Simplified Dual-type Subtypes

[ghost of forum past]

Here is something that has been in my brain for a while, so while I procrastinate on schoolwork I will enlighten all of you.

I was looking at the 2-subtype articles (-func 1 or -func 2) and comparing them to tcaudilllg's crazy dual IM-EM types or whatever.

I liked the idea of the IM-EM types, but it seemed to over-categorize the already complex human psyche, assuming that the original 16 types aren't enough.

So, I decided to find a type that different function 1/function 2 subtypes could possibly relate to most. I will be using my own type as an example.

Most agree that a Ti-INTj is more similar to a ISTj, but it has been debated before whether or not a Ne-INTj is more similar to an INFj or ENTp. Now, you could argue for both, but I would argue that if the Ti-Ne axis for the 2-subtype system were a dichotomy rather than a sliding continuum, a "pure" Ti-INTj may occasionally resemble an ISTj, while a "pure" Ne-INTj may occasionally resemble an ENFp.

(are these inert/contact subtypes? something like that?)
This is based on the theory that in the (inert?) subtype, functions 1,4,6, and 7 are strengthened, in this case logic and sensation, and with a leading introverted rational function the "resemblance" type of ISTj is produced.

Likewise, in the (contact?) subtype, functions 2,3,5, and 8 are strengthened, in this case intuition and ethics, and with a leading extroverted irrational function the "resemblance" type of ENFp is produced.

This produces an interesting phenomenon: a "pure" Ti-INTj and Ne-INTj would have "resemblance conflict" in which the types they occasionally resemble would theoretically have a fundamental conflict of interest.

In practice, the 2-subtype system should be a continuum (in my view), but it's an interesting thought nevertheless.

Thoughts?

[aisa]

@Reficulris - you're my first thought after reading this hmm...? What's your impression?

[The Exception]

Here is something that has been in my brain for a while, so while I procrastinate on schoolwork I will enlighten all of you.

I was looking at the 2-subtype articles (-func 1 or -func 2) and comparing them to tcaudilllg's crazy dual IM-EM types or whatever.

I liked the idea of the IM-EM types, but it seemed to over-categorize the already complex human psyche, assuming that the original 16 types aren't enough.

So, I decided to find a type that different function 1/function 2 subtypes could possibly relate to most. I will be using my own type as an example.

Most agree that a Ti-INTj is more similar to a ISTj, but it has been debated before whether or not a Ne-INTj is more similar to an INFj or ENTp. Now, you could argue for both, but I would argue that if the Ti-Ne axis for the 2-subtype system were a dichotomy rather than a sliding continuum, a "pure" Ti-INTj may occasionally resemble an ISTj, while a "pure" Ne-INTj may occasionally resemble an ENFp.

(are these inert/contact subtypes? something like that?)
This is based on the theory that in the (inert?) subtype, functions 1,4,6, and 7 are strengthened, in this case logic and sensation, and with a leading introverted rational function the "resemblance" type of ISTj is produced.

Likewise, in the (contact?) subtype, functions 2,3,5, and 8 are strengthened, in this case intuition and ethics, and with a leading extroverted irrational function the "resemblance" type of ENFp is produced.

This produces an interesting phenomenon: a "pure" Ti-INTj and Ne-INTj would have "resemblance conflict" in which the types they occasionally resemble would theoretically have a fundamental conflict of interest.

In practice, the 2-subtype system should be a continuum (in my view), but it's an interesting thought nevertheless.

Anyways, I'll repost this when I have time to clean it up a little. Thoughts?

Ne-INTj here (if I even am an INTj. I'm back to doubting my type again.)

I don't think anything has ever mistaken me for an ISTj, and I have never considered that typing for myself. I have been 'mistyped' by others as INFj, ENTp, and even ENFp. I can see alot of resemblance to INFj at times, in particular I find us connecting on the shared PoLR and creative functions. I have seriously considered INFj for myself and I keep coming back to seriously considering INFj even though I'm about 95% sure INTj fits best. I just feel so much more 'ethically oriented' and 'sensitive' compared to other INTjs. Sure, I use logic alot and love logical systems but I don't feel so hardcore logical either unlike so many of the other INTjs appear. I guess Ti-INTj would come closer to the 'hardcore logical' cast feelings aside, stereotype.

Then I've considered ENTp also, but not as seriously as INFj. I think ENTp is less likely than INFj. I'm not quite that scattered and random. I generate lots of possibilities to be sure but I'm not as 'out-of-the-box' or as 'wacky' as ENTps typically are. Also Ixxj makes more sense than Exxp as a temperament. I'm quite introverted.

I don't think I'm all that ENFp like but I have had a couple people type me as that, which is weird considering that ENFp has Ti PoLR.

