Subtype and Functional Differences

[Steve]

I do believe subtypes exist, in fact I've seen very clear examples of the different subtypes.

I am a believer that with each subtype, its not that one function is used more than the other or that one is stronger, it's that the functions are used differently.

Basic socionics theory states that functions are made up of different information elements. They are as follows:

extraverted intuition = internal statics of objects
extraverted sensing = external statics of objects
extraverted logic = external dynamics of objects
extraverted ethics = internal dynamics of objects
introverted intuition = internal dynamics of fields
introverted sensing = external dynamics of fields
introverted logic = external statics of fields
introverted ethics = internal statics of fields
(taken from socionics.us)

Also it is important to note the distinction between object and fields:

Objects:Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)
Fields:Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject.
(from socionics.us)

So, in term of subtypes, I believe that the functions work in a slightly different context and process information in a slightly different order for each subtype.

For example:

Take an ENTp, whose primary functions are Ne and Ti; in other words, Internal Statics of Objects and External Statics of Fields

In my view, an ENTp-Ne subtype will experience things in primarily an object mode, and their look will reflect looking AT something, perceiving something separate from themselves. Their Ne perceives the internal static qualities of objects, and then the person takes those static qualities of objects and forms them into a Ti field (a more abstract, theoretical form), so in essence Ti forms together Ne's perceptions.

For an ENTp-Ti, they experience things in primarily a field mode, or an applied field mode, focusing on the systems and coherence connecting objects, and their look will reflect them being immersed in the fields that surround them. Now how Ne functions for a Ti sub is it takes these fields the person experiences, and treats those fields as objects, and perceives the internal static qualities of these fields.

So, in summation, (Note: I had to use """""" simply for spacing purposes and ignore it when interpreting the diagram)

Ne sub: [Ne-Ne-Ne-Ne-Ne-Ne-Ne-Ne-Ne-Ne-Ne-Ne] (Ne, an applied perception of the internal static qualities of objects)
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''\ /
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''Ti (An abstract mental field of Ne objects)

Ti sub: Ti,-Ti,- Ti, - Ti,-Ti,- Ti,- Ti, (Ti, An applied judgment on the external static qualities of the fields and their coherence)
'''''''''''''''|'''''|''''''|'''''''|''''''|'''''' |''''''|
''''''''''''''Ne-Ne-Ne- Ne- Ne-Ne-Ne (Ne, an abstract perception of the internal static qualities of the fields)

If you wanted to you could even call each version of Ne and Ti something different.

You could say the Ne sub uses "Object Ne" (Ne operating within the context of objects) and "Object Ti" (Ti operating within the context of Ne perceptions of objects)

And that the Ti subs use "Field Ne (Ne operating within the context of Ti fields, treating fields as objects to perceive) and "Field Ti" (Ti based in applied fields and the coherence of the fields that surrounds them)

[FDG]

Sounds good. I agree.