Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Why can't there be subtypes that 'emphasize' non-ego functions?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    State College, PA, USA
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    837
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Why can't there be subtypes that 'emphasize' non-ego functions?

    I don't use subtypes (yet). But if you can have for instance a SLI-Te or a SLI-Si, then why couldn't you have a SLI that 'emphasized' or 'used more often' some non-ego function, like a SLI that 'used' lots and lots of Ni-role or Fe-vulnerable? Or a SLI that 'used' lots and lots of Ti-demonstrative? So that would be a SLI-Ni, SLI-Fe, SLI-Ti, etc.

    This question is just sort of for entertainment only - I won't be able to argue much about it, it's just something I thought of. If you're able to notice or observe that somebody emphasizes one ego function a lot, it seems that you should also be able to observe that they use or emphasize other functions a lot, too.

    Instead of using subtypes, I just broaden my concept of what that type is like. A SLI-Te and a SLI-Si are just another type of SLI.

    (I don't use subtypes mostly because I'm still a fan of somebody else who doesn't use them, who shall remain nameless. But also I feel that they can sometimes distract people from somebody's true type - a 'SLI-Te' might actually turn out to be an LSE, for instance. So I'm not advocating that we *should* start emphasizing all the other functions too, like somebody using the role function a lot more than average, or whatever - it will just add more confusion.)

  2. #2
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,648
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There are subtypes like that actually. The different subtype systems are connected to each other in a hierarchy, the 2-subtype system is the most basic of all of them. The DCNH system follows after that, it has 4 subtypes. And then, the IE-subtype system (8 subtypes) and the dual-type (16 subtypes) system are left.

    Here is the subtype hierarchy of an INTj for example (I posted this in other threads already)
     

    .................................................. INTj-ENTj
    ...................................Te-INTj
    .................................................. INTj-ESTj
    ................... D-INTj
    .................................................. INTj-ENFj
    ...................................Fe-INTj
    .................................................. INTj-ESFj
    ........ Ti-INTj
    .................................................. INTj-INTj
    ...................................Ti-INTj
    .................................................. INTj-ISTj
    ................... N-INTj
    .................................................. INTj-INFj
    ...................................Fi-INTj
    .................................................. INTj-ISFj
    INTj -
    .................................................. INTj-ENTp
    ...................................Ne-INTj
    .................................................. INTj-ENFp
    ................... C-INTj
    .................................................. INTj-ESTp
    ...................................Se-INTj
    .................................................. INTj-ESFp
    ........ Ne-INTj
    .................................................. INTj-INTp
    ...................................Ni-INTj
    .................................................. INTj-INFp
    ................... H-INTj
    .................................................. INTj-ISTp
    ...................................Si-INTj
    .................................................. INTj-ISFp
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  3. #3
    "Information without energy is useless" Nowisthetime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    near Russia
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,025
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nico1e View Post
    I don't use subtypes (yet). But if you can have for instance a SLI-Te or a SLI-Si, then why couldn't you have a SLI that 'emphasized' or 'used more often' some non-ego function, like a SLI that 'used' lots and lots of Ni-role or Fe-vulnerable? Or a SLI that 'used' lots and lots of Ti-demonstrative? So that would be a SLI-Ni, SLI-Fe, SLI-Ti, etc.
    So you have missed the DCNH system entirely. It can be expanded to 8 subtypes. Works very well.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Gulenko can't back up that dual-types extend from DCNH.

  5. #5
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    There are, but they're a bit harder to observe. I use DCNH sometimes to describe people and can use a 16 subtype system. However, at this point in socionics. Making a precise assessment of something that imo relatively imprecise makes the assessment likely to be wrong. I think it is something that can be done after only assessing the individual ingroup behavior of a number of identical in the same setting.

    I think also in a 16 type subtype system, subtype across the static/dynamic divide may simply be dysfunction.

    I think subtyping probably need more analysis and observation.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,934
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There can be they (these new subtypes) just havent been developed yet. Farthest it's gone is DHCN. And no, dual type is not the same thing as subtype.

  7. #7
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    the real issue with all this is in the epistemics... if there isn't even basic agreement on what the types constitute, how can you even begin to talk about further subdivisions within them. like i've been telling people, type with LESS precision than 16 types, not more.

Posting Permissions

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