Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 57

Thread: Subtypes: Do They Exist?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default Subtypes: Do They Exist?

    I'm beginning to think that they don't exist anymore and that they're an over analysis of something that is too complex that will result in a gross miscalculation based on ideas that are created with misused evidence. In reality instead of subtypes existing, I have another idea. That people of all types go through "modes" where they happen to be using a specific function more than the other. For instance take an ILI that is going through mode will appear to be more structured and pragmatic at that "moment". An ILI going through mode will appear to be more laid back and strange.

    This is basically the type using the function that they feel at that moment is most suitable. That being in the wrong function mode would be inappropriate or make things difficult. Subtypes can clearly be interpreted then as someone having a preference to use a certain type of function mode more often than the other one. However, the problem I have with them is they give you a false impression that subtypes are a deeper way of separating individuals of the same time, when they are not.

    It is a highly superfluous way to separate people of the same type because the mode that an individual is more likely to engage in does not actually indicate what kind of person they are beyond their standard personality type. My main point isn't that subtypes don't exist. They may exist if you interpret them to exist in that form, you can interpret subtypes to be merely "modes" that a type is going through at a specific moment. This is simply because in the end, most people switch between both of their subtypes depending on who they are dealing with, what kind of situation they're in or the type of mood they are in. Also people may act like a specific subtype for one day and then act like the other subtype for another day.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  2. #2
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traveler
    However, the problem I have with them is they give you a false impression that subtypes are a deeper way of separating individuals of the same time, when they are not.
    Yeah see, this is exactly how I envision subtypes to be: subdivisions of each main type.

    From what I've observed, subtype is more than just a "mode" that people can phase through. Subtype seems like a pretty clearly static and conscious bent towards one IE over another. You seem to think of subtype as something that's more fluid than it probably really is. I've known ENTps who are regularly more Ne bent, and ENTps who are much more overtly Ti focused. If what people called "subtype" was something transient, then I'd also have a big issue with it since there'd be no way of really categorizing it. But if you keep subtype static, then it's much more easy to document it and keep track of what you're actually looking at.

    also lol @ INTp Ni coming off as "strange."

  3. #3
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Traveler
    However, the problem I have with them is they give you a false impression that subtypes are a deeper way of separating individuals of the same time, when they are not.
    Yeah see, this is exactly how I envision subtypes to be: subdivisions of each main type.

    From what I've observed, subtype is more than just a "mode" that people can phase through. Subtype seems like a pretty clearly static and conscious bent towards one IE over another. You seem to think of subtype as something that's more fluid than it probably really is. I've known ENTps who are regularly more Ne bent, and ENTps who are much more overtly Ti focused. If what people called "subtype" was something transient, then I'd also have a big issue with it since there'd be no way of really categorizing it. But if you keep subtype static, then it's much more easy to document it and keep track of what you're actually looking at.

    also lol @ INTp Ni coming off as "strange."
    Funny, since you claim Jungian roots, and the man himself said that ALL of the psychological type was "not static," verbatim.
    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...

  4. #4
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    People have done crazier things.

  5. #5
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    Funny, since you claim Jungian roots, and the man himself said that ALL of the psychological type was "not static," verbatim.
    Yeah, that was weird of him.

  6. #6
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Of all the things that Carl Jung ever said, that, I think, is not in a higher percentile.
    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...

  7. #7
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,778
    Mentioned
    109 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traveler View Post
    I'm beginning to think that they don't exist anymore and that they're an over analysis of something that is too complex that will result in a gross miscalculation based on ideas that are created with misused evidence.
    This is such an IEE thing to say
    “I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking

  8. #8

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Subtypes ... Do they exist?

    Hey guys, I was wondering what everyone's opinions on subtypes were...does everyone agree that they exist? Are they accepted by mainstream socionics? Could it just be people's different social situations, upbringing, that make them act in a different way within type? Do you like pudding? etc. etc.

  9. #9
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    it is my own opinion that most people don't benefit from narrowing down typings further from 16 types. most people are even best off typing less narrowly than 16 types (for example, type people as ExFj).