I think I relate more to contact than inert subtype in the sense that I'm more NF-like than ST-like. But I think for me it comes out as more INFj-ish than ENFp-ish.

Also could you explain more about the conflict of interest between Ti-INTj and Ne-INTj?

I find I relate well to both subtypes of INTj. The Ne-INTjs seem more similar to me overall but the Ti-INTjs I get along with well too as long as they're not too extreme in the Ti.

[chemical]

Ti-INTj would come closer to the 'hardcore logical' cast feelings aside, stereotype.

You know the funny thing is, they seem to apply Jungian dichotomies to conclude that, since a Ti-INTj is more logic focused, they will therefore look less NeFi-like, i.e. their ethics is suppressed.
However, the socionics order for usable mental information elements goes TNFS, not TNSF, the latter being the Jungian ordering (instead, the Jungian ordering applies to the HA+suggestive). In other words, the stronger Ne-oriented alpha NT actually has weaker ethical mental functionality than the INTj.

So I'm personally not yet convinced there's any reason a greater Ti-focus implies a lower ethical focus. If anything, a Ti-INTj could be argued more INTj-like and farther from the ENTp as alpha NTs go, due to being less Ne-like, and more Ti-like.

[The Exception]

You know the funny thing is, they seem to apply Jungian dichotomies to conclude that, since a Ti-INTj is more logic focused, they will therefore look less NeFi-like, i.e. their ethics is suppressed.
However, the socionics order for usable mental information elements goes TNFS, not TNSF, the latter being the Jungian ordering (instead, the Jungian ordering applies to the HA+suggestive). In other words, the stronger Ne-oriented alpha NT actually has weaker ethical mental functionality than the INTj.

So I'm personally not yet convinced there's any reason a greater Ti-focus implies a lower ethical focus. If anything, a Ti-INTj could be argued more INTj-like and farther from the ENTp as alpha NTs go, due to being less Ne-like, and more Ti-like.

So are you suggesting I might be more Ti-INTj than Ne-INTj?

[Aylen]

So are you suggesting I might be more Ti-INTj than Ne-INTj?

Is there a link to your interview with JOA?

[The Exception]

Is there a link to your interview with JOA?

Awkwardness alert! I wish they didn't put the type on the video title. It may bias the judgement of other people who are watching it. I can understand why the type is in there though. To compare and contrast different types. I may not be the best example of INTj/LII though.

[chemical]

@LIIbrarian - I guess more like suggesting, I don't think the 2-subtype system can properly be interpreted the way some articles say. Seems like they're sort of missing a glaring point or contradicting themselves.

Basically, why would an alpha NT LII who becomes more Ne-like suddenly unlock their Fi more, when the alpha NT who is most Fi-crippled is ILE...

[Aylen]

Awkwardness alert! I wish they didn't put the type on the video title. It may bias the judgement of other people who are watching it.

Thanks Chips! If there is anything I am good at, it's disregarding other people's opinions until I have formed one of my own. Then I try to reconcile the different perceptions, within myself, usually. Sometimes I will ask directly but it is often the surface stuff they point out that helps me see what they see. I might not agree with them but I can probably understand their perception.

[The Exception]

@LIIbrarian - I guess more like suggesting, I don't think the 2-subtype system can properly be interpreted the way some articles say. Seems like they're sort of missing a glaring point or contradicting themselves.

Basically, why would an alpha NT LII who becomes more Ne-like suddenly unlock their Fi more, when the alpha NT who is most Fi-crippled is ILE...

Good point. I was thinking about inert/contact subtypes. Inert subtype strengthens #1, 4, 6, 7 (Ti, Se, Si, Te). Contact subtype strengthens #2, 3, 5, 8 (Ne, Fi, Fe, Ni). In other words, both Ne and Fi are strengthened in contact subtype. But I know this contradicts in a way what you just said, so who knows.

[chemical]

That's why I just say the cleanest way to think about subtypes is something like understanding a more pure focus on Ti vs an admixture of thinking/intuition.

I think the classic example of the former would probably be, at least to the Jungians, Kant.

[strangeling]

Basically, why would an alpha NT LII who becomes more Ne-like suddenly unlock their Fi more, when the alpha NT who is most Fi-crippled is ILE...

Because they are introverts, but not focused on their Ti ego. So they could more easily utilize an Fi persona in place of their Ti ego, while not having a lot of Ti/Fe neuroticism.

Addendum: It also means a creative subtype has a stronger polr because that creative part of their ego is reinforced. A dominant subtype has no clear creative, until extroversion (if they are introverted) or introversion (if they are extroverted) is reinforced in their ego. At least that makes conceptual sense to me.

