Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Creative subtype a hindrance?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Creative subtype a hindrance?

    I think this could be lumped in with another thread, if one of the mods feels it's better categorized somewhere else feel free to do so.

    So, there are a few options to consider. A producing subtype makes you more like your lookalike. Does this mean your program strength goes down and your role up; does it mean you are more aware of your role while the relative strength of the functions stay the same; does it mean that you mesh your role and your program together.

    I feel that this could mean something to the "purpose" of finding duals and such to support your first function use for the collective unconscious..

    Btw, it doesn't really matter to me how you talk about subtypes; im talking about differences in information processing between people of the same type. The creative function has the same relation to the program regardless of a subtype. Outside focus is outside focus under any name.

  2. #2
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Creative subtype a hindrance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Kensington
    So, there are a few options to consider. A producing subtype makes you more like your lookalike. Does this mean your program strength goes down and your role up; does it mean you are more aware of your role while the relative strength of the functions stay the same; does it mean that you mesh your role and your program together.
    Yes that's how some people see it. A Ni-ENTj would be similar to a Ni-ENFj, for instance. The Ni-ENTj's Te>Fe preference would be -- buffered even as still existing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Kensington
    I feel that this could mean something to the "purpose" of finding duals and such to support your first function use for the collective unconscious..
    There are many discussions on this -- the most supported view (in terms of people supporting it) is that rational dual subtypes match better, as do the irrational dual subtypes.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  3. #3
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,625
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think creative subtypes get a bad rap. The most general impression I have is that creative subtypes are more...volatile, since they are, vaguely speaking, more interested in producing than accepting.

    I like detail's description of subtypes using INTj-Ti vs. INTj-Ne as an example:

    http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10964

    If there is anything to that information flow stuff, a good metaphor is that accepting subtypes have a kind of bottleneck when it comes to processing base-function information (and creative subtypes vice versa). That's a plus for creative subtypes IMO, as in the Ti stuff is mostly instant for me (although maybe a bit sloppy) - it goes directly to Ne output.

    I feel that this could mean something to the "purpose" of finding duals and such to support your first function use for the collective unconscious..
    What do you mean?

  4. #4
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't believe in creative subtypes.

  5. #5
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,625
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    I don't believe in creative subtypes.
    Classical socionics: LII - C subtype
    C = creative, no?

  6. #6
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No sir. That's Gulenko's DCNH subtype system. The less elaborately explored version of dual-type theory that the russions do acknowledge.

    C subtype = Ep exertion type.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •