Best Subtype System

[gooey]

Which is the best subtype system?

[Raver]

I've had my moments where I've doubted ACC/PRO, but I'm beginning to realize that it makes the most sense in the grand scheme of things. It acts like a bridge between types you could say, so it makes the theory more complete. The idea of having certain functions stronger or weaker as a result of being either accepting or producing helps explain notable differences between types. In my opinion, the other subtype systems simply fail to do this, which is why I think they're inferior to ACC/PRO.

[Leader]

The no subtype system.

[Ver]

what are these?

[Galen]

Aren't accepting/producing and inert/contact the same thing?

[EyeSeeCold]

1.) Accepting-Producing
functions 1,3,5,7 / 2,4,5,8
Amounts to Rational/Irrational subtypes
Depending on what kind of "strengthening" is meant, may disagree with the fundamental concept of function polarity.

2.) Ego block 2-subtype
functions 1 / 2
loosely amounts to leading/creating subtypes
Not very problematic in theory and makes intuitive sense(strengthened display of a function, for example). In practice, without systematic justification, behaviors and psychologies may be inconsistently and irrelevantly ascribed to subtypes, leading to divergent individual understandings of subtypes.

3.) DCNH
Je / Pe / Pi / Ji
Amounts to temperament subtypes
Is theoretically redundant. In practice may account for socio-temperamental differences between types. Theory may be confused for personality and behavioral traits not related to type.

4.) Inert-Contact
1,4,6,7 / 2,3,5,8
Amounts to Club subtypes
There are no apparent issues so far and it naturally follows from the concept of function polarity(Weak/Strong).


P.s. Why do you make so many redundant threads, gooey?

[Cat King Cole]

^Inert/Contact

[gooey]

Eyeseecold, dunno man. Ever since I discovered DCNH I've just been determined to try to figure out my sub, but no one seems to help much, hence more redundant posts. I'm also trying to see just how "valid" or invalid that system is because it would show me if I'm wasting my time or not.

[silke]

inert/contact, best approximation to what i've seen of real people

[Radio]

I'm beginning to think there is no definitive subtype system, and type differences are probably more accurately denoted by describing function strengths, which are variable and different for everybody, rather than assign people to binary categories which aren't indicative of anything in particular, only vague subjective conceptions of supposed differences. I do think subtypes often look different from one another, and seem to act differently; I do think intratype differences exist but I'm not so sure whether inert/contact or accepting/producing strengthening produces these differences or something else, or whether there are only two categories or more.

Subtype, as I see it, is more of a descriptor of one's habits, tendencies, background and ensuing interests, environment, etc. than any type make-up. That is, behavioral tendencies dictated by one's life experience and molded by the ego functions, than any actual difference in cognition. If that's true then maybe a fuller, more cohesive subtype system can be created that describes these tendencies in detail, perhaps by combining both acc/pro and int/cont for one. Or maybe we need to ditch subtypes as whole and go back to Jung and understand the various complexes he proposed that affect our behavior and understand individual differences through that lens. The latter seems like a drag, but it would be more accurate, effective and helpful.

/rambling

[EyeSeeCold]

How important /valid is that post to you? I want to take on some arguments you brought up, but not if you don't really care.

[Radio]

I want to take on some arguments you brought up, but not if you don't really care.

Sure, go ahead. I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.

[EyeSeeCold]

I'm beginning to think there is no definitive subtype system, and type differences are probably more accurately denoted by describing function strengths, which are variable and different for everybody, rather than assign people to binary categories which aren't indicative of anything in particular, only vague subjective conceptions of supposed differences. I do think subtypes often look different from one another, and seem to act differently; I do think intratype differences exist but I'm not so sure whether inert/contact or accepting/producing strengthening produces these differences or something else, or whether there are only two categories or more.

Subtype, as I see it, is more of a descriptor of one's habits, tendencies, background and ensuing interests, environment, etc. than any type make-up. That is, behavioral tendencies dictated by one's life experience and molded by the ego functions, than any actual difference in cognition. If that's true then maybe a fuller, more cohesive subtype system can be created that describes these tendencies in detail, perhaps by combining both acc/pro and int/cont for one. Or maybe we need to ditch subtypes as whole and go back to Jung and understand the various complexes he proposed that affect our behavior and understand individual differences through that lens. The latter seems like a drag, but it would be more accurate, effective and helpful.

/rambling

Inert-Contact subtypes naturally follow and are inherent in Jung's psychological types. If you take his psychological attitudes as valid then there is only one definitive subtype system under Jungian typology that deals with strength/energy-information paths and that is Inert-Contact. Accepting/Producing subtypes should have never been proposed and were most likely a mistake. Combining them yields nothing as one is not even valid.

