a perspective on subtypes and quadras

[strrrng]

I remember reading a post a while ago that stated that an INTj intuitive subtype would lean more towards delta because they value Ne, while a thinking subtype would lean towards beta. However, this is not correct; it is reversed. an intuitive subtype INTj (or ENTp) would lean towards beta values, because it is +Ne we are speaking of, which is what beta values (-Ni/+Ne). delta's value -Ne/+Ni. A thinking subtype INTj or ENTp would lean towards delta because the -Ti/+Te would correspond to the +Te/-Ti.

this is not superfluous; orientations are real.

[Mediator Kam]

So technically, we could create an entirely new mapping of type using this idea, right?

Or just classify an intuitive subtype INTj as an ENTp?

[Gilly]

I remember reading a post a while ago that stated that an INTj intuitive subtype would lean more towards delta because they value Ne, while a thinking subtype would lean towards beta. However, this is not correct; it is reversed. an intuitive subtype INTj (or ENTp) would lean towards beta values, because it is +Ne we are speaking of, which is what beta values (-Ni/+Ne). delta's value -Ne/+Ni. A thinking subtype INTj or INTp would lean towards delta because the -Ti/+Te would correspond to the +Te/-Ti.

this is not superfluous; orientations are real.

...except that ILIs have -Te as a second function. Nice try, though.

[strrrng]

...except that ILIs have -Te as a second function. Nice try, though.

this has nothing to do with what I said, buddy. all I talked about was -Ti and +Te. but to go with what you said, a thinking subtype INTp would lean more towards beta values because they value +Ti/-Te. an intuitive subtype INTp would lead towards delta due to the -Ne/+Ni.

maybe you should recheck your logic.

[strrrng]

So technically, we could create an entirely new mapping of type using this idea, right?

Or just classify an intuitive subtype INTj as an ENTp?

not exactly sure what you mean...

I wouldn't classify an intuitive INTj as ENTp...they would probably have more in common with INFp's and ENFj's...while a thinking INTj would have more in common with ESTj's and ISTp's.

[Gilly]

A thinking subtype INTj or INTp would lean towards delta because the -Ti/+Te would correspond to the +Te/-Ti.

You said it, not me.

[Mediator Kam]

Oh, excuse me, I thought you were saying that an intuitive INTj would be functionally equivalent to an ENTp, wtf.

But anyway, what I mean is that we could technically classify subtypes in different quadras if we use this logic.

[Gilly]

But anyway, what I mean is that we could technically classify subtypes in different quadras if we use this logic.

How so? The value and presence of the other function doesn't change.

[strrrng]

You said it, not me.

fuck, didn't notice that...I meant ENTp.

[strrrng]

But anyway, what I mean is that we could technically classify subtypes in different quadras if we use this logic.

no, because the actual function usage wouldn't change; it would just be certain tendencies based on smaller, specific preferences.

[Gilly]

fuck, didn't notice that...I meant ENTp.

That works. But don't you think an ILE who uses lots of Ti would be more likely to piss off an IEE than an ILE who uses lots of Ne?

[strrrng]

an ILE who was subtype Ti would relate more to LSE and SLI than IEI and EIE...it would be reverse if he was Ne subtype.

[Gilly]

an ILE who was subtype Ti would relate more to LSE and SLI than IEI and EIE...it would be reverse if he was Ne subtype.

First of all, you didn't answer my question.

Second of all, I don't see the use in comparing Static types to Dynamic types. They don't have the same conscious functions, so, odds are, they aren't going to identify with one another very well at all except in their shared values.

[strrrng]

First of all, you didn't answer my question.

Second of all, I don't see the use in comparing Static types to Dynamic types. They don't have the same conscious functions, so, odds are, they aren't going to identify with one another very well at all except in their shared values.

oh, I just reread your first question. the answer is yes.

