There is no clear correlation between socionics and enneagram, and actually a uncommon way to use for deciding subtypes.
Subtypes do probably exist, meaning there is no continuum range of a certain type but a clear devision between them. But nobody really knows how and what. The best subtype devision that I've seen is the popular one of of Medved and (i forgot the other name). The producing and accepting subtypes.
They seem to correlate a great deal to what you see in real life.
The quickest way to learn about subtypes is to know many people of 1 certain type. You'll start seeing similarities and differences between people of that type.
I think they exist and are just as immutable as base types. Obviously I am coming from the perspective that functions are internal psychic lenses, so if you disagree with that, you won't find what I have to say of much value. But, essentially I think your subtype is really what creates the salient points of your cognition. It's not just, "I'm more Ni than Fe," or, "I'm more accepting than producing." I think it has more to do with a certain directionality in the wiring of your psyche, which determines how you primarily deal with information and your general vantage point for processing reality. The contours of our cognition -- not deep rooted like enneagram, but the pathways that information will always travel down for us.
4w3-5w6-8w7
How to decide subtypes?
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
Subtypes are actually the base type.
So as a uncover more and more, I'm realizing that there are really 32 types.
Im a Ti ENTp.
This actually means my mode (base) function is Ti and Ne is my utility (creative) function.
Temperament is not determined by the element dichotomies as much as how your mode and agenda relate.
Last edited by ArchonAlarion; 03-08-2009 at 04:50 PM.
The end is nigh
yeah its odd I know.
But thats what I and others have been/are coming up with.
I could go into more detail...
The end is nigh
because my mode and agenda are both field elements.
This means that during my "projects" I will not have to make a mental shift between objects and fields like J types must. So P types are mentally lazy, just gliding along on a single flow of thought. I just keep trucking on the field train rarely having to focus on objects. This leads to high, unstable project production levels as my "mood" is the prime determinant of what I get done and when. P types are "obstacle-phobic" whereas J types are "obstacle-phillic"
The end is nigh
I have a theory I'm working on about subtypes. When it's presentable I'll make a thread about it (or something like that). It has to do with sensitivity along axes.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
well Im not really reinventing the elements dichotomies, but model A, yes.
The end is nigh
I guess what it comes down to is temperment—which seems to be both over-emphasized as well as under, oddly enough.
I've seen some people end up coming to the conclusion that “temperments aren't really that significant” when they're trying to decide between two mirror types (like say, IEI vs. EIE). They'll switch their type back and forth dynamic XNFx without ever really “deciding” on their temperment. Although both dynamic, EJ is really different from IP, obviously. If someone actually understands temperments, it would be very weird for them to switch types between temperments as if they're some flimsy aspect to type.
I mean, what was it that I just read you saying? Bleh, scrolling down…
See, that's the point with subtypes imo. It's kind of the opposite of boxing. It's acknowledging that a person could have leading/base/mode without being forced-fit into A) an IP temperment or B) “an ENXj with a developed creative function.” It's not splitting hairs, despite how it seems. The ideal for any typological system isn't to identify as many possible types, of course. Nor is it about having fewer, more general types. Our goal here is to identify as many relevant types—it's all about pragmatism. If you actually use Socionics to understand relationships or patterns (etc.) then you'll want to categorize the types by however many follow similar, useful patterns or whatever. Don't stick to 16 if doing so will not allow you to make valid type-related observations. Don't go past 32 if doing so means you're just dichotomizing things into insignificant differences—of which you gain no use of knowing. Does this make sense?
He has an EP temperment. So honestly, could someone tell me why that means he must have a Pe leading/base/mode function? And for future reference, a real answer isn't: “Because (insert dead Socionist here) said so.”
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
Gets me really pissed when people pull that card.
AUSHRA IZ TEH GOD, BAO DOWN NAO!!!!@!@
The end is nigh
According to Smilingeyes, a person can be base and have stronger; there's nothing wrong with that. Instead, there is a basic difference between how accepting functions and creating functions work:
Originally Posted by SmilingeyesFor some reason having or as accepting function makes you EP, probably because that sort of information demands EP behavior and the creating function is the first thing you use to face a situation (so you act EP). Smilexian subtypes point to the stronger ego element, so I suppose a creative subtype would quickly switch to the creative function most of the time after getting the first impression through the accepting function.Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
This seems more natural to me than the Model X approach, although some of the potential of Model X for explaining why Judging types act as they do intrigues me.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
To answer this more directly: EP temperament = Pe leading. Then the descriptions come along... and if you aren't either both EP temperament and PE leading or neither, then someone's botched a description, because they're synonyms.