[chemical]

Because they are introverts, but not focused on their Ti ego. So they could more easily utilize an Fi persona in place of their ego, while not having a lot of Ti/Fe neuroticism.

While that's certainly possible, my point is basically that there's just too many different perspectives on what could happen when you strengthen one thing vs another -- there's too many dichotomies/laws at work simultaneously to say for sure/definitively what happens when strengthening a given information element, beyond some very basic generalities.

To put another spin on your option here, and going back to my earlier point, strengthening Ne does little to secure the LII's claims to clear introversion. Why balancing Ti and Ne would thus strengthen Fi, rather than say Se, is up for grabs (note: the more extraverted, irrational you get, e.g. like the ILE, the stronger your Se/Ne might be argued to get).

All I'm saying is a lot of different possible outcomes arise whenever you tweak one information elements -- not just one clear one. Because there's generally more than one law at work affecting a given information element's placement that gets triggered when you strengthen/weaken the given element.

[strangeling]

Yes, that's true about questioning whether someone is introverted or extroverted. I've noticed it's common for people to type someone introverted only if they are an extreme introvert; and everyone else gets typed an extrovert. But at the very least, the more the parts of the ego are strengthened, the weaker their superego counterparts become, regardless of assigning between role and polr functions.

[ghost of forum past]

Yes, that's true about questioning whether someone is introverted or extroverted. I've noticed it's common for people to type someone introverted only if they are an extreme introvert; and everyone else gets typed an extrovert. But at the very least, the more the parts of the ego are strengthened, the weaker their superego counterparts become, regardless of assigning between role and polr functions.

This seems to be true to my observation. Being an "introvert" by society's standards seems more to be about how much you talk, which isn't necessarily related to sociability.

[ghost of forum past]

Also could you explain more about the conflict of interest between Ti-INTj and Ne-INTj?

I'm sorry for my late response.

Basically, I was thinking that the INTj that places more importance on an element that is rational and introverted could disagree with an INTj that places more importance on an element that is irrational and extroverted. I used the example of a theoretical projection of an ISTj vs an ENFp, based on the emphasized functions by the subtype system, to illustrate that strong subtypes in either direction may come to disagreements.

In practice, I must emphasize again, this probably wouldn't happen because subtypes are not a dichotomy, rather they are a continuum. In my view, anyway.

[chemical]

I think of the subtypes more as just closer to pure Ti focus vs balanced with Ne, than as strengthening any particular other combination. Too many dichotomies at work to predict that much just based on strengthening one.

Again, if Ti-LIIs really had better Se than Ne-LIIs, why would the alpha-NT cousin with higher Ne than Ti, i.e. ILE, have better Se, and lower Fi?

I do think there exist LIIs who are more LSI-like, and ones who are more EII-like or IEE-like or whatever, so the OP subtype thing does exist -- it just isn't equivalent with the idea of strengthening Ti vs strengthening Ne.

[Myst]

Here is something that has been in my brain for a while, so while I procrastinate on ******work I will enlighten all of you.

I was looking at the 2-subtype articles (-func 1 or -func 2) and comparing them to tcaudilllg's crazy dual IM-EM types or whatever.

I liked the idea of the IM-EM types, but it seemed to over-categorize the already complex human psyche, assuming that the original 16 types aren't enough.

The problem with EM is that Gulenko tries to encompass everything about the mind inside this narrow system of functions. No, just no.

So, I decided to find a type that different function 1/function 2 subtypes could possibly relate to most. I will be using my own type as an example.

Most agree that a Ti-INTj is more similar to a ISTj, but it has been debated before whether or not a Ne-INTj is more similar to an INFj or ENTp. Now, you could argue for both, but I would argue that if the Ti-Ne axis for the 2-subtype system were a dichotomy rather than a sliding continuum, a "pure" Ti-INTj may occasionally resemble an ISTj, while a "pure" Ne-INTj may occasionally resemble an ENFp.

(are these inert/contact subtypes? something like that?)
This is based on the theory that in the (inert?) subtype, functions 1,4,6, and 7 are strengthened, in this case logic and sensation, and with a leading introverted rational function the "resemblance" type of ISTj is produced.

Likewise, in the (contact?) subtype, functions 2,3,5, and 8 are strengthened, in this case intuition and ethics, and with a leading extroverted irrational function the "resemblance" type of ENFp is produced.

Ah fuck those subtype theories. I fit none of them. There is no proof whatsoever that things work like this in reality. Nothing in Model A says anything about how subtypes would work, either.

In practice, the 2-subtype system should be a continuum (in my view), but it's an interesting thought nevertheless.

A continuum as much as with the types themselves...

