Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: How to socionics type subtypes affect functions?

  1. #1

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

    Default How to socionics type subtypes affect functions?

    Basically, if I'm IEI and my leading function is supposed to be Ni, does that "change" if I happen to be an Fe-subtype? or not? ...thanks in advance.

    If it does, that means I would focus most of my energy on Fe...but Fe is mainly if not always used when other people are around...what if I'm alone? confused...
    Last edited by sar; 08-15-2011 at 07:23 AM.

  2. #2

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

    Default

    I just found this:

    "People use their creative function less than their base function and attach less personal significance to it, although due to the nature of blocked functions it is usually used in tandem with the base function. In their value system, their creative function activities seem less personally significant than their base function activities. When other people try to make this function the main criterion for everything, light irritation can arise"

    Is this valid?

  3. #3
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,449
    Mentioned
    203 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    From my perspective, subtype definitely affects how functions are valued. Anything else would just make subtype an unnecessary delineation. I personally have always identified more with Fi modes of thought, which is why I mistyped myself as INFj when I first got into it.

    Quote Originally Posted by sar View Post
    I just found this:

    "People use their creative function less than their base function and attach less personal significance to it, although due to the nature of blocked functions it is usually used in tandem with the base function. In their value system, their creative function activities seem less personally significant than their base function activities. When other people try to make this function the main criterion for everything, light irritation can arise"

    Is this valid?
    Where did you find it? I've never been particularly perturbed by people making Fi their primary mean of understanding, although I have been known to be annoyed when people place too much importance on abstract Ne musings and tangent off of them. Seems probable that a creative subtype would have what would normally be considered their creative IE as their base, and vice versa with their base treated as the creative in terms of overall importance.
    "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." -Roald Dahl

    http://forum.socionix.com/
    It's pretty cool

  4. #4

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

    Default

    I found it on wikisocion. I've been investigating subtypes in the past couple of days and I must say, I've run into several suspicious/conflicting ideas on it. Also stuff like : "Yet other individuals may not be clearly of either subtype, and hence of no subtype or a "split" subtype. " (also on wikisocion) gets me to go ...also, the fact that intertype relations would change if subtypes were to be true makes me a bit skeptical...i.r. have always been pretty damn accurate to me. In addition to this, if people put more value on one function over, then what's the point of having a "Base" function, or rather, why call it that? these are the questions that I ponder...

  5. #5
    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 sar View Post
    I found it on wikisocion. I've been investigating subtypes in the past couple of days and I must say, I've run into several suspicious/conflicting ideas on it. Also stuff like : "Yet other individuals may not be clearly of either subtype, and hence of no subtype or a "split" subtype. " (also on wikisocion) gets me to go ...also, the fact that intertype relations would change if subtypes were to be true makes me a bit skeptical...i.r. have always been pretty damn accurate to me. In addition to this, if people put more value on one function over, then what's the point of having a "Base" function, or rather, why call it that? these are the questions that I ponder...
    oke here are some answers.

    conflicting ideas arise because people use several subtype systems. So far the 2 subtype system is most easely defendable because it's clearly visible in behaviour, BUT as you get to know more persons of a single type, you'll notice that even those 2 subtypes can be further divided. So therefor sometimes people say he's mixed subtype or DHCN etc. Just because they have never before seen that particular subtype. Though every person fits into one of the 2 subtypes. Mixed is a wrong solution for the fact that there are probably around 4 accepting subtypes and 4 producing subtypes.

    Subtypes just make very subtle changes to relationships. Almost unnoticable, so don't worry to much about it.

    The base function is always an accepting function (seeing) and the second function always a producing (doing) function. That doesn't change, but people are sometimes more seeing, and others are more doing. That's it.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    252
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think they do. Maybe this thread will help you. What Crazedrat talks about is the basis for my subtype diagnosis. I tend to communicate Fi type information and my Te is observational.
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=36463

  7. #7

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

    Default

    Oh! Also, if the an iei subtype DOES place greater importance on one function (say fe) than the other (ni) then, what distinguishes them from an ENFj whose base function is fe and whose creative is ni? Or is it simply that the fe-iei wouldn't place greater importance on fe than his ni, but would just outwardly use it more than the other subtype? Sooo many questions...

