MBTI Had Subtypes!

[Slava]

http://www.personalitypage.com/INTP_per.html

INTPs who have developed their Extraverted Intuition to the extent that they regularly take in information in an objective fashion, rather than strictly to feed Introverted Thinking, will enjoy these very special gifts:


They may be exceptionally intelligent, and make ground-breaking discoveries.
With a well-developed understanding of their environment and the ability to act very quickly, they may good athletes.
They're typically able to communicate their ideas more concisely than the average INTP without sacrificing accuracy.
They understand the benefits of close relationships, and understand how to support and enhance these relationships.
They see the value of principles that are not strictly logical
They have attractive and compelling personalities, and are well-liked and accepted by most people.

[Slava]

kind of. basically it's a Ti + Ne thing not an Ne thing. this is under the whole complete "self realization" subfield of typology

From personal observations, it seems that these differences develope pretty early and remain pretty long. I know many INTj's who are living int heir own world and think they are invinvible and love anime and dont shower and talk really fast, and then another kind which understands people better and is more about philosphy and the one truth rather than just any truths. Both subtypes typically remain the same their entire life with different paths of development.

[Slava]

Well they seem to be putting the creative function subtype in a more possitive light, but essentially in socionics I think thats what subtypes are, an emphasis on either the base or creative.

[Angel von Himmel]

Well they seem to be putting the creative function subtype in a more possitive light, but essentially in socionics I think thats what subtypes are, an emphasis on either the base or creative.

Exactly ... it probably has to do with certain dominant prefrences in diffrent portions of the brain, like I have been theorizing.

oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=1313

[Slava]

They should just make a new system of typing... for example...

INTjc and INTjb (creative, base [or boring ])

I think the best dual combo is when the c/b matches too

so... ESFjc & INTjc = dual, ESFjb & INTjc = distant dual?

[Jimbean]

"MBTI had subtypes"

probably not scientific, just a random thought or a rationalization for the flaws the system.

[Topaz]

They should just make a new system of typing... for example...

INTjc and INTjb (creative, base [or boring ])

I think the best dual combo is when the c/b matches too

so... ESFjc & INTjc = dual, ESFjb & INTjc = distant dual?

You would just looove to reduce everything and everybody to predictable lables wouldnt you? I suppose everyone could walk around with little tags(forget names, just acronyms please) designating their type with percentages and so forth. Then we wouldnt have to make any changes and be gauranteed successful relationships. I think there does come to be a point where we have to accept that relationships will require some compromise and risk. There is no getting around it.

Topaz

[Cone]

I dislike subtypes, because they put accepting-subtype people at a lower level than creative-subtype people.

Also, the definitions of subtypes are invalid. One who prefers Ti- shows more Ti- than Ne+, but one knows that one prefers Ti- by showing Ti- more than Ne+. It's a circular definition, and that is invalid. Does anybody really know why people prefer one function over the other?

[Topaz]

Basically what you see is mostly what youre going to get. Unless your whole MO is to meet people over the internet and have a cyber relationship you will eventually have to deal with the person IRL. Whats going to happen when the person does something outside of their type catagory? This is one of the reasons I dont like superlatives used in type descriptions. To say this type is Always this or Never that is a set up for bewilderment and disappointment when they dont meet our expectations.

Topaz

[Rocky]

umm... you have three people....

One shows a 5:4 ratio of Ni:Te.

One shows a 5:3 ratio of Ni:Te.

And one shows a 3:5 ratio of Ni:Te.

Sooo... the first two people still prefer Ni to Te (ILI) while the third guy prefers Te to Ni (LIE), but the first guy doesn't perfer Ni over Te AS MUCH as the secong guy, so guy #1 is a logical subtype and guy #2 is an intuitive subtype... or that's what we call them because we see a slight diffrence in behaviour.

[Topaz]

WYSIWYG.

Topaz

[Slava]

I think a type can have varying strength functions, as long as the metabolic flow directions are preserved.... If someone I am speaking to steps outside of the description of their type I will respect them more for being more developed, and this doesnt destroy any of my systems regarding people. If anything I might make new systems around that.

[Cone]

This is one of the reasons I dont like superlatives used in type descriptions. To say this type is Always this or Never that is a set up for bewilderment and disappointment when they dont meet our expectations.

The alternative to this problem is just as bad, and it often appears in different trait theories. If I were to say, "ESTps are often aggressive," (instead of "ESTps are always aggressive,") most of the ESTps would deny that and say, "I am only aggressive when I need to be!" But when you change the description to what they say, then it applies to everybody, including non-ESTps. So you aren't really saying anything when you take the "sometimes" route.

[Slava]

We should take the conditional route then or the example route. Ie... ESTp tend to be agressive when there is a task to be done and they are the only ones ready to perform, or when their image is at stake. For example they may become agitated at others theorizing rather than taking action and may become pushy and active ins uch situations. That sorta solves that I think.

Or how about... they can become pushy without any anxiety or feelings of guilt

[Cone]

The conditional route is the way to go, however to get it to work requires extreme complexity, and not all ESTps will act in the way stated. You must also consider social-cognitive influences.

