Subtype Poll + New Perspective(?)

[EyeSeeCold]

Although there are several subtype theories out there, nowhere is it clarified whether subtype is static or situational, the latter due to accentuation and environmental demands.


So, which is it?

[munenori2]

My opinion would be that subtypes are slightly more dynamic and situational. I do think there are stable personal preferences between the ego functions, but it wouldn't surprise me if, even as general tendencies that hold over long duration, they could shift as a result of a fundamental change in someone's personal belief system.

[Galen]

The only relevant subtype system would have to be something static and regularly observable/interpretable in some fashion. If it were merely a situational element then there'd be no real way of verifying its existence, since which exact situations where the subtype element would be wide open to massive interpretation. It would allow people to simply find any old pattern they wanted in a person's behavior and slap the name of 'subtype' on it.

[munenori2]

If being open to massive interpretation is a deadly theoretical sin, not much about socionics would survive.

[Azeroffs]

The only relevant subtype system would have to be something static and regularly observable/interpretable in some fashion. If it were merely a situational element then there'd be no real way of verifying its existence, since which exact situations where the subtype element would be wide open to massive interpretation. It would allow people to simply find any old pattern they wanted in a person's behavior and slap the name of 'subtype' on it.

agreed.

That said, I don't think subtypes have much significance assuming they even exist.
Relying on subtypes to explain behavior implies overlooking the effects of the environment or other non-socionic factors on people, imo.

[EyeSeeCold]

The only relevant subtype system would have to be something static and regularly observable/interpretable in some fashion. If it were merely a situational element then there'd be no real way of verifying its existence, since which exact situations where the subtype element would be wide open to massive interpretation. It would allow people to simply find any old pattern they wanted in a person's behavior and slap the name of 'subtype' on it.

Part of my reasoning, as well. In a situational subtype system, behaviorist descriptions of tendencies(such as the ones in DCNH or Accepting/Producing made by a few Socionists) would not be feasible.

As of late, I'm considering that "subtype", which differentiates within a type, is something static that includes and is bonded by I/E, DCNH and Accepting/Producing.

For example:
Fe-ESE, DC, Extravert, Fe-Se; "ESE, Beta subtype"
Si-ESE, NH, Introvert, Si-Fi; "ESE, Delta subtype"

Ni-ILI, NH, Introvert, Ni-Ti; "ILI, Beta subtype"
Te-ILI, DC, Extravert, Te-Ne; "ILI, Delta subtype"

[EyeSeeCold]

That said, I don't think subtypes have much significance assuming they even exist.
Relying on subtypes to explain behavior implies overlooking the effects of the environment or other non-socionic factors on people, imo.

But if subtypes are valid(and static), relying on them to explain behavior would be the same thing as relying on the overall Socionic types. Just more in-depth.

[Azeroffs]

That said, I don't think subtypes have much significance assuming they even exist.
Relying on subtypes to explain behavior implies overlooking the effects of the environment or other non-socionic factors on people, imo.

But if subtypes are valid(and static), relying on them to explain behavior would be the same thing as relying on the overall Socionic types. Just more in-depth.

agreed, but proving the existence of subtypes is like trying to prove that fairies wear pink dresses.

[EyeSeeCold]

For your convenience:

By the way, initial impressions may be "wtf is this hyper systematic mess", but it can actually be conveyed - the differences. Let's take ILI for example.

By Ni-ILI or Te-ILI we mean an ILI that is focused on it's Ni picture of reality and dealing/living with it or its Te faculties for use in the world. While both still retain the NiTe IP temperamental lifestyle, the Ni-ILI carries a more outwardly philosophical or critical mindset, subjecting everything and everyone to it's picture of reality - there is a more apparent focus on self; and the Te-ILI will be focused more on its service to society as in being demonstratively and extensively knowledgeable(especially in their field of expertise) and generally helpful. Therefore we have Ni-ILI, the Beta subtype and Te-ILI, the Delta subtype. Even more Meged & Ovcharov and Gulenko see Te-ILI as the Utilizer/Expert and Ni-ILI as the Contradictor/Philosopher.


DC and NH are grouped together for a reason. Subtypes seem to be bonded by I/E functions.

