Your opinion.
Are EM types subtypes?
Your opinion.
yes
Initial thought: no.Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
From what I understand, EM types are "What are my skills and interests?" I'm an SEI-IEI. I have poor motor skills and little interest in physical things, plus whatever else comes with the territory (self-typed by dichotomies, I'm sorry I can't remember them...)
Subtypes are "How do I differentiate myself from other members of my type?" I'm a C-SEI. In a group of SEIs, I'd be the energetic, weird one with lots of ideas.
You can refine that further, type by type. Another way of putting C is EXXp. In a group of C-SEIs, I'd be the most inclined to avoid confrontation and unpleasantness, and I tend to be very focused around my relationships and tending to them properly, along with my spiritual interests. I could debatably be further differentiated into an ENFp-SEI, but the "NF" part is significantly less manifest than the "EP" or "C" part.
Consequent thought: EM type is a very specific case of "subtype" dealing with skills/interests, even if it technically doesn't match with the implied elements of the term.
Last edited by male; 08-31-2010 at 05:40 AM.
There is no substance to the theory beyond its complete identity with subtype theory.
If that were true, Gulenko would not have hailed his hypothesis of "two or more types in one person".
Whether something is a subtype or not is all a matter of perspective.
For me, the fact that the EM type works exactly the same way (from a Ti perspective) as the IM type is enough to distinguish it as an independent system of type.
Are you suggesting that what JohnDo is talking about is not what I'm talking about?You can refine that further, type by type. Another way of putting C is EXXp. In a group of C-SEIs, I'd be the most inclined to avoid confrontation and unpleasantness, and I tend to be very focused around my relationships and tending to them properly, along with my spiritual interests. I could debatably be further differentiated into an ENFp-SEI, but the "NF" part is significantly less manifest than the "EP" or "C" part.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 08-31-2010 at 07:24 AM.
Yes, they are.
huh?
Types and subtypes are just categorizations. We treat Enneagram types the same as subtypes here, we merely don't call them so because their origin is outside of socionics, though to an extent they're probably induced by inborn aspects of personality considered a socionics type. Conversly, EM type doesn't seem to have this sort of dependence, yet it is referred to as subtype by some. If it's a matter of what is or isn't the same, I'd say dual-types, DCNH, JohnDo's theories and many others are different, even when similar concepts lie behind them - such as an inspiration by Gulenko's theories, be they cross-type or DCNH. While dual-type type theory might be independent of and compatible with some subtype theories, with others it would probably have to be merged to work simultaneously - if they relied on similar preferences as you consider related to EM type, for one. And yet such equivalence would make it a subtype theory again, or invalidate the other one as such.
I typed myself as IEI EM using your dichotomies, while you later said I was NT. This probably shows that my impression of what you're talking about in regard to dual-types diverges from what you mean, possibly to the point where I can't say I know it well enough to see how independent IM and EM types are. Or maybe it's a sign of a significant bias towards IEI in these dichotomies, similar to how ILE is said to have been in early socionics, as more people seem to consider this EM type than any other. Though if it influences interests, it could be that socionics simply matches these for x-IEI. It's also possible that the archetype of IEI, The Lyricist, is close to what most people would call an inner part of themselves, and they're in a way validating it by assigning a label. But as I understand it, no, I prefer not to refer to it as a "subtype".
I don't think the word "subtype" is appropriate.
Now about JohnDo's theory... he's saying that, given Gulenko's terms that Ti and Fi strengthened is always normalizing, that all LIIs who are interested in -- I believe it would be justice? -- are normalizers. So that would mean no LII lawyers -- or judges -- match the behavioral descriptions offered in the articles.
I really don't think that accords with experience. And you'd just need to find one LII lawyer who did match those other descriptions to prove it.
Or, I caution, legal theorist. And it gets worse: according to JohnDo, no individual who works in law can be anything but a normalizing sub. That means more than 90% of judges and even academics should be normalizing subs.
--IF JohnDo is correct.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 08-31-2010 at 11:08 PM.
f
Once again, I don't understand what you mean at all:
1.) What do you mean by "Gulenko's terms"? Are you refering to the DCNH article on wikisocion?
2.) What do you mean by "Ti and Fi strengthened is always dominant"? Do you mean dominant subtype or what?!
