Machintruc's model phi subtypes

[machintruc]

Subtypes don't exist. I hate subtypes. They aren't really subtypes, but rather "variants". I mean, cognitive pattern is the same. As long as aspects of reality are 16, types will remain 16.

There are many subtyping systems. The most popular is the Initial/Terminal subtype system.

Initial means "Judging subtype", and Terminal means "Percieving subtype".

Here are the preferred physiological configurations for each type. I'd use Model Phi, but here I'll use enneagram because it's simpler.


Alpha :

ILE-Ne : 7
ILE-Ti : 5
SEI-Si : 4
SEI-Fe : 9
ESE-Si : 2
ESE-Fe : 3
LII-Ne : 5 (intimate)
LII-Ti : 5 (social)

Beta :

EIE-Ni : 6
EIE-Fe : 2
LSI-Se : 8
LSI-Ti : 1
SLE-Se : 7
SLE-Ti : 8
IEI-Ni : 4
IEI-Fe : 9

Gamma :

SEE-Se : 7
SEE-Fi : 8
ILI-Ni : 4
ILI-Te : 5
LIE-Ni : 5
LIE-Te : 3
ESI-Se : 8
ESI-Fi : 6

Delta :

LSE-Si : 1
LSE-Te : 3
EII-Ne : 1
EII-Fi : 6
IEE-Ne : 7
IEE-Fi : 9
SLI-Si : 9
SLI-Te : 6


Besides, you can see the "extravert" subtype has usally a more "lively" type.

[Ezra]

What you've just described are essentially the same as subtypes. You're just giving them a different name. Anyway, subtypes are simply a way of showing which of the two ego functions is most evident externally.

[machintruc]

What you've just described are essentially the same as subtypes. You're just giving them a different name. Anyway, subtypes are simply a way of showing which of the two ego functions is most evident externally.

Elements may or may not be evident or not because of physiological correlations.

For example, an outgoing IEI may be mistyped as EIE. Subtypes are an attempt to be some kind of 'safeguard' against mistyping.

I've done research, and adding the neurotransmitter stuff, we can say :

"Extrovert" Etypes are : (or E-phitypes, or global + phitypes)
All Sevens
Social and Intimate Twos and Threes
Intimate Eights, Nines, and Ones

"Ambivert" Etypes are : (or A-phitypes, or global 0 phitypes)
Intimate Fives and Sixes
Social Eights, Nines, and Ones
Preservational Twos and Threes

"Introvert" Etypes are : (or I-phitypes, or global - phitypes)
All Fours
Preservational and Social Fives and Sixes
Preservational Eights, Nines, and Ones

High levels of neurotransmitters contribute to Socionic Extroversion
Low levels of neurotransmitters contribute to Socionic Introversion
High levels of dopamin and norepinephrin contribute to Myersian Extroversion
Low levels of dopamin and norepinephrin contribute to Myersian Introversion


An extrotim with an extrovert subtype is likely to be physiologically extroverted, and an introtim with an introvert subtype is likely to be physiologically introverted.

An introtim with an extrovert subtype, or an extrotim with an introvert subtype are likely to be physiologically 'neutral'.

**E-*e : E-Phitype
**I-*i : I-Phitype
**E-*i and **I-*e : A-Phitype

For example, what does mean ? High dopamin level ? Not necessarily. When a low or average dopamin type (i.e. 124569), the thing is more fine-motor-oriented. When an high dopamin type (i.e. 378), the thing is more gross-motor-oriented.

And what does mean ? Empathy ? At least, for the 279 group. But when dealing with the 468 group, it's not "let's be good friends, and be cool to each other", but rather "I know your motives, don't lie to me, retard !". The first is more stereotypical of , the second more of .

Are SEI's accomodating or hostile ? Nines or Fours ? Fe sub or Si sub ? Do SEI Fours look ? They lack liveliness, so they don't really seem that , but they still perceive the world as in the context of . They just don't really express because they aren't motivated for.

I have lots of examples like that.

The fact subtypes are a way to "describe clearly expressed traits", as Gulenko would say, doesn't mean a subtype system should be based on information elements.

But we should be wary with subtyping systems. As an extreme, wanting to find subdivisions of socionic types would make this :

http://informacionika.narod.ru/

This website explains a theory of 16'777'216 socionic types.

Whatever... I have a better idea. Let's have a fractal socion with an unlimited number of types.

[Phaedrus]

Your theory implies absurd and obviously false statements, machintruc. Therefore it is crap and should be abandoned as soon as possible. No need to dig into the details when the foundation is incorrect.

[machintruc]

Your theory implies absurd and obviously false statements, machintruc. Therefore it is crap and should be abandoned as soon as possible. No need to dig into the details when the foundation is incorrect.

Do you have a better idea !?

[Phaedrus]

Do you have a better idea !?