=====
Alpha

Ne-ILE, DC, Extravert, Ne-Te; "ILE, Delta subtype"
Ti-ILE, NH, Introvert, Ti-Ni; "ILE, Beta subtype"

Si-SEI, NH, Introvert, Si-Fi; "SEI, Delta subtype"
Fe-SEI, DC, Extravert, Fe-Se; "SEI, Beta subtype"

Fe-ESE, DC, Extravert, Fe-Se; "ESE, Beta subtype"
Si-ESE, NH, Introvert, Si-Fi; "ESE, Delta subtype"

Ti-LII, NH, Introvert, Ti-Ni; "LII, Beta subtype"
Ne-LII, DC, Extravert, Ne-Te; "LII, Delta subtype"

======

Beta

Fe-EIE, DC, Extravert, Fe-Ne; "EIE, Alpha subtype"
Ni-EIE, NH, Introvert, Ni-Fi; "EIE, Gamma subtype"

Ti-LSI, NH, Introvert, Ti-Si; "LSI, Alpha subtype"
Se-LSI, DC, Extravert, Se-Te; "LSI, Gamma subtype"

Se-SLE, DC, Extravert, Se-Te; "SLE, Gamma subtype"
Ti-SLE, NH, Introvert, Ti-Si; "SLE, Alpha subtype"

Ni-IEI, NH, Introvert, Ni-Fi; "IEI, Gamma subtype"
Fe-IEI, DC, Extravert, Fe-Ne; "IEI, Alpha subtype"

======

Gamma

Se-SEE, DC, Extravert, Se-Fe; "SEE, Beta subtype"
Fi-SEE, NH, Introvert, Fi-Si; "SEE, Delta subtype"

Ni-ILI, NH, Introvert, Ni-Ti; "ILI, Beta subtype"
Te-ILI, DC, Extravert, Te-Ne; "ILI, Delta subtype"

Te-LIE, DC, Extravert, Te-Ne, "LIE, Delta subtype"
Ni-LIE, NH, Introvert, Ni-Ti, "LIE, Beta subtype"

Fi-ESI, NH, Introvert, Fi-Si; "ESI, Delta subtype"
Se-ESI, DC, Extravert, Se-Fe; "ESI, Beta subtype"

======

Delta

Te-LSE, DC, Extravert, Te-Se; "LSE, Gamma subtype"
Si-LSE NH, Introvert, Si-Ti; "LSE, Alpha subtype"

Fi-EII NH, Introvert, Fi-Ni; "EII, Gamma subtype"
Ne-EII, DC, Extravert, Ne-Fe; "EII, Alpha subtype"

Ne-IEE, DC, Extravert, Ne-Fe; "IEE, Alpha subtype"
Fi-IEE NH, Introvert, Fi-Ni; "IEE, Gamma subtype"

Si-SLI, NH, Introvert, Si-Ti; "SLI, Alpha subtype"
Te-SLI, DC, Extravert, Te-Se; "SLI, Gamma subtype"

agreed, but proving the existence of subtypes is like trying to prove that fairies wear pink dresses.

I get you. Though, to me, it's not a question of validity, but significance.

[1981slater]

For your convenience:

=====
Alpha

Ne-ILE, DC, Extravert, Ne-Te; "ILE, Delta subtype"

Excellent

[Crispy]

ESC when converting 2 subtype into DCNH they are correlated through Rationality/Irrationality rather than Introversion/Extroversion.

That is why they are called Accepting/Producing subtypes.
The accepting functions of LII's are
The producing functions of LII's are
Notice how the "accentuation" is separated by p/j rather than E/I

So Ti-LII (accepting) is D or N and Ne-LII (producing) is C or H, which kinda screws up the rest of those names:

Ti-LII, DN, Rational, Ti-Te; "LII, Accepting subtype"
Ne-LII, CH, Irrational, Ne-Ni; "LII, Producing subtype"

[EyeSeeCold]

Previous post has been updated.

ESC when converting 2 subtype into DCNH they are correlated through Rationality/Irrationality rather than Introversion/Extroversion.

That is why they are called Accepting/Producing subtypes.
The accepting functions of LII's are
The producing functions of LII's are
Notice how the "accentuation" is separated by p/j rather than E/I

So Ti-LII (accepting) is D or N and Ne-LII (producing) is C or H, which kinda screws up the rest of those names:

Ti-LII, DN, Rational, Ti-Te; "LII, Accepting subtype"
Ne-LII, CH, Irrational, Ne-Ni; "LII, Producing subtype"

I understand the implication of "accepting/producing", but I took it not to mean the Accepting/Producing dichotomy, but the I or E functional emphasis of the primary accepting/producing functions(Base/Cre).

