Four Different Subtypes

[DividedsGhost]

I composed the following after considering the two subtype system and how it affects various people, as well as considering a peculiar SLE that I would categorize under Actualized.

Given the idea that a person can only use one ego function in combination with an id function at a time, then theoretically
speaking, given the following ideas that I believe are held by socionics theory:

1. Usage of the HA function allows the PoLR to be expressed.
2. Usage of the DS function allows the Role to be expressed.
3. More usage of the creative over the dominant leads to weaker HA and stronger DS by the axis of function duality.
4. More usage of the dominant over the creative leads to weaker DS and stronger HA by the axis of function duality.
5. Because the Demonstrative is on the axis of function duality with the PoLR, the demonstrative allows a person to
not have to give in when their PoLR is attacked.

Two subtypes

+Leading	=>Improved	+HA		+PoLR 			+Observing	
		=>Poorer 	-Role		-Dual_seeking		-Demonstrative
+Creative	=>Improved	+Role 		+Dual_seeking		+Demonstrative	
		=>Poorer 	-observing 	-PoLR			-HA

Then considering all the valued functions for subtypes

+Leading+HA 	=>Benefits of +Leading and focused HA (PoLR would be improved)
+Leading+DS	=>Benefits of +Leading and focused DS (Role would be improved)
+Creative+HA	=>Benefits of +Creative and focused HA (PoLR would be improved)
+Creative+DS	=>Benefits of +Creative and focused DS (Role would be improved)

Then ideally a person would want to be +Creative+HA to have the best function
strength because we could get theoretically the most balanced function usage,
while leaving the annoying focus of the observing function to be most
dismissed.

In other words, you get four subtypes of each type that a person can express

+Leading+HA 		=>	++HA	++PoLR 		+Observing	
(PoLR Protective)	=>	-Role	-Dual_seeking	-Demonstrative

+Leading+DS		=>	+HA	+PoLR 		+Observing	
(Semi-Actualized)	=>	Role	Dual_seeking	-Demonstrative

+Creative+HA		=>	+Role 	+Dual_seeking	+Demonstrative	
(Actualized)		=>	HA	PoLR		-observing 

+Creative+DS		=>	++Role 	++Dual_seeking	+Demonstrative	
(Comfort Protective)	=>	-HA	-observing 	-PoLR

I prefer this idea over the DCNH, even though it is somewhat conveniently and logically systematized. DCNH seems to imply that every type wants to be a dominant type to be actualized. I clearly don't at all agree with this.

Thoughts? Would anyone dare to suggest implications to Reinin Dichotomies from this?...cause I'm not sure how to do that and I think it would be more interesting.

[pianosinger]

Thanks. I am printing this up and am going to study it over the next few days. Will let you know my thoughts then

[pianosinger]

Question: According to this theory, then, do you think one can progress through the four subtypes? For instance, one might start out as being PoLR Protective, then move on to Comfort Protective, then Semi-Actualized, and finally Actualized?

So it would be somewhat akin to the Enneagram in that way, no?

[pianosinger]

Also, do you have any thoughts on what would be the best long-term intertype relationship to be in to encourage one to become "Actualized"?

[DividedsGhost]

Thanks. I am printing this up and am going to study it over the next few days. Will let you know my thoughts then

Lol, you don't need to do that. If you want to try this and see if you like it, just remember the idea. You just take the model A chart and apply a standard subtype. The subtype is the tree of functions that become strengthened and the other tree becomes weakened.

Then when you supply the id focus for the ego subtype function, that id function focused on becomes strengthened and its corresponding element above it (either role or PoLR) becomes reinforced and stronger. Or in the case of PoLR it becomes less of a weakness.

Remember with an ego function you must have an associated id function with it. My idea is that a person can have a greater focus on one valued ego function in conjunction with a greater focus on one valued id function with it.

Question: According to this theory, then, do you think one can progress through the four subtypes? For instance, one might start out as being PoLR Protective, then move on to Comfort Protective, then Semi-Actualized, and finally Actualized?

So it would be somewhat akin to the Enneagram in that way, no?

Yeah, it's similar to the enneagram in that my goal is to provide some way of allowing for different noticeable stages of a type. It's not suited for a progression though, but if you want to think of it in tiers, then tier 1 is semi-actualized and actualized and tier 2 would be comfort protective and PoLR Protective, where tier 2 will probably have more overall difficulty with inter-type relations and their duals. Enneagram would probably suit this idea quite well in providing a framework for how to get to tier 1 for a given type, assuming enneagram and socionics type are correctly applied. But more realistically, I think it would probably have most to do with age. An older person will have exercised and trained their values functions enough so that they can go into tier 1 and if done well enough the actualized type.

Also, do you have any thoughts on what would be the best long-term intertype relationship to be in to encourage one to become "Actualized"?