  10. #10
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,034
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Subtypes will become useful only in a community where everyone's regular type is agreed upon almost unanimously. Otherwise it's affects are negligible, and energy is much better spent diagnosing/GatheringEvidenceFor regular type.

    However there is much material in the Russian literature that mentions small hints about behaviors displayed by subtypes in the 2 subtype system. For someone who has an extensive list of many of the same type, attaching accepting/producing subtypes shouldn't be too difficult (when compared to DCNH etc.)
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  11. #11
    an object in motion woofwoofl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern Arizona
    TIM
    x s x p s p s x
    Posts
    2,111
    Mentioned
    329 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sure!

    Subtypes are either Accepting or Producing; all Accepting functions of a person will be either Perceiving or Judging, and all Producing functions of that particular person will be the remaining one out of the two, so I keep that in mind while weighing a person against the average of their specific type to get the subtype. Suggestive and Mobilizing functions are good to look at, in addition to the stuff in the Ego block...

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    it is my own opinion that most people don't benefit from narrowing down typings further from 16 types. most people are even best off typing less narrowly than 16 types (for example, type people as ExFj).
    Yes on this too

    I go on a case-by-case basis; some people will fall within a narrow bandwidth typewise, other people will cover more ground, and each specific person will do so in a different way, no matter how subtle. Some people are heavily dualized, some people have a strong access to their Role function, some people use what's in their Id block... hell, with the thing I did in the typing sheet thread with the math and all, I think I used my Polr without falling square on my ass somehow...

    On the issue of the typing sheet, you'll see cases in which it was easier for me to see subtype than to pinpoint a specific type itself, I've got a few "Se/Ni Jx-xxFp"s and stuff like that...
    p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
    trad metalz | (more coming)

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labocat View Post
    it is my own opinion that most people don't benefit from narrowing down typings further from 16 types. most people are even best off typing less narrowly than 16 types (for example, type people as ExFj).
    But you would agree that to a psychologist, nothing less than the best possible accuracy suffices?

  13. #13
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,026
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sar View Post
    Do you like pudding? etc. etc.
    Troll alert!


  14. #14

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "Troll Alert!" ...jeez are you like eight or something?

  15. #15
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,645
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    someone hit the trap button.

  16. #16
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    From my extensive observation and study of the subject, I am satisfactorily convinced that subtypes do in fact exist. From what I can tell, they're part of what Jung called the "Persona", the image of yourself that you project to the world.

    When one has accumulated enough experience identifying sociotypes, one begins to notice that there are differences in behaviour between various people of the same type. Upon close observation, the behavioural differences can be reliably divided into groups. Some people are satisfied to divide members of each type into two groups, others further divide those two in half to make four, and so on up to sixteen.

    Based on what I've seen, it's my opinion that subtype is a full second type which exists in the Persona. It develops in childhood when the person discovers that his normal mode of behaviour, springing from his unmodified base type, produces unfavourable results. An Alpha child with Delta parents, for example, may develop a Delta "mask" or persona that he wears in an effort to get a favourable response from them. When the child grows up, these behavioural patterns become ingrained, as the person's habitual method of interacting with the world.
    Quaero Veritas.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Isn't the persona essentially b.s. thought?
    Also, do you think it's maybe possible that people's unique experiences and society around them are to blame for the differences in their behavior within a type?

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    From my extensive observation and study of the subject, I am satisfactorily convinced that subtypes do in fact exist. From what I can tell, they're part of what Jung called the "Persona", the image of yourself that you project to the world.

    When one has accumulated enough experience identifying sociotypes, one begins to notice that there are differences in behaviour between various people of the same type. Upon close observation, the behavioural differences can be reliably divided into groups. Some people are satisfied to divide members of each type into two groups, others further divide those two in half to make four, and so on up to sixteen.

    Based on what I've seen, it's my opinion that subtype is a full second type which exists in the Persona. It develops in childhood when the person discovers that his normal mode of behaviour, springing from his unmodified base type, produces unfavourable results. An Alpha child with Delta parents, for example, may develop a Delta "mask" or persona that he wears in an effort to get a favourable response from them. When the child grows up, these behavioural patterns become ingrained, as the person's habitual method of interacting with the world.
    Now people will be even more confused.

