Are there more than 2 subtypes ?

[machintruc]

we all know the accepting/producing (or initial/terminal) system of subtypes.

but, as said here :

http://www.the16types.info/beta1-INTJ.php

the short-range/long-range model (i.e. +/-) seem to make a psychic block have 4 functions instead of 2.

I'm an INTj, so, my ego-block has : ACCEPTING - + PRODUCING + -

If I could be either a T or a N subtype, can I have one of those 4 subtypes ?

1. INTj-Ti
2. INTj+Te
3. INTj+Ne
4. INTj-Ni

or are - and + necessarily stronger than + and - ?

[science as magic]

i think it is more interesting to consider the possibility of id, superid, and superego subtypes

[aestrivex]

i have heard the suggestion of the existence of the estimative subtype (ie, an LII Si subtype); to my knowledge it was apparently an idea championed by victor gulenko. i have no idea what it means or how this might manifest itself.

[snegledmaca]

I'd say I'm an estimative subtype.

I always understood subtype to mean an imbalance in the general information in the ego, more producing or more accepting information.

[discourse]

I rather think there are no subtypes. Because when you will see enough people from the same type, you will see that they are different because everyone is different. The differences are not type related. But how that type manifests itself in that person. When those differences are large, usually we're not talking about subtypes, but unhealthy types. Who's IMT is feeded defectically. But on an avarage person it is hard to notice weather he or she preferes the Dominant or the Creative function. People usually use both equally.

[FDG]

But on an avarage person it is hard to notice weather he or she preferes the Dominant or the Creative function. People usually use both equally.

Not only I am against this, but I think that in some people it's easier to determine, say, if the person is Fi-creative more so than if the person has Ne or Se dominance. The same applies to Ti creative, of course.

[machintruc]

I rather think there are no subtypes. Because when you will see enough people from the same type, you will see that they are different because everyone is different. The differences are not type related. But how that type manifests itself in that person. When those differences are large, usually we're not talking about subtypes, but unhealthy types. Who's IMT is feeded defectically. But on an avarage person it is hard to notice weather he or she preferes the Dominant or the Creative function. People usually use both equally.

both ego functions are "strong" but what's the strongest ? We're not talking preferences, but actual strength. we talk "preferences" when we talk MBTI.

for example, an ethical man can actually prefer to use his logical function to appear more manly. that doesn't mean he could be a ESFj, logical subtype...

or a left-handed person can prefer to use his right hand...

but I saw there are 4 ego functions in the improved "+/-" Model-A, so...

either I'm -Ti and could be one of those functions for subtype,

either there are really 2 subtypes, and a INTj-Ti will use better his +Te and an INTj+Ne will use better his -Ni.

either subtypes actually come from bad typing.

etc.

I don't really know.

I know Gulenko proposed a non-socionic system of subtypes, with 4 physiological factors and 3 poles. I don't know his system, but it probably correlates with Enneagram, because Enneagram has itself 4 group systems with 3 groups each.

the enneagram groups are :

Instinctive 891 Emotional 234 Mental 567
Reactional 468 Competent 135 Positive 279
Power-oriented 258 Approval-oriented 369 Ideal-oriented 147
Aggressive 378 Compliant 126 Withdrawn 459

One enneagram theorist said they are related to neurotransmitter levels.

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/articles/NArtTina.asp

[Jarno]

i know 11 people of the same type very well, i've put them in a nice database containing their most obvious behaviour and even some VI, to see the similarity's and differences, so i could make subtypes out of them.

very interesting it became because they all were very similar at some point and so different at others. But i haven't managed to get a better subtype system then the allready existing one. But the already existing one, does have some flaws in it, if i compared it with my database.

[Slava]

I rather think there are no subtypes. Because when you will see enough people from the same type, you will see that they are different because everyone is different. The differences are not type related. But how that type manifests itself in that person. When those differences are large, usually we're not talking about subtypes, but unhealthy types. Who's IMT is feeded defectically. But on an avarage person it is hard to notice weather he or she preferes the Dominant or the Creative function. People usually use both equally.

If you use the model consistently youll see that there are differences between a types condition or status and the cognitive process they use. There is a finite number of maths one can use, so subtype might just be a different application of a type of math within a context. Like one might focus more on the connections between different systems, and the other might focus on the systems within the connections. Where as one might systematize connections and the two subtypes will focus on either the tree trunk or the branches.

[machintruc]

what on earth would be the difference between -Ti and +Te subtypes?