Sorry, this wasn't the goal of what I designed here. I don't think it should affect the relations, but might make them more pronounced depending on the subtype. My basis for actualized was based on an SLE I know and an LII professor I had this semester that both fit well into that subtype. If you look over the idea I think you will understand what I'm getting at here, but of course I don't expect everyone to agree with this. But it makes sense for me so far. So I don't think a particular relationship will help with this. In fact, a dual relationship could, in theory, keep someone back from developing somewhat since they reinforce similar behaviors and viewpoints. But then again if they are happy that way, who cares? I probably just lost you...

The only thing this might affect is the Reinin Dichotomies. If I feel like it, I will try to provide how that might change, if not for anyone else's curiosity, then at least my own.

[pianosinger]

So I don't think a particular relationship will help with this. In fact, a dual relationship could, in theory, keep someone back from developing somewhat since they reinforce similar behaviors and viewpoints. But then again if they are happy that way, who cares? I probably just lost you...

No, didn't lose me. I was actually thinking something along those lines myself, and wondered what you thought. But if you don't care to go too much into the realm of relations with this, I'm cool. Maybe I'll try to do it myself at some point, idk.

The only thing this might affect is the Reinin Dichotomies. If I feel like it, I will try to provide how that might change, if not for anyone else's curiosity, then at least my own.

I don't know enough myself to make any guesses about Reinin Dichotomies, but would certainly be interested in any finds made by others (like yourself).

[1981slater]

Great idea!

+Leading+HA => ++HA ++PoLR +Observing
(PoLR Protective) => -Role -Dual_seeking -Demonstrative

Yes! ! !

1) Do you think individuals at this "stage" (leading+HA) are the "strongest" or "healthiest" possible within a certain type?

2) What is the "goal" of a person? Arrive to a certain stage and stay there forever? Change your focus/active functions to adapt the external circumstances?

[redbaron]

1) Do you think individuals at this "stage" (leading+HA) are the "strongest" or "healthiest" possible within a certain type?

2) What is the "goal" of a person? Arrive to a certain stage and stay there forever? Change your focus/active functions to adapt the external circumstances?

good questions!

[Nexus]

I really like it but I think it applies more to behaviors than to subtypes...

Leading + DS = We're trying to come to a conclusion
Creating + HA = We're implementing a conclusion
Leading + HA = This is my responsibility
Creating + DS = This is your responsibility
Leading + Creating = I'm concluding
DS + HA = You're concluding

[DividedsGhost]

Great idea!





Yes! ! !

1) Do you think individuals at this "stage" (leading+HA) are the "strongest" or "healthiest" possible within a certain type?

2) What is the "goal" of a person? Arrive to a certain stage and stay there forever? Change your focus/active functions to adapt the external circumstances?

Oh, there is no intended goal. Maybe I should change the names since it probably suggests that. These were just to help explain noticeable differences between people of the same type and explain why they are different with a function model, rather than say someone just focuses on one function and that's it... I labeled the actualized/self-actualized because I figured they would be the most balanced and thus adaptable and accomplished like the SLE and LII I know. But that doesn't imply a person is supposed to be balanced. Whatever works for a person; this just helps differentiate, I think.

I really like it but I think it applies more to behaviors than to subtypes...

Leading + DS = We're trying to come to a conclusion
Creating + HA = We're implementing a conclusion
Leading + HA = This is my responsibility
Creating + DS = This is your responsibility
Leading + Creating = I'm concluding
DS + HA = You're concluding

I'm not sure I understand that, but it maybe you're right. Two questions for you: 'Are behaviors subtypes?' and 'Should they be?'. My answer is yes.

[Nexus]

I'm not sure I understand that, but it maybe you're right. Two questions for you: 'Are behaviors subtypes?' and 'Should they be?'. My answer is yes.

I prefer to think of a subtype, or even the concept of information metabolism as a whole, as a subset of behavior...for instance, feeling and sleeping are both forms of behavior...

[DividedsGhost]

I prefer to think of a subtype, or even the concept of information metabolism as a whole, as a subset of behavior...for instance, feeling and sleeping are both forms of behavior...

That's probably the most realistic way to look at it. But feeling and sleeping have components to them that are unconscious, right? So where do we draw the line between the choice we make and the environment we instinctively react to? Is this what information metabolism wishes to articulate and explain?

Maybe it's not a good idea to think of type as static and a subtype as dynamic, since the whole experience of life is dynamic. But if there is a line between conscious and unconscious, and I see no reason why there wouldn't be, should we not attempt to distinguish it? Perhaps it's impossible to distinguish it completely; but do we even have to distinguish it completely?

If you have a suggestion or you think you have a better way to model relations and type, please share. Or please share what aspects of Information Metabolism you don't think makes sense in the socionics model.

[Nexus]

I believe that consciousness is a behavior that brings attention (another behavior) to behaviors that would be otherwise unattended, like feedback loops...when you are unconscious you might step too far and stumble because there is nothing watching the feedback of the stepping action returning to the sensory systems (however heavily regulated, or conscious) in order to oppose it...