ESTj has +Te/-Ti, INTj has -Ti/+Te, so if they were both thinking subtypes, chances are they would share some similar, general tendencies (even if they aren't, they still will, in that area).

actually, what I'm generally talking about can be found on the wiki functional revise. for example, the group called the systemizers consists of ILE, LII, LSE and SLI.

[Gilly]

oh, I just reread your first question. the answer is yes.

So how do you justify a Ti-ILE fitting better in Delta than an Ne-ILE?

ESTj has +Te/-Ti, INTj has -Ti/+Te, so if they were both thinking subtypes, chances are they would share some similar, general tendencies (even if they aren't, they still will, in that area).

actually, what I'm generally talking about can be found on the wiki functional revise. for example, the group called the systemizers consists of ILE, LII, LSE and SLI.

AHHH NOOOO NOT HITTA'S CRAP! This is why the Wiki was a bad idea...

I'll warn you now, Gulenko's stuff (all of the +/- material) should come with a big ass red warning sign and a bunch of caution tape around it. It's not all in keeping with classical Socionics and he's considered a rogue Socionist by most. Sorta the Russian version of our very own tcaudilllg.

[strrrng]

So how do you justify a Ti-ILE fitting better in Delta than an Ne-ILE?

I didn't say they "fit better." What I'm saying is that subtypes contribute to smaller, specific tendencies, and depending on the subtype, a person will identify more with another quadra than the rest (excluding their own). They would exhibit certain characteristics associated with that quadra, but obviously not to the extent of their own quadra. the reason Ti ILE "fits better" into delta is because he focuses on his -Ti/+Te, which goes with delta's +Te/-Ti, albeit reversed. the same for the Ne subtype.

[Gilly]

So are you trying to say that each subtype actually shows "preferences" tending towards both adjacent quadras?

[strrrng]

So are you trying to say that each subtype actually shows "preferences" tending towards both adjacent quadras?

I am simply hypothesizing that, since subtypes exist, one's subtype would determine the quadra - and other things - that they identify with most, secondarily. It was more of an attempt to clarify what I read before, because that was based solely on functions, without taking into consideration orientation of those functions.

[Gilly]

I am simply hypothesizing that, since subtypes exist, one's subtype would determine the quadra - and other things - that they identify with most, secondarily. It was more of an attempt to clarify what I read before, because that was based solely on functions, without taking into consideration orientation of those functions.

But isn't it just as fair to say that a Ti-ILE would identify with Beta for having stronger shared functional values than with Delta? Can you fairly place more emphasis on either the +/- dichotomy or functional values? I would be inclined to give the function itself more value, as Gulenko's theories are obscure and not widely accepted. Why do you favor +/-?

[strrrng]

I value +/- because I believe that functions do behave differently depending on which function they're blocked with, so that would warrant a + or a -. however, I am not as adament about putting two functions in each position, i.e., INTj being -Ti/+Te....he very well may have +Te as some shadow balancer, but not of real usage, atleast compared to -Ti.

[Gilly]

I fail to see how blockings inherently merit +/-. Obviously a mechanism of perception has to work with a mechanism of judgment to produce anything, so each is going to manifest differently based on the combination. But if that automatically merited differentiation between the different manifestations of the function, well, we may as well assign a single discrete function to each block and just have 16 different functions, should we not? You might say they have similar properties, but so do Fi and Ti, Te and Fe...I think (hope?) you see where I'm going with this.

[strrrng]

point taken.

here is an example of what I'm talking about: quadras have specific "roles"...to be simple, alphas create ideas, betas apply, gammas remove the faults and deltas maintain the consistency of the honed, applied idea. If there is no +/-, quadras would lose their meaning. +Ne is specifically tied to new ideas, -Ne is about removing faults and looking for the best idea, rather than all the ideas. -Se is about revolution....it goes on...I realize +/- is not 100% necessary, but it does make sense on a general level.