  8. #8
    silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    TIM
    Ni-IEI sx/sp
    Posts
    3,805
    Mentioned
    317 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sar View Post
    In their value system, their creative function activities seem less personally significant than their base function activities. When other people try to make this function the main criterion for everything, light irritation can arise"

    Is this valid?
    There is a theory that mirror partners will correct each other via creative functions, as they each feel that the all-encompasing focus of the base function of their mirror is not quite right somehow. Same runs for supervision. I'd say this holds.

    Quote Originally Posted by sar View Post
    ... if the an iei subtype DOES place greater importance on one function (say fe) than the other (ni) then, what distinguishes them from an ENFj ...
    According to model A it is not difference in strength - it is difference in roles, thus you cannot have Fe-IEIs just slowly molding into EIEs at some point. Creative function has different application than leading one, which is explained here.

    Quote Originally Posted by sar View Post
    ...but Fe is mainly if not always used when other people are around...what if I'm alone?
    Good question. A common line of reasoning runs that feeling functions are not applied just to other individuals, but that they color your general perception of what's around you, and that from this arises the desire to anthropomorphize one's environment.

  9. #9

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

    Default

    siuntal, thanks for responding.

    "According to model A it is not difference in strength - it is difference in roles, thus you cannot have Fe-IEIs just slowly molding into EIEs at some point. Creative function has different application than leading one, which is explained here."

    so, are you basically saying that just because your ni-subtype and i'm fe-subtype, your ni isn't more powerful than mine, and that my fe isnt more powerful than yours...it's just that you tend to put more emphasis on your ni and I on my fe? Is that right?

  10. #10
    silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    TIM
    Ni-IEI sx/sp
    Posts
    3,805
    Mentioned
    317 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sar View Post
    so, are you basically saying that just because your ni-subtype and i'm fe-subtype, your ni isn't more powerful than mine, and that my fe isnt more powerful than yours...it's just that you tend to put more emphasis on your ni and I on my fe? Is that right?
    yes placing more emphasis on some element doesn't mean you'll be more "powerful" in it or somehow extra-skilled with its use. If you're Fe-IEI then your perception will be more strongly affected by Fe and Se elements than for a Ni-IEI.

  11. #11
    sindri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI - Ni
    Posts
    195
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default How does being a creative subtype affect function hierarchy?

    How does being a creative subtype, or highly using your second creative function, effect the strength of your other functions.

    Specifically:
    >will it allow you to block your creative and role function when meeting new people and appear more like your supervisee?
    >will you ignore your demonstrative function more while using more of you ignoring function?
    >what exactly happens with your base function. Is it repressed to the extent your creative function is accelerated?

    I am asking as an IEI-Ni subtype because one of my best friends is easily the most Fe IEI-Fe subtype I have ever met. We think eerily the same way but act very different.

    She was seriously wondering if she had asperger's syndrome, which I thought was hilarious because of how gregarious she is, but then I started wondering if having such a big Fe would retard your Fi connections, making it harder to understand how you feel, making it hard to truly connect and making relationships seem superficial and turbulent. What do you guys think?

  12. #12
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,624
    Mentioned
    634 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    i think there are different opinions but i like the inert/contact theory.

    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...rt_and_contact

    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-Club-Subtypes

  13. #13
    sindri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI - Ni
    Posts
    195
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is wonderful, just what I need I think. It will take me a little time to process.

    Quick question, in the second link, it describes my type as:
    Ni-IEI-NT (abstract)
    What is the "NT" mean? Is that referring to the researcher club? Or my inert Ni and Te function in my ego and super-ego?

