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

[Nico1e]

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.)

[Pa3s]

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

[Nowisthetime]

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.

[tcaudilllg]

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

[mu4]

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.

[rat1]

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.

[krieger]

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.