    I see it really simply. There are two types and a subtype. Each of these three systems is part of what makes you up. All three are created from a combination of social pressures and biological factors. Biological aptitude gives competitive results. No one wants to be a loser, so they adopt the behavioral patterns associated with their "type".

  19. #19
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,026
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sar View Post
    "Troll Alert!" ...jeez are you like eight or something?
    "Do you like pudding?" do you take us for clowns or what?


  20. #20

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I mean...look at your f*cking icon.

  21. #21
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    even if the subtypes existed (which they probably don't) it doesn't make a difference because you can't use them. 16 type typings are already too complex for anyone to handle, as demonstrated by the extreme amount of controversy arising from EVERY SINGLE typing debate.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    nicely said labcoat. my thoughts exactly

  23. #23
    "Information without energy is useless" Nowisthetime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    near Russia
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,022
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    even if the subtypes existed (which they probably don't) it doesn't make a difference because you can't use them. 16 type typings are already too complex for anyone to handle, as demonstrated by the extreme amount of controversy arising from EVERY SINGLE typing debate.
    But we are typing on an internet forum based on text and videos so controversy should be expected. This is far from the best environment for typing people.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    Post(s)
    Tagged
    Thread(s)

    Default

    All of you kids. All of you kids can just shut the fuck up. You don't know shit about psychology. You hear me? You don't know shit! Back in my day we didn't just log on to some fucking computer and write whatever garbage came to mind! No! - we fucking meditated on hard-ass fucking rocks in a field somewhere until the lipids in our muscles collected so densely they had to move into our brains because there was no fucking room! And then when they did, we had fucking hallucinations of Buddha and Jesus and fuckers like that! You hear me?? We talked to mother fucking Buddha! And here, you all think you can just read some bull shit on the internet and call yourselves geniuses! Well fuck you, and fuck your subtypes. And fuck Aushra for ruining my theory. That bitch has nothing on me. Your either a fucking extraverted Intuitive with a little God damned bit of introverterd thinking, or your not! Fucking simple as that. And if you think different then you can go fuck yourself, have a fucking conversation with Buddha, Socrates, and Aristotle and then get back to me you little fuckers.

  25. #25
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Jung View Post
    All of you kids. All of you kids can just shut the fuck up. You don't know shit about psychology. You hear me? You don't know shit! Back in my day we didn't just log on to some fucking computer and write whatever garbage came to mind! No! - we fucking meditated on hard-ass fucking rocks in a field somewhere until the lipids in our muscles collected so densely they had to move into our brains because there was no fucking room! And then when they did, we had fucking hallucinations of Buddha and Jesus and fuckers like that! You hear me?? We talked to mother fucking Buddha! And here, you all think you can just read some bull shit on the internet and call yourselves geniuses! Well fuck you, and fuck your subtypes. And fuck Aushra for ruining my theory. That bitch has nothing on me. Your either a fucking extraverted Intuitive with a little God damned bit of introverterd thinking, or your not! Fucking simple as that. And if you think different then you can go fuck yourself, have a fucking conversation with Buddha, Socrates, and Aristotle and then get back to me you little fuckers.
    Fuck yeah, that's what I'm talking about!

    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  26. #26
    DaftPunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Alps
    TIM
    SiTe 6w5 sp/so
    Posts
    725
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Do subtypes make sense?

    I had a short PM conversation with a forum member I won't name because it was via PM. Obviously this person is invited to bring himself/herself in.

    The point was that subtypes (e.g. Ni-ILI,Ne-ILI) are not deducible from Model A. From a Model A point of view there's no reason for subtypes but I also don't see something that rules them out.

