contact functions, subtypes, internet discourse
the basic idea in contact/inert subtypes is that the entire block of functions is comprised by a set of 8 modules stacked 4 high and 2 across. the 4 high (henceforth vertical) blocks contain, left to right, first the inert functions and second the contact functions. the top two, going across, is the ego block. for an ISTp that would be 1) Si and 2) Te. Under one subtype theory the idea is each vertical block is strengthened in a subtype which gives rise to its overall characteristics. the idea is that subtype is more than just, for example, Si v Te, but its additionally the 3 blocks under the Si or Te heading. In ISTp that would be for Si: Fi Fe and Se; for Te: Ni Ne and Ti.
Ok so, there are other theories out there on subtype--I'm not saying this is the best one, but I think there's an interesting offshoot to this; which is: via the internet people communicate via their contact functions. In fact, in general, what we see most predominately in people are their contact functions. Now, in real life we see their physical activitiy, which is something we don't see via the internet, at least not really. The point is that we get a limited perspective of others when interacting with them on the internet and it limited form of contact. So while you might really notice Se activity in another person in real life, because the internet is constrained in the way it is, nearly all Se activity gets kind of leveled off at the same point, making distinctions difficult. The same way goes with most functions.
Since discourse over the internet is via a constrained set of contact functions it naturally distorts our perceptions of other people's personalities. I would argue, at least in the case of SLI, this makes them out to be very much as if they were the contact subtype (+Te, Ni, Ne, Ti). In fact if you're reading this right now you're probably thinking this post is heavy on all 4. In fact, it may go so far as to cast doubt on the actual ego functions and their type on the whole because of how their personality over the internet manifests itself. But what it fails to take into account is about a million and one data points, many of which would be obvious in a more natural setting, but some that wouldn't even to family. In other words, you can never really step into someone's soul and determine the processes that are giving rise to whatever you're ultimately seeing.
obviously people both misunderstand themselves and the theory which is to say that no one is immune to criticism or feedback based on what they're objectively manifesting especially if its creating an apparent contradiction... still I would like to say that unsophisticated understanding of what things must look like are presuppositions that give rise to behavioral stereotypes. I think in the end there are, for example, dumb and uninteresting intuitives and highly complex, abstract, and creative sensors. this is mainly in response to charges that I have to be ILI and my response has always been "I know I come off that way" but I really wanted to make a statement on how I thought that could be.
To that end I guess my only point is you're seeing strengthened contact functions from both the medium but also personal factors where this form of communication was privileged (i.e.: law, academia, etc). you take me out of this forum and it looks different, but the constant aspect is introverted perception. it is flexible by its nature and thus somewhat chimeric because of its inertness
anyway that's all I got. something to think about
(working as a waiter, I seem like Si subtype all day, right down to the Fe, but its a product of the lens we're viewed through its an objective albiet contextualized manifestation).
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by niffer
Will discuss later.