3.) Why should all LIIs who are interested in justice be normalizing? LIIs are interested in justice, no matter what subtype or energy type they are...
4.) What do you mean by "behavioral descriptions offered in the articles"? Which articles are you refering to?
What? Why not? I never said that.
An INTj-ESTj should be able to work in law very well, even though he is the dominant subtype...
Greenantler is certainly right. We need to subtype a lot of people to find out if there is correlation. The problem will be that, typing 100 people, we might disagree on the base type in about 50 cases. It's always the same...
Nevertheless, I'll start with some examples from Star Trek and Star Gate. Visual identification won't work well here because the actors are very often completely different types...
Star Trek TOS
James T. Kirk: ENTp-ESTp
Spock: INTj-INTp
Lenard McCoy: ESFj-INFp
Star Trek TNG
Jean-Luc Picard: INTj-ISFj
William T. Riker: INFj-ISTp
Data: INTj-INTp
Deanna Troi: INFj-INFp
Beverly Crusher: INFp-ISTj
Geordi LaForge: ENTp-ENFp
Worf: ISTp-ESTj
Ro Laren: INTj-ISTp
Wesley Crusher: INTj-INFp
Star Gate SG1
Jack O'Neill: ESTj-ESTp
Samantha Carter: ENTp-ISTp
Daniel Jackson: INTj-ISFp
Teal'C: ISTp-INTp
Last edited by JohnDo; 08-31-2010 at 06:30 PM.
Except when you type by your VI method, it doesn't say anything about your VI method. To do it scientifically (regardless of considering socionics a pseudoscience or not), you'd have to find a way to identify a person's subtype without knowing how they VI, then do large-scale typings this way, then analyze results. The problem, except the slight issue of typings and technicalities of scale, is that you'd also have to accept it if results showed no statistically significant correlation of subtype and looks for your little VI theory to stand.Greenantler is certainly right. We need to subtype a lot of people to find out if there is correlation. The problem will be that, typing 100 people, we might disagree on the base type in about 50 cases. It's always the same...
I also happen to think your typings of fictional characters are positively horrid.
I think so. Although I question your typing of me; I'm pretty damn sure my EM type is ILE.
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...
(corrected that wording error)
Che, you may be able to pull these silly inconsistencies on a person who hardly knows socionics; but you can't do it on someone who's studied it for five years.
But I'm done arguing (to your face). Time spent arguing with you is better spent on things that matter to me.
But someone needs to do something. Someone without a clear stake needs to archive Che's and mine threads. Else he'll be able to erase his tracks later, like McNew did. I consider the man literally socially dangerous... he's already shown his ability to persuade people to believe in demonstrably bogus logic.
I think the reason for Che's insanity lies in his immanence. He is so determined to rebel that he has lost sight of what he is rebelling against. His hatred of tradition runs so deep and is so pervasive that he will not evaluate states globally. His Ti function isn't completely there -- it's as though he tries to use his Ti in a 4D way, but the implication processor doesn't work. He can't make sense of how one thing having one state precludes another thing from having another such state. Which put another way, mean that his ability to think in terms of nested categories is pretty well shot.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 09-01-2010 at 12:11 AM.
It sounds like the best step to take care of BEFORE we start diagnosing subtypes (of any theory) is to come to a benchmark-worthy convergence on a great number of famous people of each of the 16 regular types. Without that it will be close to impossible to discuss subtypes with any significant detail.
Coming to a unanimous typing of someone also seems impossible, but if socionics works, a unanimous typing should be inevitable.
Lists like these, with multiple convergence can be very helpful, even if not proved to be 100% accurate.
Socionics : Celebrity Benchmark List
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
That is illogical. It is unnecessary to know the IM type of the person to diagnose the EM type. One need only correlate their hobbies to information elements.
Additionally, some people may be unable to accept the real type of a person for purely emotional reasons. So convergence should not be a goal except among the respected.
Oh shit: I figured out what's wrong with Che. He can't ADMIT he's wrong about anything. He's so prideful that he can't admit his mistakes. Which is why he never corrects his mistakes in his posts.