Maybe a INTj+Te would be better at mathematics, self-discipline, management than an INTj-Ti

[machintruc]

What brings you to that conclusion?

the difference between and

[machintruc]

What has self-discipline to do with , particularly Alpha ?

types tend to be hardworking, and Alpha is

[Slava]

What has self-discipline to do with , particularly Alpha ?

types tend to be hardworking, and Alpha is

Ti is internally hard working.

[machintruc]

What has self-discipline to do with , particularly Alpha ?

types tend to be hardworking, and Alpha is

Ti is internally hard working.

but, internally ; most types I've known were inclined to be lazy (like INTj), and most types I've known were inclined to be hardworking (like ISTp). Gulenko said that Ti = passive logic, and Te = active logic or something.

could it be the opposite either for a Ti type with Te subtype, or for a Te type with Ti subtype

[Jonathan]

but, internally ; most types I've known were inclined to be lazy (like INTj), and most types I've known were inclined to be hardworking (like ISTp). Gulenko said that Ti = passive logic, and Te = active logic or something.

could it be the opposite either for a Ti type with Te subtype, or for a Te type with Ti subtype

Since when is ISTp considered to be any more hardworking than any other type?

I'm not sure Gulenko is the ultimate source, although he has some good ideas.

[Phaedrus]

but, internally ; most types I've known were inclined to be lazy (like INTj), and most types I've known were inclined to be hardworking (like ISTp). Gulenko said that Ti = passive logic, and Te = active logic or something.

could it be the opposite either for a Ti type with Te subtype, or for a Te type with Ti subtype

Since when is ISTp considered to be any more hardworking than any other type?

I'm not sure Gulenko is the ultimate source, although he has some good ideas.

Being hardworking correlates much more with temperament than with functions. EJs are the most hardworking types, IPs the laziest. That is true as a general pattern, but any IP can of course work harder than any IJ occasionally. Over a longer period of time, though, IPs are definitely the laziest.

Some people insist on saying that INTjs are lazy, and that is just a myth -- probably due to incorrect typing. IJs in general are not lazy. And no type can work harder than an ENTj.

[Slacker]

And no type can work harder than an ENTj.

ESTjs are pretty hard workers too, from what I've seen.

[Slacker]

As I was getting my daughter ready for bed, I had another thought about laziness and Ips/Ejs.


From what I've seen:

Ejs aren't lazy because they want to make progress. Even if what they're doing isn't obviously useful at that time, they'd rather do something that leads in the direction they want to go than be idle, because idleness isn't getting them anywhere and they definitely want to go somewhere.

Ips don't want to expend energy on things they deem useless, or even potentially useless. They'd rather store up their energy and save it for things that are obviously necessary. To spend time and energy on things that only *might* be useful to them seems wasteful.

I think the word "lazy" is unfair to Ips because it isn't laziness so much as it is being efficient.

[Phaedrus]

Ips don't want to expend energy on things they deem useless, or even potentially useless. They'd rather store up their energy and save it for things that are obviously necessary. To spend time and energy on things that only *might* be useful to them seems wasteful.

That's exactly how Ijs are described:

They always try to conserve energy and keep it for activities that are objectively necessary. They are afraid of excess activity and non-productive exhaustion of their strength. These are the most energy-saving and sensible people.

Ips have slightly different motives:

Energy level is very unstable. They react to discomfort very strongly, which is why they use their energy to avoid unacceptable conditions or to create comfort. On their rare moments of activity, they become similar to the representatives of the EP temperament, but on their moments of inactivity, they seem similar to the representatives of the IJ temperament.

I think the word "lazy" is unfair to Ips because it isn't laziness so much as it is being efficient.

I disagree. I think it's fair. Many of us Ips are naturally lazy. We usually don't work efficiently.

[Slacker]

I forgot you thought you were an INTp.

[krieger]

Concrete Te paired with abstract Ni..?! What is that, some parallel dynamic countermovement to Ti-Ne+..? Sounds like a bad joke. Makes me think star trek transporter accident.

In any case now I am really curious to what +/- are derived from.

[Phaedrus]

I forgot you thought you were an INTp.

What I said is true regardless of whether I am INTp or not. And it is not my personal views, it is basic knowledge of Socionics.

[Jonathan]

I think the word "lazy" is unfair to Ips because it isn't laziness so much as it is being efficient.

I disagree. I think it's fair. Many of us Ips are naturally lazy. We usually don't work efficiently.

While I agree with your understanding of the temperaments, I also think Slacker Mom has a somewhat valid point, as long as it's not taken too far.

There are productive Ips. Warren Buffett is most likely ILI. Descriptions of SLI types describe them as able to accomplish a lot without much effort (i.e., they're not known to be particularly hard-working, but with their strong sensing and logical focus, they are able to avoid wasted effort).