While that's certainly possible, my point is basically that there's just too many different perspectives on what could happen when you strengthen one thing vs another -- there's too many dichotomies/laws at work simultaneously to say for sure/definitively what happens when strengthening a given information element, beyond some very basic generalities.

To put another spin on your option here, and going back to my earlier point, strengthening Ne does little to secure the LII's claims to clear introversion. Why balancing Ti and Ne would thus strengthen Fi, rather than say Se, is up for grabs (note: the more extraverted, irrational you get, e.g. like the ILE, the stronger your Se/Ne might be argued to get).

All I'm saying is a lot of different possible outcomes arise whenever you tweak one information elements -- not just one clear one. Because there's generally more than one law at work affecting a given information element's placement that gets triggered when you strengthen/weaken the given element.

Exactly. Also it's situation dependent, IMO. Your brain doesn't always process things in the same way in every situation, there are different types of situations. (That's why I seem to have two "type modes" myself)

Yes, that's true about questioning whether someone is introverted or extroverted. I've noticed it's common for ****** to type someone introverted only if they are an extreme introvert; and everyone else gets typed an extrovert. But at the very least, the more the parts of the ego are strengthened, the weaker their superego counterparts become, regardless of assigning between role and polr functions.

I can agree on that one, my superego is pretty weak, I have strong focus on both functions in ego and overall I can't differentiate well between my superego functions in terms of which is PoLR, either or both can be PoLR

[Myst]

Because they are introverts, but not focused on their Ti ego. So they could more easily utilize an Fi persona in place of their Ti ego, while not having a lot of Ti/Fe neuroticism.

Actually that's not how it works for me. When I focus on my Creative function it doesn't seem to do much for my Role function.

You know, this argument here, it can easily be twisted in many other meaningless ways. See below for more.

Introvert not solely focusing on Ti but Ne [in the case of LII] as well doesn't have to mean that Fi gets stronger, why can't just extraversion get stronger. That's how it works for me. Well in my case introversion (due to introverted Creative) gets stronger.. not my Role function.

Addendum: It also means a creative subtype has a stronger polr because that creative part of their ego is reinforced. A dominant subtype has no clear creative, until extroversion (if they are introverted) or introversion (if they are extroverted) is reinforced in their ego. At least that makes conceptual sense to me.

Conceptual sense isn't necessarily the same as reality.

I'm gonna give you another meaningless twist here, strong Creative can make up for PoLR issues. Yes. Why not. Actually that's what I observe about myself so only meaningless in terms of speculating


...overall this whole subtype system speculation just hurts my head. As chemical said, shit can be interpreted according to too many kinds of laws. So if I check with reality, well I only observed myself (pretty sure I won't bother with observing others) but I find that I tend to stay in the ego. I can focus on my extraverted side more or on my introverted side and the result is that the function/IE that gets stronger focus will lead the other one. That means Se>Ti vs Ti>Se in my case. Got nothing to do with the crappy superego. Simple as that.

[chemical]

Your brain doesn't always process things in the same way in every situation, there are different types of situations.

Sure; the way I see this is that there's a bit of a difference between the idea of types and the idea of functions - a function really is just a mode, and a type is a theoretical habituation into one such mode with some surrounding patterns involving how the other functions modify/interact with the predominant one, called typical due to recurring patterns observable in many different people and so forth. If one just sees models as modeling functioning/modes of consciousness, rather than the types of people, then it's a lot clearer that these "different dominant functions" exist.

And I am also on board with the continuous model of personality being closest to the empirical reality of things, and as much as instruments like the Five Factor Model may not produce interesting theory, they do scan for empirical trends quite closely, and generally arrive at the continuous model directly from the data.

For me, the "main type" more or less only exists as a matter of heuristic - often since the ego seeks clear self-definition, one "mode" will be more identified with, but I'm quite fine just describing the different modes differently.

I think what the Beebe model is getting at is more or less that each of those "modes" corresponds to some archetypal role, albeit here I'm with the "not sure this really fits reality" complaint, because he's pinning down what those roles should be without observing cases separately.

And it's rather likely it's because he's an intuitive type -- only with some level of pure intuition can someone sort of project a symbolic drama of 8 characters onto reality and be convinced that same pattern recurs.
Now it's not that he can't be insightful, but you pretty much have to jump on board the intuition train. And I'll admit, sometimes people like this make me think on the "Continuous scale" between T and N, I lean quite a bit more T, because while I'm fine playing with structures, I am quite hesitant to actually speculate about the nature of reality too boldly. OTOH I'm fine being speculative as long as it refers only to a structure, not to reality, if that makes sense.