As the rest of you, you should not refer to the EM types as subtypes for one simple reason: in the brain, there are modules that do stuff. Modules are grouped by purpose. In truth, I think the IM types have little to do with information metabolism; or at least, they don't encompass it. A committee would be more likely to recommend the the IM types be called "information creating specialty" types, because that's a lot closer to what they actually do. When you conceive of an idea with your "IM" type, the quality of that idea is probably going to be greater if you use a strong function in the model A ordering for your type than a weak function. This is only one part of what Augusta conceives of as "information metabolism", which includes both the input and the processing. The input itself is accepted by the (aptly named) EM type (maybe you might want to add a "D" for "data" at the beginning, but I tried to keep it simple), the ordering of the same's elements via Model A's (hell, Jung's!) prioritization rules stipulating that depending on the position of information element matching the input, the quality of the input's reception (that is, the actual scale and comprehension of the data intake, learned knowledge aside) is greater or lesser than it would be if that element were in a different position. If the IM type "were" the IM type it would encompass both dimensions. Although there are people whom are identical between the "IM" (more appropriate abbreviation is "IC") and EM types, it is highly unlikely that even in these people that the IM and EM systems are the same, although without comparing the intake system of people of different hobby preferences people whose it would not be apparent in those cases. If anything deserves the name of "IM type", it's the "dual-type" which encompasses both systems. From an empirical perspective, there is no justification for treating the "IM type" (as we are accustomed to calling it) as the "superordinate" type to which the EM type is subordinate.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 09-01-2010 at 01:29 AM.
Can EM type be reinforced with it's own set of intertype relations?
Explain the conflicts you would expect an INTj-INFp and ESFj-ESTj to have. Are these conflicts as readily observable as those in an INTj-INFp and ESFp-ESTp relationship? If so, then IM and EM have the same degree of significance and are both types. Is this the case?
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Ever heard of political maneuvering? Or for that matter, ever worked at a job you didn't like, or were fired for not meeting performance goals?
The ESTj EM would be a little more concerned about keeping order. I consider Wikipedia a haven for the type. IEI EMs are absolutely not respected there.Explain the conflicts you would expect an INTj-INFp and ESFj-ESTj to have. Are these conflicts as readily observable as those in an INTj-INFp and ESFp-ESTp relationship? If so, then IM and EM have the same degree of significance and are both types. Is this the case?
Put it this way: INFp IM drives people to rebel. IEI EM spreads word about the rebellion. SLE IMs develop the winning strategy, and SLE EMs execute the strategy and relate it to society at large.
The IM type determines what to do; the EM types asks, "OK, but what about everything else? What are the dimensions and implications of what we are doing?"
If the INFp IMs are exhorting people to take up arms and the ESTj EMs are trying to keep order in the name of lord high LSE, you know there's going to be a conflict.
Duality kinda cools the intensity of the conflict, keeps it from escalating. I actually know an ESFJ-ESTJ (my aunt is one) and I can tell you that they are very serious about matters of authority, particularly whether there is or is not a god(s). She's a conservative traditionalist and an F, so you can guess where she is on that question. We enjoy each others' company, but we never discuss anything. When I try, she ends the conversation quickly with a summary ESFJ "agree to disagree" statement.
I want to make the point, IM-EM identicals have a lot of contact with the type's "fan-base", so to speak, so that allows them to be a lot more influential in their field than people who are not IM-EM identicals. There's just more unconscious control.
What do you think how I arrived at this VI method? By subtyping a lot of persons without VI and analyzing results afterwards. Just what you recommend...
Today I can't subtype persons without VI because I just know how they VI and it is impossible to ignore that. But you might be able to falsify my theory by comparing a lot of subtypings with the VI pattern. I can't see what's so difficult there...
Of course I would accept it. Why don't you just show me some examples (your frieds or family members, people whose types you know) where the VI pattern doesn't fit...?
Why my approach can't be completely wrong:
I was always fascinated by the fact that doppelgängers truely exist. So in a complete personality type theory people of exactly the same type have to be doppelgängers. With only 16 types people of the same type can look very different, that's why socionics is obviously incomplete without subtypes.
If I had been of the opinion (what some people here really believe) that subtype could change or that there was no 1:1 correlation between appearence and type I certainly wouldn't have found a VI pattern...
That doesn't matter at all. Just subtype everyone you know in person and compare your subtypings to the VI pattern...
So you did get over the slight technicality of measuring subtype objectively?
