1. Originally Posted by Pookie
Define C4.
Originally Posted by domr
Example: SE-
Code:
```     Subjective | Objective
S-4 | E-3 [Ego]
Conscious   I-2 | L-1 [Super-Ego]
----------------|-----------------
Unconscious E-4 | E-3 [Id]
L-2 | I-1 [Super Id]```
This is the psyche of the SE- type. If you want to create a subtype then you need to modify this diagram. That's the axiomatic way to create subtypes. With this system the only way to do that would be the change the function strength.

2. I'm impressed anyone got pookie to talk so much

3. more gulenko heresy

4. @Bertrand

Gulenko is totally clueless to intuitive ethics @1:40, also called maturity. People learn and grow and they develop other aspects to themselves besides the leading function. Does he not understand Model A has 8 functions and not 1?

Ambivert does not exist because a person would be indifferent between functions. It would freeze them. The entire reason we have function strengths is to get around this indifference problem.

5. I'm going to borrow "depth of interactions" because that's a good point

so I actually think there are more base similarities between IEE-Fi + EII-Fi and IEE-Ne + EII-Ne

tl;dr IEE-Fi is what would happen if you fed EII-Fi a bunch of MDMA, whereas EII-Ne is what would happen if you fed IEE-Ne a bunch of Xanax

IEE-Fi seeks depth in their interactions, but they do so while "planting seeds" across a wide spectrum (work, school, extracurriculars) in stereotypical Ep fashion, but they're still not Dostoevsky, so it doesn't magically become a matter of deepening emotional bonds between other people, it's just making friends on an individual basis across a wide spectrum, and they do so in almost a Dostoevsky way - think Huxley motivation (Ne) Dostoevsky method (Fi)

EII-Ne seeks depth in their interactions, and they might collect their friends from various places (work, school, extracurriculars), but eventually they'll want to bring those friends into a single place, so there's an attachment at play (and by that I mean static bonds, Fi) and their means of communication is less about kindness, even if it's still there, it's more about connecting through common interests - think Dostoevsky motivation (Fi) Huxley method (Ne)

I don't usually like using forumites as examples, but in this case, I remember I recognized more immediate similarities between Raver and Subteigh, than I did between Subteigh and myshkin, but after I spent more time on the forum, I began to see growing similarities between Subteigh and myshkin

6. I've read 2 EII-Ne subtype descriptions, one by Gulenko and the other one i can't recall who it was written by (Meged? rings a bell? ). Anyway, the differences weren't very clear to me. Are there any other subtype descriptions i am missing out on? Thanks

7. Originally Posted by Delilah
I've read 2 EII-Ne subtype descriptions, one by Gulenko and the other one i can't recall who it was written by (Meged? rings a bell? ). Anyway, the differences weren't very clear to me. Are there any other subtype descriptions i am missing out on? Thanks
Read the Fi-EII and Fi-IEE descriptions and see if any of them fit you:

http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/t...INFj/subtypes/
http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/t...ENFp/subtypes/

Both are at the bottom.

8. Originally Posted by Raver
Read the Fi-EII and Fi-IEE descriptions and see if any of them fit you:

http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/t...INFj/subtypes/
http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/t...ENFp/subtypes/

Both are at the bottom.
Hey Raver,
thanks for the links. I'll read them. However, I'm very intrigued by the EII-Ne subtype. Both, for seeing if it fits and for understanding that subtype better. Are there any other ones out there? I kinda vaguely recall having read something by Beskova (i think that was their name....?) a few years back and can't seem to locate it now. Thanks.