[strrrng]

if you interpret the above as increasing -Ti/+Te and decreasing +Ne/-Ni (towards delta) - you must also interpret it as decreasing -Fe/+Fi and increasing +Si/-Se (towards beta)

not so sure about this. I mean, a -Ti/+Te subtype ILE doesn't necessarily decrease +Ne/-Ni. I don't know why you would think this. They are strong in both, the emphasis in the Thinking subtype is just more on developing the ideas than expanding on all the possibilities. Alphas and Deltas do not use intuition in the same way. Delta does not care about coming up with a bunch of new ideas. They want stability, so they winnow all the alternative ideas to the best one and progress steadily with it. The Betas value -Ni/+Ne, so they are about firstly checking for errors in the past in order to take correct action, but also developing new ideas to apply in society. So, an INFp would identify more with an ENTp in that sense. The only way deltas and alphas are alike is in the thinking and feeling functions. Deltas want to increase structure, so they will break down ideas in order to find the crux, or best idea, to apply. This is because +Te is first. alphas care about developing the theories, so they will break everything down, and if motivated, potentially apply it, but use +Te more or less to take in information in a structured, systematic manner so that they may break it down.

N alphas>>beta, T alphas>>delta, F alphas>>delta, S alphas>>beta.

you can say +/- is redundant, but that is not entirely true. It's not as simple as "this function is used this way with this function." tcaullidg's post evinces the idea quite concisely. depending on positioning and nature of the element, +/- will manifest in many different ways.

[Blaze]

strnng your ideas have excellent face validity for IRL situations that i know about. i definitely move toward beta to the point where i actually question my type (between ILE and SLE). perhaps you can apply your theory to some of the random facts below:

a few practical, anecdotal examples: all my serious relationships have been with beta men. i don't want to waste time with too much theory or too many ideas that don't go anywhere, yet i can think of them easily, but my focus is more on practical application and whether things really work. i worry that i would accidently hurt an alpha SF in a serious relationship...i think for this reason i would not be good enough for them. beta men seem like they can take it better or something. i do have pretty good discipline and will to get things done, but if i lose motivation for whatever reason, i run out of gas. so i would have to say that Ne comes more naturally to me than Se, but that Se is better developed than socionics theory would predict. but certain betas seem, ever so slightly, dangerous.

there are two sets of aunts/uncles/cousins in my family. i never wanted to hang out with the primarily delta family which was comprised of an LSE, SLI, LIE, IEE, and finally SLE. the other family was IEI, SLE, LSI, ESE, SLE, LSI. i loved being with this family esp with the IEI who was my aunt and my older cousin who was the ESE. these relations go back 40 years now.

the family i grew up in is all delta except for one brother who is an LII. i do have great intellectual conversations with him but he is very difficult to get along with for any length of time at a close distance. he's quite irritible and condescending. the rest of the family connects easily on delta values. the LII is def Ti dominant, he def leans toward delta and fits in OK with them.

i actually think my life is a great example since i've now been alive for quite some time and you can sort of see how things play out over time.

ok....so how would you apply your theory to these facts? do these facts support your theory or detract from it? are there alternative socionics interpretations which explain these facts better?

[Jonathan]

I remember reading a post a while ago that stated that an INTj intuitive subtype would lean more towards delta because they value Ne, while a thinking subtype would lean towards beta. However, this is not correct; it is reversed. an intuitive subtype INTj (or ENTp) would lean towards beta values, because it is +Ne we are speaking of, which is what beta values (-Ni/+Ne). delta's value -Ne/+Ni. A thinking subtype INTj or ENTp would lean towards delta because the -Ti/+Te would correspond to the +Te/-Ti.

this is not superfluous; orientations are real.

The basic problem here is that the subtype model you're referring to says that INTj intuitive subtype will shift more easily to the role function (Fi), in which case +Ne shifts to -Ne by definition, as ifmd95 has correctly pointed out.

What I find so interesting here is that all this time hitta has been complaining about how people don't accept his innovations, etc., and all of the sudden we have all these new people on the forum and even some older members who have now completely internalized hitta's system.