Of course I have. But I have already stated my general view on the Enneagram and the reasonable correlations between that model and Socionics.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Do you have a better idea !?

To start with, can you please explain to me the conclusive proof that ennegram and psychological type are the same? This is the initial part of your assumption. Then we may be in a position to examine the remainder.

[machintruc]

To start with, can you please explain to me the conclusive proof that ennegram and psychological type are the same? This is the initial part of your assumption. Then we may be in a position to examine the remainder.

They aren't the same. They are correlated.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

They aren't the same. They are correlated.

Really?

Ennegram is personality related. Please go back to basics.

[machintruc]

Really?

Ennegram is personality related. Please go back to basics.

Do you have an Etype-sociotype database or such in your mind ?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Do you have an Etype-sociotype database or such in your mind ?

No.

[machintruc]

No.

So how can you say Etypes and sociotypes aren't correlated ?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

So how can you say Etypes and sociotypes aren't correlated ?

I saw this coming. I asked you to provide the proof that they are the same. Physcological type and personality are seperate. I have seen people of the same types with different personalities. So that is why I asked you. It is your theory after all, this why I said you should go back to basics. It is meant as good advice. Then as I said we may be in a position to examine the rest of it, but you can't expect us to do so at the moment.

[machintruc]

I saw this coming. I asked you to provide the proof that they are the same. Physcological type and personality are seperate. I have seen people of the same types with different personalities. So that is why I asked you. It is your theory after all, this why I said you should go back to basics. It is meant as good advice. Then as I said we may be in a position to examine the rest of it, but you can't expect us to do so at the moment.

Yes, but there are correlations.

When you'll have a database with hundreds of people, you'll see for example that most Fours are SEI, IEI or ILI, most Fives are ILI, LII and ILE, and so on.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Yes, but there are correlations.

When you'll have a database with hundreds of people, you'll see for example that most Fours are SEI, IEI or ILI, most Fives are ILI, LII and ILE, and so on.

There *might* be a correlation, but your initial post follows on to say that its a fact.

In regards to your database of hundreds of people, who made this database, how do you know they were typed correctly on both systems. You don't. And then how can you tell this is a true representation of the public at large. You can't

MBTI make the same errors in their typing statistics. Think about it.

[machintruc]

There *might* be a correlation, but your initial post follows on to say that its a fact.

In regards to your database of hundreds of people, who made this database, how do you know they were typed correctly on both systems. You don't. And then how can you tell this is a true representation of the public at large. You can't

MBTI make the same errors in their typing statistics. Think about it.

Ok, dude. What are you trying to prove ?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Ok, dude. What are you trying to prove ?

Personally I don't know enough about sub-types to make an informed decision. I think it is good that you are examining them, but I think you should re-look at it and reproduce something which stands up. I would like to have an informed decision on them. I am simply querying your output, and therefore proving it needs more work. I also saw your post on socionics.com which said that all classical socionists have disproved them, or something like that. I would like you to say who they are and why they say that, or maybe they didn't say that.

If I were to hunch it I would say there might be some validity in sub types. So I just want to see something which makes sense, do you agree on this?

[machintruc]

Personally I don't know enough about sub-types to make an informed decision. I think it is good that you are examining them, but I think you should re-look at it and reproduce something which stands up. I would like to have an informed decision on them. I am simply querying your output, and therefore proving it needs more work. I also saw your post on socionics.com which said that all classical socionists have disproved them, or something like that. I would like you to say who they are and why they say that, or maybe they didn't say that.

If I were to hunch it I would say there might be some validity in sub types. So I just want to see something which makes sense, do you agree on this?

Well I don't have to make justifications on everything. I don't have the time for this.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Well I don't have to make justifications on everything. I don't have the time for this.

It would be useful if you spent at least as much time justifying your claims as you take to write them. Why should anyone believe what you write when you can't. Where is your credibility.

Are you not able to take a debate on your claims. There is no need to take the huff.

[machintruc]

It would be useful if you spent at least as much time justifying your claims as you take to write them. Why should anyone believe what you write when you can't. Where is your credibility.

Are you not able to take a debate on your claims. There is no need to take the huff.

It's theoretical, and my justification powers are very limited. To try to prove things, I have to type people, and then take their physiological parameters medically. I can't afford such study, dude.

[Ezra]

Your theory implies absurd and obviously false statements, machintruc. Therefore it is crap and should be abandoned as soon as possible. No need to dig into the details when the foundation is incorrect.

What, like half of your foundations are?

Phaedrus, this isn't even an argument. You've simply made two statements and put in a connective for good measure.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

To try to prove things, I have to type people, and then take their physiological parameters medically.

What does physiological parameters medically mean?

[Phaedrus]

What, like half of your foundations are?

None of my claims is absurd, and all of them are perfectly consistent with Socionics theory.

Phaedrus, this isn't even an argument. You've simply made two statements and put in a connective for good measure.