I do see benefit in abandoning a rigid system in favor of Jung's fluid archetypal interpretations of the psyche, however Jung's works were incomplete, multifaceted, and were intended for analytical psychology. Cultivating a hobbyist understanding from that is in the end no better than sticking with a developed subtype system in Socionics' Model A, a regression even.

[WVBRY]

I think ego block two subtypes is the only system I would go by. Why? Because all the other systems dont reflect in reality to me, and this one does.

[silke]

From my understanding of Model A, I've always assumed the Inert/Contact functional strengths. It makes a lot more sense in Model A than Acc/Prod functional strengths, and it reflects what I've seen IRL too (e.g. IEI-Nis are often far more "intellectual" than IEI-Fes, and worse at getting stuff done in general).

Acc/prod never made much sense to me for that same reason, since it implies that both introverted function and its extraverted counterpart are amplified at the same time, so you're becoming more extraverted and more introverted at the same time(?)

I'm beginning to think there is no definitive subtype system, and type differences are probably more accurately denoted by describing function strengths, which are variable and different for everybody,

The problem with that reasoning is that the functions are all interrelated, so you cannot vary one without it affecting all the others. There exist specific relationships between the elements in those functions, which are known as intuition-sensing, feeling-thinking, and extroversion-introversion dichotomies. By the virtue of what a dichotomy is, if you shift the balance in favor of one side of any one of these, it will automatically shift away from the opposite side. Meaning that you can't amplify thinking without 'weakening' feeling, or amplify extroversion without 'weakening' introversion, i.e. you cannot have "variable functional strengths". The moment you re-adjust one function, it will have a domino effect across the rest of the model. If you trace all these relationships of the opposites that exist across Model A it looks like it allows for existence of only two subtypes that are based on 'strength' of creative relative to the base.

[carrina]

Acc/prod never made much sense to me for that same reason, since it implies that both introverted function and its extraverted counterpart are amplified at the same time, so you're becoming more extraverted and more introverted at the same time(?)


The problem with that reasoning is that the functions are all interrelated, so you cannot vary one without it affecting all the others. There exist specific relationships between the elements in those functions, which are known as intuition-sensing, feeling-thinking, and extroversion-introversion dichotomies. By the virtue of what a dichotomy is, if you shift the balance in favor of one side of any one of these, it will automatically shift away from the opposite side. Meaning that you can't amplify thinking without 'weakening' feeling, or amplify extroversion without 'weakening' introversion, i.e. you cannot have "variable functional strengths". The moment you re-adjust one function, it will have a domino effect across the rest of the model. If you trace all these relationships of the opposites that exist across Model A it looks like it allows for existence of only two subtypes that are based on 'strength' of creative relative to the base.

I agree with you here. I think this is worth discussing.
If we strengthen fe and te in LIE, what kind of dominoe effect does that create in model A?
If te and fe supress each other, is it really to say the emphasis is on both? For te to have an emphasis there would have also to be an emphasis on ni because they are blocked together? Not sure if that's accurate.
If ni is expressed more boldly, si is suppressed, also suppressing fe since they are blocked together?
Is it about*bold* and *better functioning* or is it about *happens to have gathered more information in the last 5 year's then other ppl*

[Jarno]

The accepting and producing is easy to identify, although i have to admit there are more than 2 subtypes, but those 2 are the most relevant, cause they make the biggest change.

[chemical]

I think Radio's kinda on to the right idea; the thing is, if we want to create subtypes of specficity greater than that, the only way is to look for things that model A doesn't cover that influence the development of the functions...otherwise, might as well just say various strengthenings are possible within the model A framework.

I do not think by any stretch that increasing F decreases T proportionately, or similarly for S and N. More or less, the thing is the S-N tension and the F-T tension are only one (important) part of what affects how developed those become. In other words, there's multiple psychological factors outside the Jungian dichotomies affecting whether a Jungian function gets developed.

[chemical]

In other words, you cannot predict based solely on the prescriptions of model A, as far as I can see, how strengthening Se would impact everything else. I'd say model A does a good job of making a framework describing how typical roles interrelate with one another, and it should be a starting point, but definitely don't think the raw empirical reality of what function gets developed how much is somehow prescriptively predicted by its laws. Most of the time when people try to do that, they just do a lot of self-confirming.

[xerx]

DCNH is the only subtype system which has non-socionics backing, though not without some differences (see relationships between some of the subtypes, for example).

[The Exception]

DCNH: More subtypes, more precision.