-Ni/+Ne as Beta values is one of hitta's ideas. It is now accepted here as part of core Socionics.

[mikemex]

Some time ago I wrote a post which suggested that MBTI types are more convertible into socionics types than what most people think. The idea was simple: most extroverts match. Introverts match if sensor, they reverse if intuitive.

So the initial idea given here that LII/ILE relate to LSE/SLI makes a lot of sense if you bypass the emphasis on socionics in the hierarchy of functions and instead look at patterns of thought. It's like classical socionics explains the motivations of the individual listing which functions are dominant and which ones are subdued, but that there is missing a part which explains the actual approach used by the individual to fulfill those motivations.

From my perspective, LII and SLI are awfully similar. My father is LII and I can safely say that they possess the same care giving tendencies of SLI, just being less adept at providing them. The humor is also focused on irony and contradictions. Both strive for positive emotions and appreciate a friendly environment.

So, is it a coincidence then that an SLI and a LII, when converted into MBTI types using the rule above, result in:

SLI: Ti Se
LII: Ti Ne

Maybe SLI and LII are separated from the socionics perspective in that they have different priorities and such, but the idea that LII is an abstract thinker and SLI a concrete thinker, both using fundamentally identical analytical skills just fueled by different input sources (SLI: interaction, LII: reflection) seems at least worth being considered.

[Jonathan]

The basic problem here is that the subtype model you're referring to says that INTj intuitive subtype will shift more easily to the role function (Fi), in which case +Ne shifts to -Ne by definition, as ifmd95 has correctly pointed out.

What I find so interesting here is that all this time hitta has been complaining about how people don't accept his innovations, etc., and all of the sudden we have all these new people on the forum and even some older members who have now completely internalized hitta's system.

-Ni/+Ne as Beta values is one of hitta's ideas. It is now accepted here as part of core Socionics.

By the way, now that I think about it more, I can see where what you're saying may make some sense. The original subtype theory, proposed by Gulenko I believe, postulated basically a cycle so that you have

ISTj -> IN[T]j -> I[N]Tj -> INFj

I think Smilex made some sort of diagram reflecting that cycle, which is probably relevant for quite a number a number of people.

But as I propose in my self-indulgent theory of cycles thread, you could consider a cycle like this:

INFp -> INTj -> ISTp

So that if one is to be considered INTj but "on the cusp" of another type, one may be on the cusp of types that have a different temperament.

This could also take different forms....perhaps someone may be on the cusp between INTj and ESTj. Considering possibilities, the person develops theories which the person applies by "flipping" -Ti to +Ti and thus applying these theories that have nevertheless a sense of Ti origin/connection to them.

[Jonathan]

PS...I suppose that might be similar to what Tcaud sees as "INTj-ESTj" but I'm not sure since I don't really understand dual-type theory.

[strrrng]

otherwise, what distinguishes one subtype from another - if not a variation in function strength? "emphasis" isn't a variable in the model. it's not about function strength, just usage. strength is just a conception based on that. I prefer boxing over basketball, but am equally good in both
...
ENTp and ENFp will both invest lots of time into considering alternative possibilities in the future, in the environment around them. yes, but ENTp's consider alternatives in a search for new ideas while ENFp's look at alternatives in an attempt to make sure they are implementing the best idea on a consistent basis.
...
ways that either are fully consistent with Model A before anyone uttered +/-. or alleged "ways" that lack evidence and consensus. (in the vein of what Gilly was saying.) i think +/- and other derivations like it can shed light upon interesting tendencies within the existing body of research. some of the Gulenko material does this. on the other hand, some of the "homebrew" +/- (especially hitta's) takes the concept beyond that into what may be mere speculation.agreed

...

The basic problem here is that the subtype model you're referring to says that INTj intuitive subtype will shift more easily to the role function (Fi), in which case +Ne shifts to -Ne by definition, as ifmd95 has correctly pointed out.I only meant they would share general characteristics in that specific area, not lean towards another quada in all aspects.

