEI (their dual is SLE), yet there is still some objective overarching mathematical scheme to explain human behaviour that fits reasonably well with Model A.

    On top of this, there are probably other key information elements which are hidden within the individual IMs. (E.g., consider an extremely warm, caring E2 ESE versus an outgoing, friendly E7 ESE.)
    __________________
    It's a nice thought, and a solution to typing misunderstandings, but as far as I can tell, it isn't right. If you spend long enough time with someone you'll see his type and subtype and that there cannot be any misunderstanding about it.

    Though what you say is close to something Jung himself talked about in 'psychological types', that it is difficult for him to explain the types, since every one uses a different kind of perception and therefor would describe the types a little bit different. I can see how that is true, but your idea is one step further, and I think it's a step too far...

  3. #3
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    It's a nice thought, and a solution to typing misunderstandings, but as far as I can tell, it isn't right. If you spend long enough time with someone you'll see his type and subtype and that there cannot be any misunderstanding about it.
    I don't know. Based on the pigeonhole principle, I think that there might be something to this. This is what I mean: in socionics, for there to be exactly 16 types, entails that there be exactly 16 relations amongst everyone (i.e., one kind of relation between every two types). I find this impossible. This is the best explanation I can think of as to why different subtypes might make a difference, but there, of course, could be better explanations...

    Though what you say is close to something Jung himself talked about in 'psychological types', that it is difficult for him to explain the types, since every one uses a different kind of perception and therefor would describe the types a little bit different. I can see how that is true, but your idea is one step further, and I think it's a step too far...
    I don't know. What I'm thinking involves some implications, but does not involve huge implications amongst the relations. For instance, benefit and activation are not immensely different. A similar argument could be made about activation and duality - depending on the individuals.

    The notion of different kinds of perception affecting one's typing system is also interesting. I visualize that what is being said here by Jung could be exemplified by someone looking at a city. When one sees a city from above, they could identify many things with it: things about the hustle and bustle of everyday life, things about how the buildings are designed, things about the colours and noises that appeal to them, etc. Perhaps a similar argument could be made about human personality. The key questions are: 1) How diverse can an individual's personality be? 2) (How) these characteristics be categorized? and 3) How well do these categorizations fit with Model A?

    My theory is that there are some but not many characteristics completely outside of model A, some subfactors, and a of range of personality charactestics that blend into to each other such that socionics is somewhat relative. As I said, I don't think that these factors make worlds of difference, but I think that they can affect the relations on a close distance. (A side point is that persona can be another factor; one can seem a certain way socially, but be different at a close distance.)
    Last edited by jason_m; 08-11-2010 at 08:43 PM.
    LII

  4. #4
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't know if an IEI would really be much of an activator too an LII if they don't have the same quadra values, even if its like Ti subtype and Fe subtype.

  5. #5
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    I don't know if an IEI would really be much of an activator too an LII if they don't have the same quadra values, even if its like Ti subtype and Fe subtype.
    If you read about the specific subtypes on Wikisocion, you can deduce that Gulenko's IEI-Fe subtype is more like an EIE. However, the Meged Ovcharav (sp?) Fe subtype is more like an SEI. That's how an IEI might be like an activation partner, and where this pet theory of mine comes from.
    LII

  6. #6
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    This is what I mean: in socionics, for there to be exactly 16 types, entails that there be exactly 16 relations amongst everyone (i.e., one kind of relation between every two types). I find this impossible.
    I don't find this impossible. All relationships I've had between same types, did have exact the same basic ingredients. Subtypes only make a very slight difference.

  7. #7
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    I don't find this impossible. All relationships I've had between same types, did have exact the same basic ingredients. Subtypes only make a very slight difference.
    Here is my argument:

    1. Society does not seem to cluster together neatly into duality, quadras, etc; there seems to be a lot of variety.

    2. For subtypes and other factors to not play a role, there have to be exactly 16 socionics types, which I don't think makes sense, because it means that there are exactly 16 types of relations, which seems improbable based on the pigeonhole principle (Pigeonhole principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and how society seems to cluster in rather diverse groups.

    3. Since there are probably other relations, and you don't believe that Gulenko, etc. subtypes can play a role in the relations, you would have to believe that there are other factors outside of these subtypes that play a role in the relations. Do you agree?

    As an aside, I wonder if you could use the pigeonhole principle to deduce roughly how many socionics types there are, based on how many "good", "bad", etc. relations there are.

    (If you're not good at, e.g., math I can give a better explanation if you need me to...)
    Last edited by jason_m; 08-11-2010 at 08:44 PM.
    LII

  8. #8
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I see 2 subtypes as one initiating creative more, making the "creative" function more used, appearing like a "primary" function because its more constant, but still being creative. Ti-ILE for instance, has essentially almost Ti-creative dominant. Te-ILI essentially uses Te-creative more constantly, etc. I think creative subtypes seem less traditional, because there's more to risk and less to be sure about, when you're being of the creative nature more typically. I still think creative subs get tired of that function, just like dominant subs. It's still the creative function, they still have to revert everything back to their dominant function. I think because they take the creative function process more seriously, they can appear to dom subtypes to be kind of misrepresenting it (even to their own dominant subtype, and to the mirror creative subtype it could seem sort of like nonsense), but to them its something that is defined by their dominant function instead, so serves a different point. It's called "creative" because it's the tool extracted from the dominant, defined more by it, but not serving it as much. So you have this sort of detached wielding of something wilder and unsettled. Fe-IEIs, for example, might seem almost dominantly Fe, but its still creative Fe and its being defined by their Ni, where as EIEs Fe is defined by Fe.

  9. #9
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @jason

    1. Society does not seem to cluster together neatly into duality, quadras, etc; there seems to be a lot of variety.

    why should they cluster together. I cannot always come into contact with my dual. At work I cannot find one, so I have to work with other types. People rather seem to cluster to outside observables, like race. I guess relationships are only clear enough experienced at short psychological distance, which doesn't happen to often.

    2. For subtypes and other factors to not play a role, there have to be exactly 16 socionics types, which I don't think makes sense, because it means that there are exactly 16 types of relations, which seems improbable based on the pigeonhole principle (Pigeonhole principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and how society seems to cluster in rather diverse groups.

    There are only 16 kind of relationships (if you define relationship as information exchange. I don't understand whats so difficult about that. It's like you say that there has to be more then just a man and a woman on this planet. As if you cannot have only 2 genders. I don't exacly understand what the pigeonhole has to do with it.

    3. Since there are probably other relations, and you don't believe that Gulenko, etc. subtypes can play a role in the relations, you would have to believe that there are other factors outside of these subtypes that play a role in the relations. Do you agree?

    Subtypes play a role, although a small one.

    Other factors in information exchange? No. But other factors in the total of a relationship, sure: physical attraction, age, experience etc.

    As an aside, I wonder if you could use the pigeonhole principle to deduce roughly how many socionics types there are, based on how many "good", "bad", etc. relations there are.

    I don't know...

Posting Permissions

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