If you want to redefine things so that that isn't true, then obviously you can't be proven wrong; nor is that any evidence against classical Socionics.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
This is my point. Stop using “for some reason” and “probably because.” Tell my why it must be that way.
A model is only as valid as it represents reality. Perhaps an EP with Ji accepting/leading/base/mode/(synonyms etc.) isn't theoretically conventional. However, it honestly makes the most sense to me when interacting with various types of EPs. To categorize two EPs as Pe-leading simply because, “theory says so,” is a tad ignorant when I've had experience with types that prove contrary to that. Quite simply, the reality is a priority above theory. Reality says that someone has a Ji base with an EP temperment—not a model, not a theory, not any dead, Russian Socionist. Go with what you see. If there is any truth in the patterns you observe, the “model” will form itself.
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
There are many ways to "decide" which subtype is the most likely. My personal favorite is, look at the two adjacent clubs, and see which one fits you best; if it's neither, then you're an inbetween subtype. Other ways are related to either trying to notice which adjacent quadra you get along best with, or slight modification in intertype relations (i.e. a Fe-INFp will basically have a conflicting relationship with a Te-ENTj where a Ni-INFp will have a more standard supervisee situation; the problem with this criteria is that it's self-referential, in the sense that to start there must be an arbitrarly "right" assigned subtype for a given person)
Of course, temperament is to be considered as fixed, it will only be rather confusing to think of an EP-Ji as an IJish EP; if you really want to, it would be just better to create a category for all the EP-Ji were to clog all the characteristic behaviors
That's not easy to characterize in a system such as socionics for a simple reason, if an IJ Pe is to be considered as EPish, then an EP Ji IJish, you start losing the frame of reference for temperamentsReality says that someone has a Ji base with an EP temperment—not a model, not a theory, not any dead, Russian Socionist. Go with what you see. If there is any truth in the patterns you observe, the “model” will form itself.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
no, i understood you. Functions != elements, I know this.
The end is nigh
That isn't quite what I meant. I agree with the frame of reference thing. I don't think an IJ-Pe should be considered EP-ish, nor should an EP-Ji be considered IJ-ish.IJ-Pe : IJ : : EP-Ji : EPAlways. By leading (or base/mode/etc.) function, I meant it more in an “accepting” way? Like um, a primary lens used to process information? Which, imo, doesn't always correlate with people's behavior. The way someone “sees” or interprets information (i.e., a mode, a base, whatever) doesn't manifest through behavior. It's merely how they take things in. I think a person's temperment is a fixed thing.
As an ESI-Se, my “mode” is Se, and imo that doesn't mean I must behave in an EP way—because I'm definitely IJ. Blah. I hate explaining stuff like this through writing.
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
lol, yeah.Originally Posted by Allie
The erroneous conflation in this mess stems from an inaccurate understanding of both functions and temperament. Contrary to what many groundbreaking articles will tell you, "P" functions aren't inextricably linked to a "P" temperament; saying so dumbs down the more subtle, essential components of each of those things.
Temperament deals with psychic energy levels, thresholds, and a certain control or adaptability one exhibits in their thoughts and actions. My observations lead me to believe that temperament is a much more deep-rooted psychic phenomenon that encompasses things socionics has yet to cover. Regardless, what is important to note, is that it is a precedent, a psychic foundation -- not a corollary of some functional ordering in a model.
Now, as for functions, "P" functions are really just more reactive to information, whereas "J" functions are more refining of it. An Se base/mode person does not necessarily have to act in a stereotypical ESxp way, nor does Ti base/mode necessitate rigid IJ behavior. There are subtle differences between p- and j-subs' cognitions, but nothing that determines temperament. Again, this stems back to psychic directionality and ordering; the difference between a Ti-ESTp and Ti-ISTj, is that the former has a strong Ni focus and the latter has a strong Fe focus. As archon mentioned, a fluid focus on either objects or fields makes a lot more sense for the irrational temperament; and a switch from objects to fields works better for the more deliberate rational temperament. So, it's not about one piece of the puzzle which necessitates everything else; it's about the interdynamics of each piece, which vary subtly for similar types.