-Ni/+Ne as Beta values is one of hitta's ideas. It is now accepted here as part of core Socionics.I don't know...but that is just the functional pair....I believe the order plays a big role. I do not slap superficial characteristics to types based on simple +/- (like hitta)
...
INFp -> INTj -> ISTp
So that if one is to be considered INTj but "on the cusp" of another type, one may be on the cusp of types that have a different temperament.
This could also take different forms....perhaps someone may be on the cusp between INTj and ESTj. Considering possibilities, the person develops theories which the person applies by "flipping" -Ti to +Ti and thus applying these theories that have nevertheless a sense of Ti origin/connection to them.good example. I would probably say this: ISTj<<INTj>>ESTj. UDP made this post about which type from each quadra you identified most. it kind of relates to this.

[strrrng]

strnng your ideas have excellent face validity for IRL situations that i know about. i definitely move toward beta to the point where i actually question my type (between ILE and SLE). perhaps you can apply your theory to some of the random facts below:

a few practical, anecdotal examples: all my serious relationships have been with beta men. i don't want to waste time with too much theory or too many ideas that don't go anywhere, yet i can think of them easily, but my focus is more on practical application and whether things really work. i worry that i would accidently hurt an alpha SF in a serious relationship...i think for this reason i would not be good enough for them. beta men seem like they can take it better or something. i do have pretty good discipline and will to get things done, but if i lose motivation for whatever reason, i run out of gas. so i would have to say that Ne comes more naturally to me than Se, but that Se is better developed than socionics theory would predict. but certain betas seem, ever so slightly, dangerous.

there are two sets of aunts/uncles/cousins in my family. i never wanted to hang out with the primarily delta family which was comprised of an LSE, SLI, LIE, IEE, and finally SLE. the other family was IEI, SLE, LSI, ESE, SLE, LSI. i loved being with this family esp with the IEI who was my aunt and my older cousin who was the ESE. these relations go back 40 years now.

the family i grew up in is all delta except for one brother who is an LII. i do have great intellectual conversations with him but he is very difficult to get along with for any length of time at a close distance. he's quite irritible and condescending. the rest of the family connects easily on delta values. the LII is def Ti dominant, he def leans toward delta and fits in OK with them.

i actually think my life is a great example since i've now been alive for quite some time and you can sort of see how things play out over time.

ok....so how would you apply your theory to these facts? do these facts support your theory or detract from it? are there alternative socionics interpretations which explain these facts better?

these are good examples. as for your LII Ti bro leaning towards delta, that would seem to agree...given +Te and -Ti. you seem alpha, so operating on that basis, you may be an Ne subtype, given the facts at hand. liking to be with the IEI, according to my general idea, could suggest Ne subtype.

[MysticSonic]

This perspective explains perfectly why I love INFjs.

[MysticSonic]

But ISTjs annoy me.

[strrrng]

This perspective explains perfectly why I love INFjs.

so, you're Ti sub? or...perhaps you value your Fe dual...-Fe/+Fi corresponds with +Fi/-Fe ..."to some degree"....dont want to piss certain people off....

a lot of posters here think blaze leans beta, not because of her heightened intuition but because of her heightened Se. which makes sense with her fondness for INFp's, because INFp's seek Se. yes, -Se/+Si...beta

heightened Se also seems consistent with what blaze said about practical application. she might still be confident in understanding Ne+Ti however because of heightened Ti. which is consistent with the beta-leaning ENTp being the Ti subtype (as per quadra rotation.) beta does not use logic in the same way as alpha. do you not get this?

[strrrng]

or more importantly, contradict the existing theory. if +/- mattered more than Fe > Fi preference, then INTj and ENFj would not be partial duals as described.

I'm just speaking on seperate, specific thinking styles. not overriding traits or anything.

[strrrng]

NOTE: this thread has been more of a hypothesis for me than anything else.