It's not that I can't see it this way, I've actually been considering it for a long time, but it's starting to seem that J/P doesn't make any sense as a pole of orientation. It's a more peculiar dichotomy than I/E, N/S or T/F, as it contains all functions. How exactly would that pole be justified?

[Azeroffs]

I guess my main problem with subtypes is that it seems like they're often used to rationalize typings that otherwise don't fit. Their only purpose should be to differentiate people of the same type after a typing has been established. Imo, they shouldn't even be considered in the typing process.

Even then, it can be tricky because typings are always tentative, so even if subtypes were only used after a typing had been established, they may serve to stop a retype when there should be one.

[Slacker]

I guess my main problem with subtypes is that it seems like they're often used to rationalize typings that otherwise don't fit. Their only purpose should be to differentiate people of the same type after a typing has been established.

I'm not a fan of the whole subtype thing in general.

[Galen]

agreed, but proving the existence of subtypes is like trying to prove that fairies wear pink dresses.

Proving the existence of subtypes would at least require some definition of what subtype actually denotes. You can prove anything so long as your definitions for things allow for it. This seems to be what allows subtypes to be abused in order to justify bad typings, because if there's no solid definition in mind then you can just make shit up as you go along.

[Creepy-]

It's too bad you didn't allow for multiple options. I would have selected either the first or second (likely the second, since how one acts in a group seems at least somewhat dependent on the roles being fulfilled by others) along with the last.

[woofwoofl]

I was pondering something, then MSM brought up effectively the same thing, that it's hard to know sometimes where ends and begins for yourself when they're both in the Ego block; I was wondering the same with myself when it comes down to and , especially in human relations...

I can weigh and against each other, I can weigh and against each other (in my case, this is easy ); I think I have more strength when it comes to perceiving functions, yet I'm more polarized when it comes to Ts and Fs, I think... a lot of who I am depends on who I'm with, or what's needed at the moment...

[Aleksei]

The only relevant subtype system would have to be something static and regularly observable/interpretable in some fashion. If it were merely a situational element then there'd be no real way of verifying its existence, since which exact situations where the subtype element would be wide open to massive interpretation. It would allow people to simply find any old pattern they wanted in a person's behavior and slap the name of 'subtype' on it.

GALEN SPEAKS SENSE AT LAST! PRAISE JEEBUS!

I'd say a mixture though. It's dynamic in the sense that it's a relatively minor modification to type, and developed on response to newer developments in your life, as a coping mechanism or whatnot, but it isn't perennially mutating. It isn't a façade, it's actually a part of you.

[EyeSeeCold]

Okay, this is why I believe DCNH is poled on I/E and not J/P.

DCNH represents the types: EJ, EP, IJ, IP, right? And EJ & IJ are complementary, and EP & IP are complementary, right? So, by DCNH, D would be complementary to N, and C would be complementary to H, right? So, considering all this, wouldn't it make more sense that types lie on a DC/NH axis, or otherwise, I/E, rather than DN/CH? DN/CH is equivalent to EJIJ/EPIP which is not valid for types/temperaments in general so how is it possible that DCNH could work that way?

Static/Dynamic falls in line with I/E, so there is no issue as is with J/P(strengthening a mix of Static and Dynamic functions when it's functionally clear they are separated).



But then again, this is all theory.

[Galen]

The only relevant subtype system would have to be something static and regularly observable/interpretable in some fashion. If it were merely a situational element then there'd be no real way of verifying its existence, since which exact situations where the subtype element would be wide open to massive interpretation. It would allow people to simply find any old pattern they wanted in a person's behavior and slap the name of 'subtype' on it.

GALEN SPEAKS SENSE AT LAST! PRAISE JEEBUS!

well aren't you just the sweetest thing to come out of the cookie factory

[Morcheeba]

I absolutely believe that subtype is static. No argument could make me think otherwise.

[Jonathan]

No argument could make me think otherwise.