  14. #14
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    2 subtype theory doesn't affect other functions ime, just the ego functions. Fe-INFps are like spacey Fe doms, Ne-INFjs like spacey Ne doms, etc.

    Other function use depends more on the individual and which functions help their upbringing, ie. an ENTp with a supervisor father will develop their Fe more, an INTj around a dual mother will develop their Fe more, etc.

  15. #15
    strangeling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,705
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Purely theoretically (or conceptually), it makes you balanced on introversion/extroversion; this means you put less focus on your leading function and that means you will have less of a link to your unconscious counterpart (the suggestive function); and the weaker the leading function, the less neurotically linked it is to the unconscious. But it also would then mean your creative function would have more of a neurotic link to your Mobilizing function because you use it more.

    Because of this, I believe most socionics descriptions refer to creative types. I've even seen someone suggest dimensionality to Model A that asserts almost equal usage of the leading and creative function, which would further support this. I actually think in light of this that socionics is a valid theoretical extension of Jung because it focuses on two functions, leading and creative, whereas Jung was mostly concerned with the leading. It also makes sense for why there would be a two subtype system to account for this difference.

    My view on the ID in socionics is that it doesn't get internal guidance from the superego and because of this it isn't something someone ends up being all that serious about; it kind of makes sense I guess if you think about someone going to another culture and not really knowing anything about that culture, but trying to blend in; they know their understanding is limited so they are somewhat flexible in how they interpret things and interact, letting external influences change and direct them. I think hkkmr has talked about this sort of thing, wherein someone uses criticism of their PoLR for guidance. The superego needs external input to guide the ID. This is also the difference, I think, between valued and unvalued functions. Valued functions seek input on their own; for example, an ILI uses Se to guide their Ni. Unvalued functions don't seek input on their own; for example, an INFj has demonstrative Ni, but unless they have Se forced upon them, their introverted intuitions are going to have almost no context from which to be based upon. I think this is partly why benefit relations work well too because one person supplies a contextually appropriate function for the other's demonstrative.

    /Alright...

  16. #16
    carrina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    wv
    TIM
    SEE sx sp (8)46
    Posts
    347
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sar View Post
    I found it on wikisocion. I've been investigating subtypes in the past couple of days and I must say, I've run into several suspicious/conflicting ideas on it. Also stuff like : "Yet other individuals may not be clearly of either subtype, and hence of no subtype or a "split" subtype. " (also on wikisocion) gets me to go ...also, the fact that intertype relations would change if subtypes were to be true makes me a bit skeptical...i.r. have always been pretty damn accurate to me. In addition to this, if people put more value on one function over, then what's the point of having a "Base" function, or rather, why call it that? these are the questions that I ponder...
    jthis will def have to be translated http://socionics.kiev.ua/articles/types/sysdcnh/

  17. #17
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,472
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carrina View Post
    jthis will def have to be translated http://socionics.kiev.ua/articles/types/sysdcnh/
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-DCNH-Subtypes

    by yours truly
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  18. #18
    carrina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    wv
    TIM
    SEE sx sp (8)46
    Posts
    347
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    why thank you good sir

  19. #19
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    No. Your focus is always Ni when you're Ni base...that's how this works

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here is how I think of subtype (just a reiteration of what I've posted before). In any irrational type, there's two possibilities. One is that the individual is very irrationally oriented and one is that they are more rationally oriented. The rational subtype leads to a strengthening of both the rational IE in ego block and the opposite IE to the base. You can see this as, for instance with IEI, that if you're Fe-subtype, it's less important for your psychological priorities to suppress sensation for intuition, and you gain the potential to employ sensation together with ethics.

    I find this easy to illustrate with logical types. If you have a Ni-base, Te secondary, sensation is less suppressed in the type when employing logical thought than intuition, and indeed, often it is necessary to ask precise and detailed sensory questions while thinking, even if the overall focus is more intuitive. That is, a general logical thought focus is not as injurious, generally, to using key sensation as support. Thus, the T-subtype gains potential to use S.

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
  •