You and I agree that some of machintruc's statements are absurd and obviously false. And even someone with your intelligence should realize that it is a very strong argument to point out that a logical consequence of a theory is false, because that falsifies the entire theory.

An example of an obviously false statement is that a sensory type (such as the SEI) could be a 4, as you have pointed out yourself before.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

An example of an obviously false statement is that a sensory type (such as the SEI) could be a 4, as you have pointed out yourself before.

Why not?

[Phaedrus]

Why not?

Because it is obvious that every 4 must have intuition in the ego block. Read the Enneagram type descriptions, it's all there in plain view to see.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Because it is obvious that every 4 must have intuition in the ego block. Read the Enneagram type descriptions, it's all there in plain view to see.

I am skeptical about drawing too many correlations between ennegram and socionics. This is because they are two seperate systems with seperate origins. I've seen many people with the same type and different ennegram results, and it looks like ennegram is more personality based, whereas socionics is psychologically based. Herein lies the danger of merging them. However if you would care to toss me the link your referring to then I will peruse it further.

[Phaedrus]

I am skeptical about drawing too many correlations between ennegram and socionics. This is because they are two seperate systems with seperate origins.

That argument is totally invalid because it bears no relevance to what we are talking about. So what if the systems are separate and have separate origins? Every system has some correlation to every other system -- especially if they are modeling the same area of reality. The correlations betwenn the Enneagram and Socioncs are obvious and indisputable.

I've seen many people with the same type and different ennegram results

I doubt it. But you probably believe that you have.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

That argument is totally invalid because it bears no relevance to what we are talking about. So what if the systems are separate and have separate origins? Every system has some correlation to every other system -- especially if they are modeling the same area of reality. The correlations betwenn the Enneagram and Socioncs are obvious and indisputable.


I doubt it. But you probably believe that you have.

What is your favourite link?

Are you Prometheus from socionic.com?

[machintruc]

What does physiological parameters medically mean?

It means measuring levels of neurotransmitters in medical means.

Because it is obvious that every 4 must have intuition in the ego block. Read the Enneagram type descriptions, it's all there in plain view to see.

1. Socionic Intuition is not Myersian Intuition.
2. Enneagram descriptions are politically correct and retarded, like myersian descriptions. They tell what most psychologists would like to here.
3. If you encounter a moody SEI (i.e. with a low serotonin level), would you type him Six or Eight then ?

[Ezra]

None of my claims is absurd, and all of them are perfectly consistent with Socionics theory.

They're not absurd, but many are inconsistent with socionics.

You and I agree that some of machintruc's statements are absurd and obviously false. And even someone with your intelligence should realize that it is a very strong argument to point out that a logical consequence of a theory is false, because that falsifies the entire theory.

No. You can't say that. machintruc doesn't state logical consequents; he merely puts statements together. Hence, all you can do is point out which are wrong and which are right. Otherwise you're just being illogical: "x is wrong because y is wrong" (even if x and y are disconnected).

[Creepy-Cyclops]

It means measuring levels of neurotransmitters in medical means.

Is this like brain types? I remember reading a book which put forward the idea that electrical currents in the brain take different routes in extroverts and introverts. It was based on MBTT definitions of those terms though.

[machintruc]

Is this like brain types? I remember reading a book which put forward the idea that electrical currents in the brain take different routes in extroverts and introverts. It was based on MBTT definitions of those terms though.

Physiological types are correlated to myersian types as well...

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Physiological types are correlated to myersian types as well...

I might still have the book. I would like to re examine it because I am thinking that myersian seems to confuse introversion with shyness, or even intelligence. It would be good if there was more research in socionics like this sort of thing, like the Myers people do.

[machintruc]

I am thinking that myersian seems to confuse introversion with shyness, or even intelligence.

No. They're quiet and reserved, as opposed to loud and outgoing, like me. I'm ENTJ.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

No. They're quiet and reserved, as opposed to loud and outgoing, like me. I'm ENTJ.

All the ENTj's i've known have been very boistrous and outgoing, but i've observed that they never really seemed to have real friends, why is that do you think?

[machintruc]

All the ENTj's i've known have been very boistrous and outgoing, but i've observed that they never really seemed to have real friends, why is that do you think?

I'm not LIE. I'm ENTJ.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I'm not LIE. I'm ENTJ.

Aren't extrovert types compatible over the two systems?

Call it ENTJ if you like, the question still stands.

I'm sure I saw somewhere that you said you were INTj, that explains it.

[machintruc]

Aren't extrovert types compatible over the two systems?

Call it ENTJ if you like, the question still stands.

I'm sure I saw somewhere that you said you were INTj, that explains it.

I'm LII and ENTJ.

Read this : http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ead.php?t=8527

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I'm LII and ENTJ.

Read this : http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ead.php?t=8527

Ok.

[Gilly]

You don't think EIEs are E3s? Are you on crack?