There are many great advantages to being "lazy." Many great inventions came out of laziness. More dutiful types may labor hard, while an ILI can write a computer program to do the same thing. Laziness is important. Also, a lot of things that seemed so important really aren't that important after all; if you don't do them, sometimes you find that they really don't need to be done. And of course, someone needs to look at the big picture and think about the way things really ought to be run; and generally you can't do that well if you're too busy.

I think it needs also to be said that whereas for Ips (especially INps), being efficient and organized doesn't come as naturally as for other types, every type of person can overcome his/her weakness. That's why you can have successful introverted politicians, etc.

[machintruc]

Being hardworking correlates much more with temperament than with functions. EJs are the most hardworking types, IPs the laziest. That is true as a general pattern, but any IP can of course work harder than any IJ occasionally. Over a longer period of time, though, IPs are definitely the laziest.

Some people insist on saying that INTjs are lazy, and that is just a myth -- probably due to incorrect typing. IJs in general are not lazy. And no type can work harder than an ENTj.

"p = lazy" that's pretty MBTI-esque... isn't that ?

Ip types have high stress resistance, so they are more likely to be hardworking than Ij types.

types aren't the only hard-working ones, and a subtype of an Alpha type would have Alpha Te, else they wouldn't be an Alpha type, and you would have typed them incorrectly. An INTj+Te isn't going to go around violating the Alpha spirit.

if my hypothesis and the improved A-model are actually right...

[krieger]

Hm.. I woun't dispute INTp's are wont to have motivational issues, but to say they are the most lazy of types seems to be too one-dimensional a stance. My INTp father can seem inclined to spend his free time on frivolties and unproductive wanderings, but once one gets him started on manual work or menial intellectual tasks, he is damn near unstoppable. At such times his focus and dilligence are a sight for all to see.

Also while he is by no means a natural born leader he maintains himself very well in management position and has persisted at this for about a decade now.

[Stormy]

Could someone please point me in the direction of an introduction to the Subtypes (i.e. the basic theory behind it)?

[machintruc]

Could someone please point me in the direction of an introduction to the Subtypes (i.e. the basic theory behind it)?

Basically, the most known socionic subtype theory stipulates that accepting and producing functions are not equally strong.

There are for each type an accepting subtype and a producing subtype. In classical 16-type socionics they are two types for each block of functions. For example types with blocked with are INTj and ENTp. The 2-subtype theory stipulates that there are 4 types for each block of functions ; for the same Ti-Ne block there are : INTj-Ti, INTj-Ne, ENTp-Ne and ENTp-Ti. INTj-Ti can also be called IN(T)j or INTj-accepting.

Accepting and producing subtypes are also called (respectively) terminal and initial subtypes.

[Stormy]

Could someone please point me in the direction of an introduction to the Subtypes (i.e. the basic theory behind it)?

Basically, the most known socionic subtype theory stipulates that accepting and producing functions are not equally strong.

Thank you. What does 'strong' mean in this context?

[machintruc]

Could someone please point me in the direction of an introduction to the Subtypes (i.e. the basic theory behind it)?

Basically, the most known socionic subtype theory stipulates that accepting and producing functions are not equally strong.

Thank you. What does 'strong' mean in this context?

Strong functions (1, 2, 7 and 8) are pretty like the right hand for the right-handed...

[Stormy]

Strong functions (1, 2, 7 and 8) are pretty like the right hand for the right-handed...

Does that mean one is more efficient at using them, one prefers using them, the former because of the latter, the latter because of the former, something else...?
-

[machintruc]

Strong functions (1, 2, 7 and 8) are pretty like the right hand for the right-handed...

Does that mean one is more efficient at using them, one prefers using them, the former because of the latter, the latter because of the former, something else...?
-

You are more skilled on using strong functions because they are more developed and they can handle more complex material.

[FDG]

Strong functions (1, 2, 7 and 8) are pretty like the right hand for the right-handed...

Does that mean one is more efficient at using them, one prefers using them, the former because of the latter, the latter because of the former, something else...?
-

I think that as strong basically means that the stronger functions is used more. Which inputs another problem: what constitutes usage of a function - I don't know.

[Stormy]

I think that as strong basically means that the stronger functions is used more. Which inputs another problem: what constitutes usage of a function - I don't know.

>_<

Thanks, though, guys.

[machintruc]

I think that as strong basically means that the stronger functions is used more. Which inputs another problem: what constitutes usage of a function - I don't know.

use of functions is continuous, like a CPU incrementing the instruction pointer after each instruction and executing the next instruction... when you talk to someone, he interprets the information differently than you, except when he has your type. information elements are subjective and a type describes the type of the operating system of your brain...

