How do subtypes affect intertype relationships?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Well, I think subtypes exist. I think the effect they have on you really is that it depends on what you prefer. If you have say an ESFp with Fi sub type then their Fi is to put it in basic terms, more noticable. If said ESFp has strong Se then there's very little Fi there. To me they can seem like an ESFp-ESTp hybrid.

So it can depend on what you want from a partner or a friend which I think can also depend on the place you are in life-what you want can change over time!

Rick De Long is probably a good example of an internet ENFp Ne. I've even heard other ENFp's say they admire his Ti.

[Jarno]

discuss...

I find it harder to connect with accepting subtypes in general. It seems like I'm doing work for them, and they seem to be showing off without direct concern about me. Difficult to explain...

With same subtype I get this feeling as, hey we're alike. I have this in every relationship.

[The Exception]

discuss...

I've heard that subtype can affect what subtype dual you do better with. Duals with complementary subtypes do best.

For example: LII-Ti with ESE-Fe and LII-Ne with ESE-Si

[Jarno]

I've heard that subtype can affect what subtype dual you do better with. Duals with complementary subtypes do best.

For example: LII-Ti with ESE-Fe and LII-Ne with ESE-Si

yes that's true.

[mu4]

For example: LII-Ti with ESE-Fe and LII-Ne with ESE-Si

Depending on which subtype format, this isn't necessarily true.

Some have ESE-Fe going with LII-Ne and LII-Ti going with ESE-Si.

[xkj220]

Subtype is very relevant. It is so relevant, that it can cause you to experience some stages of duality with a type that you are not supposed to (eg. an SLE-Ti experiencing duality with SEI-Fe).

[ArchonAlarion]

Subtype is very relevant. It is so relevant, that it can cause you to experience some stages of duality with a type that you are not supposed to (eg. an SLE-Ti experiencing duality with SEI-Fe).

Duality is not correct here. Duality has to be complete complementaryness, but yes, In that subtype system a Ti SLE would probably have a pretty easy relationship with a Fe SEI.

[The Exception]

Depending on which subtype format, this isn't necessarily true.

Some have ESE-Fe going with LII-Ne and LII-Ti going with ESE-Si.

Please elaborate.

[The Exception]

Also, C subtype dualizes with H subtype and D subtype dualizes with N subtype.

So for example: LII-C dualizes best with ESE-H and LII-D dualizes best with ESE-N

[Azeroffs]

Also, C subtype dualizes with H subtype and D subtype dualizes with N subtype.

So for example: LII-C dualizes best with ESE-H and LII-D dualizes best with ESE-N

You're really pushing this DCNH subtype theory aren't you? I briefly read the wikisocion page, but I find it makes things little more complex than it needs to be. What do you like about it?

[FDG]

discuss...

I find it harder to connect with accepting subtypes in general. It seems like I'm doing work for them, and they seem to be showing off without direct concern about me. Difficult to explain...

With same subtype I get this feeling as, hey we're alike. I have this in every relationship.

Yeah, I agree, there is a rather significant difference. Judging by which subtype I get along best with, I'd be a Te subtype, because I frequently butt heads with ESI-Se. I'm not sure about DCNH, I could see myself as multiple subtypes of that system.

[Jarno]

Yeah, I agree, there is a rather significant difference. Judging by which subtype I get along best with, I'd be a Te subtype, because I frequently butt heads with ESI-Se. I'm not sure about DCNH, I could see myself as multiple subtypes of that system.

Oh I always thought you were Ni subtype.

Joy is Te subtype isn't she? she seems more direct than you. But then again, it's difficult to give an opinion on posts...

anyways I frequently butt heads with ESI-Se too

[Trevor]

anyways I frequently butt heads with ESI-Se too

Everyone does.

[Azeroffs]

I like a good headbutt every once in a while
as long as it doesn't get too personal and end up sour.

[blackburry]

ok, so I believe I'm ESI-Fi. atleast I fit that description off of wikisocion better...and I know a few ESIs who have to be Se subtype because they are just so much more...aggressive, open (seem more apt at socializing just to socialize than to conjure up deep, meaningful friendships..which is maybe why i tend to not trust them), more alert...and harsher, and are NEVER the first to reconcile (unlike me...who is usually always first).

to my understanding an introverted subtype works best with an extroverted subtype and vice versa, correct?

whhhhy?

...and I've read on here somewhere a thread about how personality types potentially do not change throughout the course of one's life, but what about subtypes?

...I wonder if a few of my relationships with LIEs fell apart because they were -Ni subtypes? one even went as far as to say that i was missing something after an extensive amount of time together...I wasn't driven or bitchy enough for him. So I put forth an effort of voicing my opinions more (usually just keep them to myself), and called him names once in a while...and he responded better, but of course, it made me feel like shit.

funny enough, I just met an LIE-Te....but ah, he lacks the passion and theoretical insight that I thought was related to Ni subtypes....and I'm addicted to Ni...fuck. I hate being -Fi sometimes... i care too much
and this guy is a workaholic, who I'm pretty sure, would find my OCCASIONAL bouts of laziness unappealing..but he's pursuing me, so whatever..

idk, same goes for Activity partners and mirrors...i get along with SEE-Fi soooo much better than -Se...who just come off as attention-seeking bitches IMO.


the whole thing pisses me off.