[Myst]

Sure; the way I see this is that there's a bit of a difference between the idea of types and the idea of functions - a function really is just a mode, and a type is a theoretical habituation into one such mode with some surrounding patterns involving how the other functions modify/interact with the predominant one, called typical due to recurring patterns observable in many different people and so forth. If one just sees models as modeling functioning/modes of consciousness, rather than the types of people, then it's a lot clearer that these "different dominant functions" exist.

Guess nothing new since Jung.

And I am also on board with the continuous model of personality being closest to the empirical reality of things, and as much as instruments like the Five Factor Model may not produce interesting theory, they do scan for empirical trends quite closely, and generally arrive at the continuous model directly from the data.

Don't know if it's a continuum made up of different discrete modes

For me, the "main type" more or less only exists as a matter of heuristic - often since the ego seeks clear self-definition, one "mode" will be more identified with, but I'm quite fine just describing the different modes differently.

If the ego does seek out such a distinct mode then it's not really just a heuristic..

But if it (ego) is made up of more than one such mode then it's still a distinct thing, just doesn't fit in the theory

I think what the Beebe model is getting at is more or less that each of those "modes" corresponds to some archetypal role, albeit here I'm with the "not sure this really fits reality" complaint, because he's pinning down what those roles should be without observing cases separately.

Didn't he/she ever observe anything at all?!

And I'll admit, sometimes people like this make me think on the "Continuous scale" between T and N, I lean quite a bit more T, because while I'm fine playing with structures, I am quite hesitant to actually speculate about the nature of reality too boldly. OTOH I'm fine being speculative as long as it refers only to a structure, not to reality, if that makes sense.

I don't understand how anyone can speculate about the nature of reality directly..? But if you see reality via those structures of yours then you do indirectly speculate about reality

[chemical]

But if you see reality via those structures of yours then you do indirectly speculate about reality

Yes, and I am hesitant to. I rarely actually "apply" socionics directly myself.

I don't understand how anyone can speculate about the nature of reality directly..?

More or less I'm getting at how many intuitive dominants often will see reality itself through those impressionistic (sometimes highly symbolical) hunches ... because weirdly enough intuition actually is one of the two empirical functions. I have observed that I for instance am more attuned to ways of rationalizing things than to data (whether intuitive/sensation) - that is, the structure of a rationalization.
If I speculate, it won't tend to be speculating about reality or viewing it symbolically so much as about the expressive power of a structure....which was certainly inspired by things seen in reality but that's about it.

There's a sort of subtlety here which is that both of these put you out of touch with sensation, but in quite different ways. It also to me is a good balance between the two conflicts at work, i.e. rational v irrational and intuition v sensation.

Beebe I bet observed tons and tons of patients, but he sees wild symbolical patterns, not real data points, as far as I can tell based on how he uses his theory. There is definitely a structural integrity to it, but the meat of it really does seem to come from his own information orienatation, not surprisingly highly intuitive.

That little story from Jung on an intuitive woman who refused to trust the evidence right in front of her eyes, and so forth, but had amazing intuitive powers comes to mind. Intuition is like a filter present tinting how an absolute experience is had, before one can ever put logical (that is, logically defined) concepts, etc around it.

If the ego does seek out such a distinct mode then it's not really just a heuristic..

But if it (ego) is made up of more than one such mode then it's still a distinct thing, just doesn't fit in the theory

I think it's heuristic because the level of certainty of the assertions possible is more or less "commonly, this happens", or at least that's the level of certainty I think is appropriate. I think what's more generally and absolutely true is a healthy ego seeks to operate with a level of self-definition (how much and how little varies - and how static and how dynamic varies).

[chemical]

As for EM, I am reasonably convinced there is a need for some secondary marker, albeit whether a full fledged new model A sort of construct is needed is a separate story - I don't think I understand what Gulenko's doing enough to make any definite statements on EM itself.

For instance, it really is a real thing that some people's personal and motivational energy is racy, obsessively creative, and so forth, but this does not imply they think like a Ne type or Se type or whatever -- forcing that assumption really seems to reduce the integrity of making the information elements about the information one produces, bringing it into their energetic style or motivations about producing that type of information. Whether you call this a persona type, or anything else, it's pretty clear to me nowadays it's real.
One could just call such a person a Type X but DCNH-C albeit, I really think rather than whatever specific thing DCNH refers to in some articles (like, behavior in a group???) it really is just describing their overall personal energy.

Another way to look at this is that the 8 elements just describe types of consciousness and pretty generally at that, but types of consciousness interplay both with the information that dictates one's understanding and/or the sphere one tries to work in, and one's motivational energy for producing/pursuing that understanding, and in my experience these are two separate things.

(This is also, BTW, why for instance, some people will score N on the MBTI, but CLEARLY be sensation types in a more Jungian sense.)

