subtypes in degrees

[chemical]

I think it might be useful to offer a rough benchmark of 3 degrees in the vertical subtype scheme rather than just two. I think there are roughly three that are somewhat commonly evident. Of course one instance is the relatively "pure" representative of the leading type. This would be an instance which suppresses the creative in acquiring knowledge in various cases actively. For instance, this is the introverted intuitive who allows intuitions to rule his life, and logic or ethics becomes more of an afterthought.
The next level is someone who is balanced enough that they have a consistent logical or ethical direction to their intuitions and can more freely deal with the creative's contents.
The final one is someone who gives high priority to both. Meaning sometimes it seems like intuition dominates and sometimes ethics. And you really need to infer indirectly which is leading and it's ambiguous if you can even say a definitive thing. This person almost looks like they have both as dominant types.

None of these is real, in that the real life is always an uncomfortable in-between.

[mu4]

Yea, I think there is a balanced subtype but I agree with Gulenko here that subtypes shift in life.

[chemical]

Definitely, I think so about that too (although I think he was talking about DCNH? It definitely applies to the other subtype systems implicitly though.)

As an example of balanced, I'm going to give Jung himself at least later in life. I have a feeling he was relatively balanced when he sort of reached his peak between judgment and perception.
Obviously this is a guess and debates on Jung's personal type will rage long past my day quite possibly.

On the other hand there are some logic types who are just logic logic logic and yes they are intuitive perhaps over sensation, but they are quite imbalanced between logic/intuition.

[chemical]

I sort of view the mental slogan of the secondary (out of 3) types as often being like these: intuitive leads of the secondary variety consistently view logic as the necessary sphere to explore their intuitions, but are driven by intensity of intuition foremost. The logical leads of secondary variety tend to be driven by the intensity of rationalization but this intensity derives greatly from the intuitive richness of the relevant contents.

These sound more similar than they are, because in some cases something will appeal to both of them. But in others I think there are cases something has an intense intuitive appeal requiring logic to parse, but less to someone who wants to, in Jung's rough words, basically see to the creation of theories for their sake.

The first/primary version is basically the closer to a "pure" type, where cognitive intensity arises almost completely from the base's principle of functioning.

[suedehead]

I've seen myself in both. I'm probably less in-your-face than a Se-subtype, but I feel like there also times where I'll become less empathetic.

[EUDAEMONIUM]

I think subtypes are kind of distracting and can be used to justify a false typing. It is better to accept that there will be differences intra-type and just move on.