4w3-5w6-8w7
@archonalarion: is your 32 subtype system also based on observations? just curious.
Well I would really only feel comfortable calling it "my" system when its deviated enough from those who brought it to my attention in the first place (steve, ashton, and nick)
And yes, I was almost elated when it was explained to me because it clarified and made sense of irl observations.
The end is nigh
I've been seeing the influx of "Model X" as a sort of growing viral infestation. It's trying to re-write the collective thought, or rather change the collective language that we all more or less refer to. It's trying to overturn the old system in favor of a "new" one. And because it doesn't seem to be very coherently defined it can even say it isn't doing this while it is doing it.
hmmm...
Perhaps you don't understand how new things come about.
Allow me to explain:
You observe how something works.
You find its faults.
You create different theories.
You develop them over time, seeing how well they describe reality.
You continue this process until a complete theory materializes.
Unfortunately my sudden, all at once, epiphany, button isn't currently functioning so I am unable to give you a complete theory as quick as you may want it.
And its because the old system is shitty.
And we know this due to our lack of science grants from the federal government.
When socionics hits the news as the next big science THEN we will have a non-shitty model.
Have a nice day.
The end is nigh
They have not said how or why.
"It's trying to overturn the old system in favor of a "new" one."
That came across as a bit reactionary. And Im quite sure that there are people here that would be quite content to stagnate.
So I think I'll go on trying to improve things and I'll post my ideas and what I've considered here.
The end is nigh
I have and I said that I am not subscribing to any model at the moment. Model x is just closest.
The end is nigh
From my understanding of things...
There's an Accepting subtype and a Creating subtype. (I'm in the habit of using Accepting and Base interchangably and Creating interchangeably with Creative Realization function)
From what I understand, Accepting means reactivity and simple thoughts. Primitive thinking.
Creating means complexity and deep deliberation.
I don't think there are fixed subtypes. In fact, a person is probably a certain subtype in relation to the environment s/he is currently in.
If the person knows little about the environment, s/he will be forced to fall back on simple, reactive, primitive thoughts. This is what I understand to be behavior related to an Accepting subtype.
If the person knows much about the environment, s/he can use the full arsenal of his/her tools including complex and highly effective ones. S/he may even transfer such tools and knowledge to others.
I'd describe the two concisely as:
Accepting subtype behavior: student-like behavior (safe; modest)
Creating subtype behavior: teacher-like or professional behavior (risky; pretentious)
You know it doesn't exist, right? That it's all hokum and hoo-ha?
Let's say for a moment that subtypes are fixed. (I believe they are, as it's been my observation.) Given this, what are your thoughts on how duality works? I.e. XXXx's creating subtype is XXXx _____ subtypes' dual?
This remark was interesting... I've been trying to link obstacle-minded thought and oppurtunity exploiting thought to terms in socionics for the last few weeks, but what I came up with is that it's linked to Process/Result. J types are Process when behaving like STs, whereas P types are Result when behaving like STs, so I would estimate that your conclusion applies to activities related to the ST types: very concrete, practical activities, rather than mental ones.P types are "obstacle-phobic" whereas J types are "obstacle-phillic"
IMO an ENTp is typically a person who solves a mental problem with a "eureka" realization. The focus is on an obstacle, but more on the happy feeling of overcoming such problems than on the restrictions of these problems themselves. It's not in any way a concrete obstacle like is the case with the Judgers' Process ST behavior, though.
really its obviously a mistake to even mention "model x" I'm realizing.
And I'm not adhering to it anyways so I dont care whats been said about it.
And as of now Im thinking Ij sub Ep goes with Ej sub Ip, Ep sub Ep goes with Ip sub Ip, Ep sub Ij goes with Ej sub Ej, and Ij sub Ij goes with Ip sub Ej.
As of nowwwwwwwwwwwwwww
The end is nigh
you say that and i agree, but others will deny its existence. Ashton freakin says it doesn't exist.