So whether or not I am into EM is unclear, but I am definitely into the idea of a secondary admixture of some sort.

[Myst]

Yes, and I am hesitant to. I rarely actually "apply" socionics directly myself.

Then you like to see theories in your head, not direct tangible reality

Anyway yeah it doesn't have much predictive power if you meant application in that way. It's no good for that. I find it useful for analysing communication though.

If I speculate, it won't tend to be speculating about reality or viewing it symbolically so much as about the expressive power of a structure....which was certainly inspired by things seen in reality but that's about it.

There's a sort of subtlety here which is that both of these put you out of touch with sensation, but in quite different ways. It also to me is a good balance between the two conflicts at work, i.e. rational v irrational and intuition v sensation.

Sure, much Ti for you.

Beebe I bet observed tons and tons of patients, but he sees wild symbolical patterns, not real data points, as far as I can tell based on how he uses his theory. There is definitely a structural integrity to it, but the meat of it really does seem to come from his own information orienatation, not surprisingly highly intuitive.

I get what you mean. Documentation for real data points would be nice but it's still interesting to observe your own inner processes.

For instance, it really is a real thing that some people's personal and motivational energy is racy, obsessively creative, and so forth, but this does not imply they think like a Ne type or Se type or whatever -- forcing that assumption really seems to reduce the integrity of making the information elements about the information one produces, bringing it into their energetic style or motivations about producing that type of information.

Very, very very well put.

Whether you call this a persona type, or anything else, it's pretty clear to me nowadays it's real.
One could just call such a person a Type X but DCNH-C albeit, I really think rather than whatever specific thing DCNH refers to in some articles (like, behavior in a group???) it really is just describing their overall personal energy.

That's a rather vague idea though

Another way to look at this is that the 8 elements just describe types of consciousness and pretty generally at that, but types of consciousness interplay both with the information that dictates one's understanding and/or the sphere one tries to work in, and one's motivational energy for producing/pursuing that understanding, and in my experience these are two separate things.

I thought about that before, types of consciousness vs information itself being separate, yep.

(This is also, BTW, why for instance, some people will score N on the MBTI, but CLEARLY be sensation types in a more Jungian sense.)

No, the MBTI test (official) simply doesn't give you the preferences with 100% certainty. The items in the test only have moderate levels of correlations to the dichotomies.

I don't really think this even follows much from the previous lines.

[chemical]

No, the MBTI test (official) simply doesn't give you the preferences with 100% certainty. The items in the test only have moderate levels of correlations to the dichotomies.

Just a little confused what you mean by this -- a) I don't believe it does with 100% certainty and even the test developers don't, b) I think the test does not even validly give dichotomies, as the distributions are normal, and tbqh I find the idea of just taking a statistical middle and falling to the left or right too vague to really sort someone into one of 2 sides.

But to be honest, my point isn't too specific to the MBTI, I just mean there's definitely a persona type and an information type that are not quite the same, where the former is closer to what I think things like dcnh, the mbti, etc are getting at (imperfectly, yes!). It's true personal energy is vague, that's the term the socionics community seems to use, but I think I have a more precise version, which is to divide the functions' roles into marking definite forms of information vs psychological relevancy.

The tests usually are getting at the latter as a category: what they're doing is taking people's responses to terms and measuring what tends to mark the commonalities (psychologically) among people who respond the same way to a given concept. Rather than measuring the concept itself to the fullest extent (for instance, it is more interested in what people who prefer logic to sentiment all have in common than in truly assessing the depth to which they understand reality logically, which are two quite different things).

[chemical]

And again the example of the psychological relevancy vs information thing ... take someone who is obsessed with seeing fresh new potential in his or her life, but works primarily to understand things in a ST sphere of information, finds the more intuitive fields of thought irritating, etc, etc.

A lot of scientists are clear dichotomies MBTI Ns based on what the test is getting at, and based on correlations to the FFM, but they'd (majority) be Jungian sensation types over intuitive types.
That's all I mean -- it's mostly irrelevant to my point whether people who score MBTI N always are plausibly MBTI N based on the rest of the data correlations.

Also don't mean MBTI is the best measure of the alternate to information types, just an example I think that hints that there's two separate paradigms at work.

[Myst]

Just a little confused what you mean by this -- a) I don't believe it does with 100% certainty and even the test developers don't, b) I think the test does not even validly give dichotomies, as the distributions are normal, and tbqh I find the idea of just taking a statistical middle and falling to the left or right too vague to really sort someone into one of 2 sides.

Your assumption* requires that sort of certainty to be valid. [*: on people scoring N in MBTI but being S types in socionics]

But to be honest, my point isn't too specific to the MBTI, I just mean there's definitely a persona type and an information type that are not quite the same, where the former is closer to what I think things like dcnh, the mbti, etc are getting at. It's true personal energy is vague, that's the term the socionics community seems to use, but I think I have a more precise version, which is to divide the functions' roles into marking definite forms of information vs psychological relevancy.

Oh, persona type, I don't see how that's to do with personal energy

The tests usually are getting at the latter as a category: what they're doing is taking people's responses to terms and measuring what tends to mark the commonalities (psychologically) among people who respond the same way to a given concept. Rather than measuring the concept itself to the fullest extent (for instance, it is more interested in what people who prefer logic to sentiment all have in common than in truly assessing the depth to which they understand reality logically, which are two quite different things).

No the tests are just getting at observable behavioural trends. Those may be function related or may not be related at all, in some cases. We don't yet have any very good theory explaining it all.

[Myst]

And again the example of the psychological relevancy vs information thing ... take someone who is obsessed with seeing fresh new potential in his or her life, but works primarily to understand things in a ST sphere of information.

A lot of scientists are clear dichotomies MBTI Ns based on what the test is getting at, and based on correlations to the FFM, but they'd be Jungian sensation types over intuitive types.
That's all I mean -- it's mostly irrelevant to my point whether people who score MBTI N always are plausibly MBTI N based on the rest of the data correlations.

I don't see your point here; how would a person obsessed with seeing fresh new potential also be a jungian S type, new potential is jungian Ne definition pretty much too. It's more like, these typically ST areas can be processed with other functions.

[chemical]

@Myst OK yea let's not call them Jungian sensation types for now, but I'll put it this way: Jung's functions don't in my view really correspond to types. They're modes of consciousness. Types of people correspond to typical ways people develop into patterns that involve those functions.

And I find that while someone may use say Ne or whatever as part of how he/she predominantly determines the motivational relevancy of something (in the part of the other post where you thought it was clearly put), that does not imply they also tend towards understanding or processing information in a Ne way.

The reason I took liberty of saying Jungian sensation types is that's the typical person he called a ST basically.
But I guess better not use such terminology since I'm trying to split up his pure types into how they seem to really show up.

I think of his type portraits as painting a theoretical picture of what happens when basically everything -- motivation, information, etc all corresponds to a given function-attitude.

Basically I think Jung's theoretical function types split up into many actual types of types corresponding to the different aspects of the psyche's needs that functions tap into. E.g. information, motivational temperament, etc. In fact, I think some of enneagram is tapping into the latter, hence the idea of relating say the "thinking center" to certain emotive dispositions, like fear of uncertainty etc.

How a person understands vs the manner in which they determine how to conduct themselves about pursuing that understanding/the reasons for doing so might be "justified" by different functions.

[chemical]

The info type might be closer to things like someone's epistemological disposition

[chemical]

Your assumption* requires that sort of certainty to be valid. [*: on people scoring N in MBTI but being S types in socionics]

I thought I'd clarified this though since that post -- I'm saying you can be a MBTI-N and someone Jung probably classifies a sensation type. I don't think the MBTI predicts the Jungian functions, no, and I think I explained quite a bit how they're getting at different things. I don't think MBTI-N always = scoring MBTI-N, but often yes it does, sometimes statistical data apart from the official MBTI may override someone's score yes. If you want me to say someone who IS a MBTI-N instead of scores, sure. But I do think the scores type can be a valid example of the "is" type many times.

BTW when I say MBTI-N I really mean the statistical dimension, not the bullshit they claim about the functions correlations to the statistical dimensions...like there's no way I think ISTP=> Ti-dominant. Just to get that out of the way, in case that's where we're getting tied up.

So to be clear, MBTI-N =/= MBTI-intuition the way people like Beebe/Nardi/etc define it (which =/= how Jung defines it always either).

[chemical]

No the tests are just getting at observable behavioural trends.

I don't think there's anything mutually exclusive here about measuring the observable and getting at a theoretical personality dimension that has to do with common psychological factors resulting in statistically meaningful clustering patterns in responses to test items.

[chemical]

Also regarding this

Oh, persona type, I don't see how that's to do with personal energy

I'd just say look at the translation on this site of Man as a System of types really.

It most certainly suggests what Gulenko views as personal energy and what he views as persona type are linked. I don't have a definition apart from him of personal energy.

Not to get lost in the details here, because frankly I'm going to pull a you and say that's getting lost speculating, I really think there are multiple aspects of type which the Jungian functions are tapping into, and that's all the broad picture of why they can fruitfully appear in distinct typing paradigms is getting at.

[Myst]

@Myst OK yea let's not call them Jungian sensation types for now, but I'll put it this way: Jung's functions don't in my view really correspond to types. They're modes of consciousness. Types of people correspond to typical ways people develop into patterns that involve those functions.