[Jarno]

Ip types have high stress resistance, so they are more likely to be hardworking than Ij types.

This conclusion is wrong.

IxxP are indeed more stress resistance, which makes them better at crisis, but makes them also more lazy when a job needs to get done. They only get active when doing something they really like.

IxxJ are much more responsible and hard working. They work hard, whatever they have to do.

[machintruc]

Ip types have high stress resistance, so they are more likely to be hardworking than Ij types.

This conclusion is wrong.

IxxP are indeed more stress resistance, which makes them better at crisis, but makes them also more lazy when a job needs to get done. They only get active when doing something they really like.

IxxJ are much more responsible and hard working. They work hard, whatever they have to do.

in means, we can say :

j = actions causes states of mind
p = states of mind causes actions

strictly speaking, J/P has very little to do with lazyness ; they are just 2 ways to be lazy or hardworking ; for a lazy P, it is easier to behave hardworking than for a lazy J (like me) ; laziness is more related to I ; because they require less external stimulation, they do less actions.

[krieger]

Hm... It seems easier for the average introvert to stick to a specific constructive activity, though.

[FDG]

Hm... It seems easier for the average introvert to stick to a specific constructive activity, though.

if you are a positive-process-Se-IJ like you, yes

[Not A Communist Shill]

I think the article on dream interpretation might be useful for the question of extra subtypes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_interpretation
(I came across it after doing research into rmcnew's question about dream interpretation ).
Here, if anyone's interested: http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...f830908269fea3

It says that there is a conflict between the conscious SuperEgo ( + in INTjs) and the unconscious Id ( + in INTj). This is because the conscious Ego ( + in INTjs) dominates all other blocks, especially the unconscious Id, so that when an issue arises in the 'childish'\'primal' Id it manifests itself with a clash with the authority\moral-forming (adult-like, fully formed?) of the SuperEgo. This is because you are unaware of the Id, being unconscious, and because you don't like the SuperEgo + Id (you try to repress the Id, but it manifests itself in conflict with you weak conscious SuperEgo, which obviously, being conscious you are more aware of.


(stolen from 16types)

(Apparently when you see the SuperEgo functions in another person, you project your 'shadow' onto the person, which is your unconscious Id functions - the Id block represents negative aspects of your psyche you don't like and hence try to repress, occasionally bubbling to the surface in conflict situations.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_%28psychology%29

I imagine your Ego block works in the same way as shadow projection, apart from on people with your SuperId functions ( + in INTjs) in their Ego block, and rather than seeing the SuperId as negative aspects of yourself, you see them as positive, but weak, aspects which need extra proximity to that person .

When I looked at the Erotic attitude descriptions for each type + subtype (simply because I felt like it)
(http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...f830908269fea3)

- I saw that INTj N subtype, ESFj S subtype, ESFp F subtype and INTp T subtype fitted me the best (for the ESFp + INTp ones, I sorta recognised bits off myself I didn't really like, but were part of me nonetheless - it wasn't that difficult to choose). You'll notice I've got one N subtype, one S subtype, one F subtype and one T subtype - I obviously don't know if this applies to everyone, but basically, it is possible to have subconscious subtypes? If they mirror your ego block function preferences, as well as your subtype preference, then your other three subtypes are set in stone as soon as you choice your Ego block subtype - this might be a good way of determining your Ego block subtype (looking at your possible SuperEgo, SuperId and Id subtypes as one collective). It's a lot of mights however . (I have now stopped smoking pot, metaphorically speaking).

[Not A Communist Shill]

Also, about relative 'strengths' of blocks:

I think conscious functions (Ego + SuperEgo) must be stronger than unconscious ones (SuperId + Id) simply because they are conscious - whether you like them strongly or not is a different matter. I think when you as an individual use the Ego block functions, you actively use them - you like them, and they are strong, it is easy to do so. However, I think the SuperEgo functions are used passively - they only manifest themselves in the event of an outside attack. Your response to being attacked in the area of your SuperEgo functions is to respond negatively with your Id functions (they come to the fore). In times of stress, IMO your SuperEgo functions are increasingly used - INTjs become ESFp-like (ooh the horror ).

So normally -> Ego block (INTj = INTj) (active and strong)
Interaction with conflictor = negative aspects of Id (INTj in conflict with ESFp = negative aspects of INTp) (active but weak)
Interaction with dual = positive aspects of SuperId (INTj with ESFj = positive aspects of ESFj) (passive and weak)
In times of stress = negative aspects of SuperEgo (INTj in time of stress = negative aspects of ESFp) (strong but passive)

Where negative = manifestation of what you consider the worst parts of your psyche