Another matter is that you never defined what is considered which facial shape. I'd have to do a search but I remember it coming up in one of your infinitely redundant VI threads where you seemed to consider some celebrities' longer faces "circular" and rounder "oval".
Every time someone as much as questions your typings or subtypings you respond with a variation of "no, they have to be this type because of VI". What kind of evidence would you, if any, consider over VI, if you already arbitrarily declared it the only reliable method, and act on it?Today I can't subtype persons without VI because I just know how they VI and it is impossible to ignore that. But you might be able to falsify my theory by comparing a lot of subtypings with the VI pattern. I can't see what's so difficult there...
Of course I would accept it. Why don't you just show me some examples (your frieds or family members, people whose types you know) where the VI pattern doesn't fit...?
Are you seriously saying that it *has to* be true because *you* "were always fascinated by it"?Why my approach can't be completely wrong:
I was always fascinated by the fact that doppelgängers truely exist. So in a complete personality type theory people of exactly the same type have to be doppelgängers. With only 16 types people of the same type can look very different, that's why socionics is obviously incomplete without subtypes.
If I had been of the opinion (what some people here really believe) that subtype could change or that there was no 1:1 correlation between appearence and type I certainly wouldn't have found a VI pattern...
How could I forget you have monopoly on typing people you've never met?That doesn't matter at all. Just subtype everyone you know in person and compare your subtypings to the VI pattern...
If you ever answer with your criteria for particular facial shapes, I'll let you know how it works. In the meantime, you could post some ILI subtypes for comparison. I have no idea what shape I'd qualify as in that system of yours.
No, a subtype is completely different. The subtype is an elaboration onto the processes of the original type. The dual type is a separate process which has the potential to conflict with the main type.
The most objective method of subtyping is using objective criteria, of course. Comparing a face to geometrical forms is clearly the most objective method I can imagine. The other methods are completely subjective:
- Are you rather harmonizing or rather creative? Hard to say, depends on which descriptions you use. Purely subjective...
- Are you more introverted or more extraverted than most other INTps? To decide it objectively you need to know a lot of other INTps to draw comparisons. And then it is still not reliable because you might have bad luck and get a sample which is not representative. So if you decide that you are more introverted and more perceiving than usual (= harmonizing subtype) it is a purely subjective subtyping...
- Do you have stronger Ni or stronger Ne than an average INTp. Can only be judged purely subjectively, by comparing yourself to other INTps.
That's just why I'm working on the VI pattern. I want to have an objective method so that we all can agree that someone is a particular subtype...
My VI threads are not redundant. In the first one I listed celebrities according to their face so that everyone can understand what I mean when I'm talking about a round or a rectangular face. How should I define it better than by examples? In the second VI thread I tried to list celebrities according to their base types. The third one was about 8 subtypes.
And yes, I definitely made some mistakes. In some cases I chose the wrong base type, in other cases I failed to use my own VI method...
But nobody is perfect and it doesn't matter much if those celebrities are type correctly or incorrectly. Just type enough people you know in person and you will see...
I'm just waiting for some people who verify it. Tcaudillg, Crispy and KrigTheViking are probably the most likely forum members to confirm it sooner or later...
But I'm also looking forward to people who can falsify it. Just try it...
Okay, I'll try to subtype 10 ILIs. But I already know what you will say. In 5-7 cases you won't agree on the base type, in the remaining 3-5 cases you won't agree on the subtype. It's always the same, that's why I consider typing celebrities a rather pointless exercise. Better type your friends and relatives or other people you don't only know from newspapers or TV...
Here we go again. To prove anything about VI, you need an objective method of measuring subtype which doesn't include VI. Circular logic like "VI is most objective, therefore I'll use it to measure subtype objectively and prove VI" won't work.
I rather meant to try it on myself, and for that I need comparison with what you consider round/oval/square/rectangular etc. faces of ILIs (preferably female). To contrast it with what I suppose my actual DCNH subtype to be.Okay, I'll try to subtype 10 ILIs. But I already know what you will say. In 5-7 cases you won't agree on the base type, in the remaining 3-5 cases you won't agree on the subtype. It's always the same, that's why I consider typing celebrities a rather pointless exercise. Better type your friends and relatives or other people you don't only know from newspapers or TV...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
