Subtypes complicate things

[metaiwan]

I have a problem with subtypes...not that we shouldn't look at them (more information is always good), but I think they might add more confusion than they help, and here is why I think this:
Types in socionics are supposed to be exact and stable. Types will never change. But the subtype theories out there (as far as I can tell) are based on your preference between the main and creative blocks...basically how you live your life. We are trying to fuse something which is supposed to be static with something that is dynamic and based on preference, and I think this is a bad idea. Or they should make this most clear.

[discourse]

Subtype means type having smoller unions.

Type is either extroverted or introverted. If the type is extroverted then the collective part of the behaviour is dominating.

The individual behaviour is like an hobby to you then. This hobby is his introverted side.

One type can be using either first or the second function as a main one at the moment of it's life.

Moment of it's life means that extroverted type has a collective life phase and he is a extroverted subtype, f.e ENTp intuitive.

The things might change and that ENTp might need to live for his own, to become introverted. Then he will start to use his introverted function, it's introverted logic. He beocomes ENTp Logical subtype.Living in individual phase of life.

I'll note that the introvesion and extroversion don't mean sociality- asociality.

The block preference in my point of view is like an accent your types behaviour has. F,e accent on SUPERID when we meat our dual. The dualisation ?

This is how i'd explain the thing. Try figure it out, if you want, think what do the concepts :extroversion, introversion, type, subtype, block means. It's a task for your

And off course, excuse me, if the Mirror relations showed its nature.

[CuriousSoul]

Well I did attach a warning to the subtype descriptions. 8) They are difficult. The descriptions that are available are not very good. There is also no theory to help you by making any predictions on how the subtypes should differ, it can be very difficult to say if either one of the subtypes is correct - and please do always try to recognize the type first. It may also well be that it is more appropriate to say that your subtype corresponds to the state of your mind and can change several times. Yet nonetheless sometimes subtypes can in my opinion make it more understandable how so very different people can belong to the same type and by knowing about these differences it can become more understandable how other people and socionists type people. As I said there are highly social introverts, strictly private extroverts, etc.

[discourse]

CuriousSoul, why can't we say that the extraverted side of us is the extroverted function and the introverted side the intorverted function in EGO, if the version is the world where we live in and it can be seen from the outside (E) and from the inside (I). The needs, motives, values etc might want us to live in one of them at one life phase. Of course on condition that the subtype is permanent, perhaps like a social role or something.

[CuriousSoul]

CuriousSoul, why can't we say that the extraverted side of us is the extroverted function and the introverted side the intorverted function in EGO, if the version is the world where we live in and it can be seen from the outside (E) and from the inside (I)..

I am not quite sure I understand what you mean. I think both of the Ego functions as well as all the other functions are at different times and in different ways quite well visible to the outside. Also the fact that the functions are extroverted or introverted does not necessarily imply that their use would show up as conventional extroverted/introverted behaviour.

The needs, motives, values etc might want us to live in one of them at one life phase. Of course on condition that the subtype is permanent, perhaps like a social role or something.

What I can say at this stage is that there are many permanent, probably inborn, personality traits in addition to the basic type of information metabolism - but as usual further research is needed...

[MysticSonic]

Subtypes do complicate things, yes, but they a part of the system, and ignoring them only serves to lessen our understanding of the system. At times, the neglection of such a factor in one's type would seem to be the most rational thing to do, yet we lack the degreer of understanding of which parts of the type descriptions are describing certain variants, if they're described at all. At best, we could hazard a guess as to what degree the authors of these type descriptions contain elements of the subtypical behaviours as being that of the balanced individual, one who prefers neither the development of the clay nor the structuring process, which is what would seem to be the most logical sort of preference one might describe, as it contains no bias, or at leaset, yields the least amount of confusion, at least from my perspective, in comparison if one is to mix the description of the type with bits and pieces of how each subtype act.

In either case, the subtype theory in the state that it is in now should be left alone, as it is neither validated, at least to the point the rest of the Socionic theories are valididated, and neither does it serve to add us in understanding our type and other's due to the lack of empirical evidence, and I use those terms loosely, supporting this theory.