Do you really mean that? Sounds maybe a little scary. Basically, the OP is a research question, not something we can answer. Everything on this site is speculation, based on little bits of anecdotal evidence upon which we can build hypotheses. How can we possibly know if subtypes are stable traits? You have to do a longitudinal study over many years, with a reliable testing method, preferably not self-report based. Then, even if you show that the majority people retain subtype, you have to look carefully at the outliers, as they may demonstrate that in certain cases subtype (or type itself) is not a stable trait.

[EyeSeeCold]

Recently, I have reason to suspect subtypes are situated on the Inert/Contact axis rather than Accepting/Producing. The popularity of the latter has lead to its validating dominance when really there is no solid evidence to suggest that it is the correct one.

This suspicion is supported by Meged and Ocharov's Vertical Subtype theory.

Their example has IEE as such:

Inert Subtype:

Inert	Contact
+	-
+	-
+	-
+	-

Strengthening of NT processing

Contact Subtype

Inert	Contact
-	+
-	+
-	+
-	+

Strengthening of SF processing

[EyeSeeCold]

Obsolete thread, see: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-Club-Subtypes

Corrected layout:

=====
Alpha

Ne-ILE, DC, Extravert, Ne-Fe; "ILE, Beta NF Inert subtype"
Ti-ILE, NH, Introvert, Ti-Si; "ILE, Delta ST Contact subtype"

Si-SEI, NH, Introvert, Si-Ti; "SEI, Beta ST Inert subtype"
Fe-SEI, DC, Extravert, Fe-Ne; "SEI, Delta NF Contact subtype"

Fe-ESE, DC, Extravert, Fe-Ne; "ESE, Delta NF Inert subtype"
Si-ESE, NH, Introvert, Si-Ti; "ESE, Beta ST Contact subtype"

Ti-LII, NH, Introvert, Ti-Si; "LII, Delta ST Inert subtype"
Ne-LII, DC, Extravert, Ne-Fe; "LII, Beta NF Contact subtype"

======

Beta

Fe-EIE, DC, Extravert, Fe-Se; "EIE, Gamma SF Inert subtype"
Ni-EIE, NH, Introvert, Ni-Ti; "EIE, Alpha NT Contact subtype"

Ti-LSI, NH, Introvert, Ti-Ni; "LSI, Gamma NT Inert subtype"
Se-LSI, DC, Extravert, Se-Fe; "LSI, Alpha SF Contact subtype"

Se-SLE, DC, Extravert, Se-Fe; "SLE, Alpha SF Inert subtype"
Ti-SLE, NH, Introvert, Ti-Ni; "SLE, Gamma NT Contact subtype"

Ni-IEI, NH, Introvert, Ni-Ti; "IEI, Alpha NT Inert subtype"
Fe-IEI, DC, Extravert, Fe-Se; "IEI, Gamma SF Contact subtype"

======

Gamma

Se-SEE, DC, Extravert, Se-Te; "SEE, Delta ST Inert subtype"
Fi-SEE, NH, Introvert, Fi-Ni; "SEE, Beta NF Contact subtype"

Ni-ILI, NH, Introvert, Ni-Fi; "ILI, Delta NF Inert subtype"
Te-ILI, DC, Extravert, Te-Se; "ILI, Beta ST Contact subtype"

Te-LIE, DC, Extravert, Te-Se, "LIE, Beta ST Inert subtype"
Ni-LIE, NH, Introvert, Ni-Fi, "LIE, Delta NF Contact subtype"

Fi-ESI, NH, Introvert, Fi-Ni; "ESI, Beta NF Inert subtype"
Se-ESI, DC, Extravert, Se-Te; "ESI, Delta ST Contact subtype"

======

Delta

Te-LSE, DC, Extravert, Te-Ne; "LSE, Alpha NT Inert subtype"
Si-LSE, NH, Introvert, Si-Fi; "LSE, Gamma SF Contact subtype"

Fi-EII, NH, Introvert, Fi-Si; "EII, Alpha SF Inert subtype"
Ne-EII, DC, Extravert, Ne-Te; "EII, Gamma NT Contact subtype"

Ne-IEE, DC, Extravert, Ne-Te; "IEE, Gamma NT Inert subtype"
Fi-IEE, NH, Introvert, Fi-Si; "IEE, Alpha SF Contact subtype"

Si-SLI, NH, Introvert, Si-Fi; "SLI, Gamma SF Inert subtype"
Te-SLI, DC, Extravert, Te-Ne; "SLI, Alpha NT Contact subtype"