They're modes of consciousness that can and will process certain types of information in certain ways. Also, a certain (neurological) drive to process the information, that is, the consciousness or activation isn't being inhibited, what's more, the opposite actually. That's a motivation of sorts.

No one ever said they were types at the same time.

And I find that while someone may use say Ne or whatever as part of how he/she predominantly determines the motivational relevancy of something (in the part of the other post where you thought it was clearly put), that does not imply they also tend towards understanding or processing information in a Ne way.

Well depends what kind of motivation we are talking about, because preference for a high level of activity of a certain type of information processing can also be called a drive or motivation.

Where I agreed, that was about a different type of energy, where you said e.g.:

some people's personal and motivational energy is racy, obsessively creative, and so forth, but this does not imply they think like a Ne type or Se type

Sure, simply being a person who likes to run around doesn't say much about Ne or Se or anything.

The reason I took liberty of saying Jungian sensation types is that's the typical person he called a ST basically.

You edited that line of yours after I replied to it, I see:

And again the example of the psychological relevancy vs information thing ... take someone who is obsessed with seeing fresh new potential in his or her life, but works primarily to understand things in a ST sphere of information, ***finds the more intuitive fields of thought irritating, etc, etc.***

Define what you call new potential then because focusing on the Ne type of potential does require the intuitive form of information processing. Going beyond what's actually seen.

But I guess better not use such terminology since I'm trying to split up his pure types into how they seem to really show up.

There is no fully direct connection between jungian function and manifestation of behaviour. It's pointless to even attempt this sort of analysis without using another framework beyond the jungian typology stuff.

I think of his type portraits as painting a theoretical picture of what happens when basically everything -- motivation, information, etc all corresponds to a given function-attitude.

Motivation in terms of being motivated for different things due to circumstances in environment? Will be a different kind of motivation than mentioned above.

Basically I think Jung's theoretical function types split up into many actual types of types corresponding to the different aspects of the psyche's needs that functions tap into. E.g. information, motivational temperament, etc. In fact, I think some of enneagram is tapping into the latter, hence the idea of relating say the "thinking center" to certain emotive dispositions, like fear of uncertainty etc.

I find it a too loose connection to link thinking to fear of uncertainty, tbh.

How a person understands vs the manner in which they determine how to conduct themselves about pursuing that understanding/the reasons for doing so might be "justified" by different functions.

Not really just functions, factors outside this narrow framework

I thought I'd clarified this though since that post -- I'm saying you can be a MBTI-N and someone Jung probably classifies a sensation type. I don't think the MBTI predicts the Jungian functions, no, and I think I explained quite a bit how they're getting at different things. I don't think MBTI-N always = scoring MBTI-N, but often yes it does, sometimes statistical data apart from the official MBTI may override someone's score yes. If you want me to say someone who IS a MBTI-N instead of scores, sure. But I do think the scores type can be a valid example of the "is" type many times.

How do we define MBTI-N, you seemed to define it by test results which is confounded by many other factors. So your idea there was quite meaningless.

As for MBTI-N defined by just the MBTI theory itself, that's quite well in line with how Jung defines it. So jungian S type isn't going to become MBTI N type. They are types of informations in both.

BTW when I say MBTI-N I really mean the statistical dimension, not the bullshit they claim about the functions correlations to the statistical dimensions...like there's no way I think ISTP=> Ti-dominant. Just to get that out of the way, in case that's where we're getting tied up.

No that wasn't the issue

I don't think there's anything mutually exclusive here about measuring the observable and getting at a theoretical personality dimension that has to do with common psychological factors resulting in statistically meaningful clustering patterns in responses to test items.

I do not find it very meaningful beyond simple statisfical significance. Those statistically clustering patterns of concrete traits somewhat occurring together aren't the functions.

I'd just say look at the translation on this site of Man as a System of types really.

It most certainly suggests what Gulenko views as personal energy and what he views as persona type are linked. I don't have a definition apart from him of personal energy.

Not to get lost in the details here, because frankly I'm going to pull a you and say that's getting lost speculating, I really think there are multiple aspects of type which the Jungian functions are tapping into, and that's all the broad picture of why they can fruitfully appear in distinct typing paradigms is getting at.

I don't really feel like reading much Gulenko. I don't agree with the way he's looking at things. Working inside a narrow framework of socionical concepts linking everything he ever observed to that... creating many meaningless "connections" in the process.

I do agree with you on there being many aspects of things in this information processing topic in a logical sense but I don't agree that this is the only reason why the typology systems differ. It's also that they organize observations -that are already only partially overlapping- in a different way in different systems, nothing more nothing less, it doesn't automatically make either system better than the other.