Really I dont care. Im just trying to improve shit and Im not gonna stop posting new ideas here because they dont adhere to model A.
You guys are hitting my 6 fixation and Im getting all righteously rebellious, so Im done whatever.
The end is nigh
I'll answer the question if you consider that the following is "labcoatian socionics".Given this, what are your thoughts on how duality works? I.e. XXXx's creating subtype is XXXx _____ subtypes' dual?
Trick question. Everybody wants to be with a Creating subtype person because an Accepting subtype person is quite litterally a loser. Someone who doesn't know anything. So regardless of what subtype a person is, the Creating version of the dual is ideal for them.
IMO if an Accepting subtype person meets their Creating dual they learn stuff at an incredible rate. It doesn't take long until they become Creating subtypes themselves...
Of course, the only thing worse than a normal Accepting subtype person is a failing Creating subtype person. I mentioned that Creating activity is risky and this is how. If a person claims to be knowledgeable but turns out not to be, s/he makes a tremendously hard fall. This kind of reduction from the illusion of being a clever, knowledgeable person to a loser who doesn't know jack is what is commonly refered to as... drumroll... the PoLR hit.
You can even find this stuff out in yourself. Find yourself in a PoLR hit situation. Prior to the hit, you thought you were Creating but had too optimistic views of your abilities. After it, you are reduced to what you really were: a loser who can't help but behave in a way that doesn't draw attention. (not saying anyone here is a loser; using loser in a relative way; everybody finds him/herself playing the loser's role every once in a while)
In defense of Accepting subtype behavior, this kind of behavior is something everyone can get along with, even your conflictor. It's very diplomatic. Not usually very spectacular, though. Accepting function behavior is definitely a valuable skill in everyday life. It just isn't something anyone ever wants to be confined to. Probably most people including myself are Accepting subtypes for most of their lives. But there is an environment in just about each of our lives in which we are consistently Creating subtypes.
So less politically correct:
Accepting subtype: diplomatic, unspectacular "loser"
Creating subtype: attention drawing, risktaking novelty
ESFj's can seem like they've had too much helium
The end is nigh
Ill do you one better.
I shall show you.
shes like 18 or some shit too.
The end is nigh
J types see everything as a small obstacle. P types see big obstacles and non-obstacles. This is reasoned from (my distortion of) Model X as follows:P types are "obstacle-phobic" whereas J types are "obstacle-phillic"
J types have complementary elements as the elements they use naturally. I'll use me for example - I'm Ne over Si. So my cycle is:
Ne-Fe-Si-Ti-Ne-Fe-Si-Ti-Ne-Fe-Si-Ti
On the other hand, Archon is a P type, so his naturally-used elements are monoverted. Specifically, he's Ti over Si.
Ne-Fe-Si-Ti-Ne-Fe-Si-Ti
The non-bold elements are obstacles between the bold elements. I have a constant one-element barrier (a small obstacle) between every pair of elements; Archon has alternating zero-element and two-elements barriers between his element pairs.
P types may be afraid of obstacles, or eager to smash through them; the difference is that P types will perceive the obstacles as very different from the non-obstacles, while J types will treat everything pretty much the same.
(Why must the elements cycle in that manner? Because IJ (for elements) is the partitioning of IP into EP, whereas EJ is the agglomeration of EP into IP. The cycle varies by quadra, but is always EP->EJ->IP->IJ->EP.)
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Archon, I don't mean that I think you shouldn't try to improve things or come up with new ideas. I'll try to put my overall complaint (which isn't just with you but with the entire world) into more words.
I believe that models only approximate reality and while there can be a benefit to improving a model so it approximates it better I don't see "Model X" as improving Model A but rather as a separate model entirely that although it overlaps with Model A to some degree it is not systematizing "reality" in the same way. (e.g. a 32 type system where the subtype is the base is not the same thing as a 16 type system where subtype is not so significant.)
So since they are in fact different systems I don't see why it is productive to constantly try to override one with the other as if they're both the same kind of "Socionics." And I think that's why I was being "reactionary" because I feel like this comes up all the time now where entire threads become bogged down in constant disputes over what isn't even the same system.