    From a Jungian POV they make IMO sense.
    Jung writes in his chapter x about archetypes who are rare in real life (e.g the extroverted thinking type, the introverted feeling type etc.). He also writes that normally an individual develops a second function who must be either perceiving if the individual is a rational type or judging if the individual is a irrational type but it's left out if it this second function has to be introverted or extroverted. IMO it makes sense that Augusta and Myers Briggs thought that the second function has to be introverted when the main is extroverted and extroverted when the main is introverted. But I think that there are exeptions. Anyway I am derailing. I interpret Jung in the way that the second function varies a lot from strenght and the weaker the second function is the closer is an individual to the Jungian archetype.

    Therefore subtypes make a lot of sense according to Jung. Even though they're not deductible from Model A they don't clash with it too and that makes them at least for me valuable in Socionics.

    I know it's kind of obvious what I wrote but I'd like to hear your opinions about subtypes.

  27. #27
    &papu silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,077
    Mentioned
    456 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Experientially subtypes make sense, but I would agree that there doesn't seem to be anything within Model A that would explain how 'accentuation' of functions occurs, which is a prerequisite for existence of subtypes.

  28. #28
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,372
    Mentioned
    112 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I can make almost anything make sense to me. Just strip out that which is contradictory.

    I cant fathom how a concept would be deductibly provable or why thats necassary.
    Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

  29. #29
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I never use subtypes because they complicate everything, adding a byzantine dimension to what should be a simple theory. That, and I find people using subtypes to justify typings that don't make sense: "so and so isn't a typical LIE because of this or that subtype", etc.

  30. #30
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My typing system is premised on the notion that types are information processing mechanisms which interact with more basic - genetic and socially conditioned - personalities. Subtypes are an attempt to attach functions to things that are outside their scope.


    That said, subtyping systems like DCNH are useful as a way of filtering out non-type related factors, allowing for more rigorous typings. E.g. Extreme curiosity isn't necessarily an IxE trait (it's a C subtype trait) even if there's a slight correlation => look for other clues. Enneagram is also useful to the same end.
    Last edited by xerx; 12-15-2013 at 07:29 AM.

  31. #31
    nefnaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    207
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I interpret subtypes in terms of the balance between the creative and mobilizing functions.

    In Creative subtypes, the balance is heavily tilted towards the creative function. These types are totally unable to neglect their creative function, but they are less obviously influenced by the HA.

    Inert subtypes OTOH have creative and mobilizing functions that are about equally prominent. Si-SEIs for example are characteristically unemotional and reserved ( and about equally pronounced). Ne-ILEs are far more sociable and warm / friendly (strong ) than their creative-subtype identicals.

  32. #32
    DaftPunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Alps
    TIM
    SiTe 6w5 sp/so
    Posts
    725
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    I never use subtypes because they complicate everything, adding a byzantine dimension to what should be a simple theory. That, and I find people using subtypes to justify typings that don't make sense: "so and so isn't a typical LIE because of this or that subtype", etc.
    You could be right that subtypes bring more harm(justifying misstypes) than help.

    Quote Originally Posted by nefnaf View Post
    I interpret subtypes in terms of the balance between the creative and mobilizing functions.

    In Creative subtypes, the balance is heavily tilted towards the creative function. These types are totally unable to neglect their creative function, but they are less obviously influenced by the HA.

    Inert subtypes OTOH have creative and mobilizing functions that are about equally prominent. Si-SEIs for example are characteristically unemotional and reserved ( and about equally pronounced). Ne-ILEs are far more sociable and warm / friendly (strong ) than their creative-subtype identicals.
    by strong you mean demonstrated?

    According to your system it becomes almost impossible to make a difference between a Ne-LII and a Ti-ILE. A weaker HA is similar to the suggestive IE

    Edit: what doesn't mean it's unvaluable

  33. #33
    nefnaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    207
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaftPunk View Post
    by strong you mean demonstrated?

    According to your system it becomes almost impossible to make a difference between a Ne-LII and a Ti-ILE. A weaker HA is similar to the suggestive IE
    Funny you should mention that, my brother is a Ti-ILE while I am a Ne-LII. The most obvious difference is that he is an extrovert while I am an introvert. There is a reason those were the two most basic types identified by Jung.

    There are plenty of ways to tell mirror types apart. They would have different base functions, different temperaments, and would be different on 6 / 11 Reinin dichotomies (although the only one of these I've actually had success using is positivst / negativist).

  34. #34
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,174
    Mentioned
    759 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaftPunk View Post
    You could be right that subtypes bring more harm(justifying misstypes) than help.



    by strong you mean demonstrated?

    According to your system it becomes almost impossible to make a difference between a Ne-LII and a Ti-ILE. A weaker HA is similar to the suggestive IE

    Edit: what doesn't mean it's unvaluable
    I think once someone really understand people they shouldn't mix up mirrors. They're actually very different in many ways.

    Mirrors have opposing temperaments which make this a fairly easy analysis.

  35. #35
    DaftPunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Alps
    TIM
    SiTe 6w5 sp/so
    Posts
    725
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nefnaf View Post
    Funny you should mention that, my brother is a Ti-ILE while I am a Ne-LII. The most obvious difference is that he is an extrovert while I am an introvert. There is a reason those were the two most basic types identified by Jung.

    There are plenty of ways to tell mirror types apart. They would have different base functions, different temperaments, and would be different on 6 / 11 Reinin dichotomies (although the only one of these I've actually had success using is positivst / negativist).
    why were these the two most basic types? tell me the story
    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    I think once someone really understand people they shouldn't mix up mirrors. They're actually very different in many ways.

    Mirrors have opposing temperaments which make this a fairly easy analysis.
    Concerning other persons I don't have problems to tell mirrors appart but I lack somehow the introspection to decide my own temparament. Concerning temparaments I know this source http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...8-Temperaments has someone something better?

  36. #36
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    26,935
    Mentioned
    699 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    No they don't. I've never in my life seen or heard of an EII Fi or Ne subtype....they are made up to include such individuals as SEE but really going with EII Ne or SEI but I think EII Ne fits as close as I can get it...BS. There's no such thing as a subtype. There are a katrillion degrees and combination of functional development in all degrees for example EII with extreme Fi and a side of shake and fries to go with that...oh sorry, wth am I doing. I mean yes there can be Functional development with different life experiences but that does not change a person's type nor does it give them a subtype.
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  37. #37
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    7,019
    Mentioned
    422 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I used to think that there have to be subtypes in order to account for the differences among people of the same type, but I am now inclined to believe that enneagram types make of many of these differences.

    That being said, I still believe that subtypes exist, but then everybody says I am Fi subtype while I believe I am Ne subtype, so what do I know?
    “Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
    ― Anais Nin

  38. #38
    DaftPunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Alps
    TIM
    SiTe 6w5 sp/so
    Posts
    725
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim View Post
    I used to think that there have to be subtypes in order to account for the differences among people of the same type, but I am now inclined to believe that enneagram types make of many of these differences.

    That being said, I still believe that subtypes exist, but then everybody says I am Fi subtype while I believe I am Ne subtype, so what do I know?
    Subtypes are anyway a scale and maybe even not static like @hkkmr said so it also makes sense when you're in the middle of the scale and don't relate to a certain subtype.

  39. #39
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    East of the sun, west of the moon
    TIM
    SLI 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,706
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim View Post
    That being said, I still believe that subtypes exist, but then everybody says I am Fi subtype while I believe I am Ne subtype, so what do I know?
    This is the fallacious reasoning that is deeply rooted in socionics and other personality theories. One regards abstract thought constructs as things of substance and starts forming beliefs around them. The thought process of an individual fiddling with personality theories becomes very similar to that of a religious critic trying to prove or disprove the existence of a deity. That being said, Socionics subtypes exist as much as main Socionics types exist. They exist as abstract theoretically defined construct extensions deduced from abstract psychological models (Model A, etc) and as nothing else.
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  40. #40
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,174
    Mentioned
    759 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    The better question to me is not whether or not subtypes make sense(they make sense), but whether or not subtype changes. There's no real reason for a subtype to remain static.

    If there is somehow a static subtype based on preference mechanism than subtype will have more meaning than the empirical subtyping that occurs today.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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