Or how about... they can become pushy without any anxiety or feelings of guilt

This still won't apply in all situations.

[Slava]

How about... they carry in them the potential to skillfully exude power, and to manipulate the facts using clever tactics in order to keep others on a need to know basis while maintaining the Ni's vision of the future.

[Cone]

It's still missing information. In what situations would we see this potential being realized?

It's hard, I know. But I think if we keep doing this, maybe we'll come up with something good.

[Topaz]

How about just simply stating what they commonly do without the suprelatives. For example "ESTPs act aggressively. They push for what they want and do not give up unless their logic dictates a different course of action."
I think thats better than "ESTPs never give up. They always push for what they want.

topaz

[Cone]

"ESTps act aggressively" gives no information to when, where, or whom upon they act aggressively. For all we know, ESTps may act aggressively only on Christmas Eve in Walmart towards their mother/spouse/whoever for them to buy them something good for Christmas. And besides, everyone acts aggressively at least once in their life.

[Topaz]

Ha! thats funny but really thats as much as we CAN say. Unless we polled all ESTPs and asked them exactly when they act agressively then we cant say for certain. There can never be an exact description of any type because of the limitations of language and the numerous differences that exist between people. Do you think that the descriptions of the types are not specific enough for a person to see his type and identify with it?

Topaz

[Scrummy]

The type description must be relative to other types: "ESTps are relatively competitive people, compared to less audacious types. Where others would fall back in timidity, an ESTp may be wont to take the initiative and stay the course."

Now, there will be common threads behind ESTp behavior - with most types, there is a sort of credo that underlines what they like and what annoys them and may set off a fuse. I think, in order to create a more accurate reading of a type, it is important to find those buttons, and to explain what is liable to happen if those buttons are pushed.

[Topaz]

Agreed. The best ones to write the description should be members of that particular type since no one knows better than they what they are about. rmcnew was correct in asking for forum members to write their own profiles. I think though that a pair of the type should write the profile instead of one. Reason being is that they both will flesh out motives more than one person thinking alone. Two head are better than one. A hydra might be too many.

Topaz

[Creepy-waddlesy q]

I agree that its a good idea in general, but not as a legitimate description because it isn't functionally based. It's more of an "how do you see yourself?" sort of thing. This can make individual personality traits get mixed in with the description.

[Cone]

The type description must be relative to other types: "ESTps are relatively competitive people, compared to less audacious types. Where others would fall back in timidity, an ESTp may be wont to take the initiative and stay the course."

It's still too vague!!! "Where others would fall back in timidity" could be anything. An ESTp would definitely fall back where certain types of emotions are involved. And it doesn't rule out every other type. This could equally apply to ESFps, ISTps, ISFps, or hell, even INTps and INFps! (And even others still!)

Now, there will be common threads behind ESTp behavior - with most types, there is a sort of credo that underlines what they like and what annoys them and may set off a fuse. I think, in order to create a more accurate reading of a type, it is important to find those buttons, and to explain what is liable to happen if those buttons are pushed.

Mm-hmm. But this in only good for theory and the like, not general type description.

[Cone]

I agree that its a good idea in general, but not as a legitimate description because it isn't functionally based. It's more of an "how do you see yourself?" sort of thing. This can make individual personality traits get mixed in with the description.

Ick, I am completely against that idea, and for those reasons. A good type description is one that SHOWS behavior and doesn't try to explain it. Trying to explain it only invites subjectivity.

[Cone]

Yeah, that's why I am opting for type descriptions explained by operant conditioning principles. :wink:

The idea is to describe a person using certain operational definitions. Like if we want to say a certain type is "aggressive", we must have a definition of "aggressive" which describes certain objective behaviors as falling under the term "aggressive". The thing is, this takes much more work than just observing people arbitrarily and jotting down some shoddy type description.

[Rocky]

positivism!!!! no!!!!! it's inevitable though ):

embrace the Se pedro... ... or can't you pretend that it's just Si and you're happy? Isn't the what Sergei Ganin does?

[Rocky]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=positivism

hmm... actually, it sounds more like SiXe (devived through sense perceptions, but can either be logics or ethics according to definition).

[Cone]

positivism!!!! no!!!!! it's inevitable though ):

Ahahahahaha! Eat my Te, circus boy!

[XcaliburGirl]

positivism!!!! no!!!!! it's inevitable though ):

Ahahahahaha! Eat my Te, circus boy!

I'd post an lol smiley, but I know how that bugs you, Cone. *wink*

[Scrummy]

The idea is to describe a person using certain operational definitions. Like if we want to say a certain type is "aggressive", we must have a definition of "aggressive" which describes certain objective behaviors as falling under the term "aggressive". The thing is, this takes much more work than just observing people arbitrarily and jotting down some shoddy type description.

This is baby-talk to an English major. Language doesn't work that way. You will forever be shackled down with connotations and colorings that are beyond the author's intent or the author's hands. This is the reason people have such trouble with blurbs of this sort - they read into the streamlined text their own circumstances and their own experience, and will often come out at odds with the description of the type they are in actuality. You might as well create a list of objective behaviors as opposed to the traditional MBTI type description. That would save us the semantics woes.

I think, to an extent, the subjectivity is necessary <- objective behaviors can and will apply to people of any type. Means of expression, cadences of emotion, emphasis, etc. In short, that "metabolism of information" that we used to talk about <- these are the things that differentiate type.

[Cone]

You might as well create a list of objective behaviors as opposed to the traditional MBTI type description. That would save us the semantics woes.

Isn't that what I was saying? What I really want to do is describe the types as tables of measurements and mathematical functions.

I was thinking that a professional type description would only be understandable by professionals, as one would have to memorize hundreds of operational definitions just to understand what was going on. General type descriptions will just have to deal with misinterpretations and subjectivity if the populace is to understand them.

I think, to an extent, the subjectivity is necessary <- objective behaviors can and will apply to people of any type. Means of expression, cadences of emotion, emphasis, etc. In short, that "metabolism of information" that we used to talk about <- these are the things that differentiate type.

The idea is to differentiate between objective behaviors of a certain class. For example, everyone is aggressive to a point, but some are Se-aggressive, Ni-aggressive, Se(PoLR)-aggressive, Ne-Ti+-aggressive, f(x)=x^2/8xh(Si+)(dy/df(x)) aggressive :wink: , etc. The complexities are immense, but if this is to be a theory of human nature, it damn well better be complex.

"Metabolism of information" is all theory. Subjectivity tells you how the type himself and the types around him interpret his behavior. They explain the true motives of the type for his behavior. However, what often happens when we add subjectivity to a type description is that they come out way, way, way too optimistic. You might here in one type description, "FKLZ's often lie to people, but this is only because they don't see it as being bad. They see it as white lying that helps the person," which is utter rubbish. Or even worse, "XFUI's are invaluable in life. They truly understand people and will do anything to help you." Then the writer goes and writes the whole type description with these bromides!

What often happens when the types themselves write the type descriptions is that people use this as an opportunity to rationalize all of their negative behaviors. Then they might say to your reprimanding, "I'm an ESFj, what can you expect?" Also, I have noticed that self-written extraverted type descriptions are on average more positive than self-written introverted type descriptions, so right here is an internal bias. And then in some descriptions, you are very hard pressed to find anything negative!

[Creepy-]

Also, I have noticed that self-written extraverted type descriptions are on average more positive than self-written introverted type descriptions, so right here is an internal bias. And then in some descriptions, you are very hard pressed to find anything negative!

You say that like its a BAD thing

Topaz

[Rocky]

Also, I have noticed that self-written extraverted type descriptions are on average more positive than self-written introverted type descriptions, so right here is an internal bias. And then in some descriptions, you are very hard pressed to find anything negative!

You say that like its a BAD thing

Topaz

He might be right. I don't think my SLI description was as positive as some of the extraverts. Also, there needs to be negatives in the descriptions, otherwise you're not being honest.

[Slava]

I dislike subtypes, because they put accepting-subtype people at a lower level than creative-subtype people.

From personal observation I think that the creative subtypes where the ones that had more power as children. The reason being, society doesnt like to listen to bad F, bad T, bad S or bad N, and society scorns people for trying to feel pleasure by generating garbage. This only makes sense because if we all wanted to go around being all creative for free pleasure nothing good would ever get evolved... But... there is another angle to this, people with power can do whatever they want and no one will correct them,w ell they can at least egt away with more. This includes bad humor, abnoxious creativity and such. So as kids those who were using their superego more were more likely to develope into ballanced adults, while those who had little power were stuck with their base function. These are the people who later become specialists at specific jobs. The CEO may go around using his weak Si because no one ever corrected him, his Si wouldn't be trained enough to be used for practical work. This is how I see it. INTj N subtypes are the ones that were the "cool" versions of the intj as kids, and the T subtypes the ones that were rejected by the group and spent their time strengthening their Ti with books and Ti activities.

[Cone]

Hmm...you've got a point, and in that case, subtypes can't be innate. As I see it, the different subtypes differ on confidence levels. For instance, an INTj who was ridiculed and teased as a child may end up to be quite shy and backward, thus they develop a low confidence level for various things. On the other hand, an INTj who grew up among accepting people may end up to be "cool", as you say, thus they develop a high level of confidence. Then there are other things that factor into it, I suppose.

[Scrummy]

You might as well create a list of objective behaviors as opposed to the traditional MBTI type description. That would save us the semantics woes.

Isn't that what I was saying? What I really want to do is describe the types as tables of measurements and mathematical functions.

Oh... if that's really what you want, I'm all for it! I know how much you want to reduce all of human nature into one compact, not-for-mass-comsumption formula!

I was thinking that a professional type description would only be understandable by professionals, as one would have to memorize hundreds of operational definitions just to understand what was going on. General type descriptions will just have to deal with misinterpretations and subjectivity if the populace is to understand them.

Okay, I see where you're going. Those few professionals would then be able to deduce a person's "type" using the objective definitions. This is, as opposed to self-typing, which is what we have now - imperfect and highly unscientific.

[Cone]

Yup. Then big businesses can have full-time, professional Socionists to effectively pick out employees. And we can have an extremely effective educational system. Walden Two will be a reality!