[Marie84]

I was always somewhat hesitant to jump into Gulenko's subtypes, while I've known people who did "fit" one more so than the other it didn't always apply.
The Borisova DCNH subtypes are less constricting, from what I've read, and I've been able to understand differences within the same types a bit easier than before.
From what I understand, in your case, if you're an ESI who has a particular focus on Ni despite fitting the identification of ESI, you may be an ESI-Harmonizing subtype
I could be wrong, but I think it works as follows

Dominant- Te/Fe
Creative- Ne/Se
Normalizing- Ti/Fi
Harmonizing- Ni/Si

and you bring-up a good point about how it can affect intertype, but I find it more poignant in neighboring than within my own quadra, at least that's been my own experience

[pianosinger]

Dominant- Te/Fe
Creative- Ne/Se
Normalizing- Ti/Fi
Harmonizing- Ni/Si

Assuming you're right...This ^ applies to all types the same? Or is the above specific to the ESI?

[Jarno]

ESI-Fi best match is LIE-Te.

[stevENTj]

Assuming you're right...This ^ applies to all types the same? Or is the above specific to the ESI?

Yeah same question here. I haven't read up on all of this new sub-type stuff yet.

[Azeroffs]

Assuming you're right...This ^ applies to all types the same? Or is the above specific to the ESI?

It applies to all types..

Personally, I'm not a fan of Gulenko's subtypes, and I've even grown to disregard accepting/producing subtypes. More often than not they just seem to rationalize a type that doesn't really fit right. Besides, no matter what subtype you are, you are always still that base type. A subtype just tries to get more detailed.

It's hard enough to figure out what socionics type people are, idk why some people somehow think they can take that next step so easily. I think I've even heard people type others as "dominant subtype." That seems devastatingly delusional to me. Subtypes are supposed to describe variances within a base type. If you don't know the base type, how can you know what subtype they are?

It's what typology is all about though. Creating labels to explain every move you make. I'm not surprised that a lot of people like them. I'm not saying they're useless, but I personally just don't see the point in trying go into more intricate explanations when socionics is not meant to describe fine details of personality.

I just accept that there's variance within a type without labeling it, and even within a single person you'll see a wide range of variance.

[blackburry]

It's what typology is all about though. Creating explanations for every move you make. I'm not surprised that a lot of people like them. I'm not saying they're useless, but I personally just don't see the point in trying go into more intricate explanations when socionics is not meant to describe fine details of personality.

I just accept that there's variance within a type without labeling it, and even within a single person you'll side wide range of variance.

you're so right..ugh, i guess this is just an attempt for me to try to understand what went wrong and why.

[Creepy-male]

Yeah same question here. I haven't read up on all of this new sub-type stuff yet.

FWIW, I find the DCNH subtypes vastly more useful than the two-subtype system, which is so vague and inaccurate as to be useless. My opinion, though.

It's hard enough to figure out what socionics type people are, idk why some people somehow think they can take that next step so easily. I think I've even heard people type others as "dominant subtype." That seems devastatingly delusional to me. Subtypes are supposed to describe variances within a base type. If you don't know the base type, how can you know what subtype they are?

The DCNH subtypes have an element of how you present yourself initially. For me, the first thing I can spot in someone is their temperament, since that's always the most visible aspect externally. Similarly, irrespective of base type, each DCNH subtype has very specific external characteristics, so it's occasionally possible to pick out their subtype before you've settled for sure on their base type.

The vast majority of people I snap-type though I wouldn't even have a clue as to their subtype, though. Usually it's only people I know personally, and within those the people I know better.

[Creepy-male]

Assuming you're right...This ^ applies to all types the same? Or is the above specific to the ESI?

It applies equally to all type. You can initially think of the DCNH subtypes as working like "temperament subtypes". Dominants are the EJ subtype, and so have strengthened EJ elements (Fe and Te), Harmonisers are the IP subtype, and so have strengthened IP elements (Ni and Si), etc.

[sar]

So, a couple of things that got me to go about subtypes:

1) I've seen it posted that there are 2 subtypes for each type. No, rather 4. Never mind, 16...wtf? which one is it?! Can't we just say people are different?

2) If they DO exist, then should they not alter relations? If two people act completely differently, then how would their relations with others be exactly the same? Unless of coarse the differences within type are VERY small...

3) Will the 3rd Batman be better than the 2nd?

[EyeSeeCold]

1.) There are multiple theories. 2 subtype(acc/pro) is the current popular one.

2.) Socionics measures static traits, so in Socionics, types still react predictably with other types. Subtype extrapolations(and the resulting intertype effects) should only account for reproducible sociotype pecularities.

3.) No way.

[sar]

"Subtype extrapolations(and the resulting intertype effects) should only account for reproducible sociotype pecularities."

Can you elaborate on this?

[DirectorAbbie]

1: There are multiple theories. The 2-subtype one is the current popular one.

2: I consider subtypes to be minor in relationships, but more distinctive in differentiating between identicals.

3. It doesn't matter. Batman is stupid.

[717495]

1 - There are multiple theories. Currently the 2-subtype one is the most popular.

2 - Sometimes you can see the subtype through the grass as it goes out hunting in the morning, but usually gains speed and other drugs later on in the day to where there are no optical records of it even existing.

3 - Probably not, which means I won't waste my time on it.

[EyeSeeCold]

"Subtype extrapolations(and the resulting intertype effects) should only account for reproducible sociotype pecularities."

Can you elaborate on this?

Intertype relations don't officially consider subtypes, but if subtypes were accounted for, the gain should be explanations for recurring differences between relations. Creating hypotheses is misguided when we can compare the empirical data.

[Pa3s]

And btw: There are different subtype systems, but most people use the 2-subtype system.

Yay for redundancy!

[Jarno]

So, a couple of things that got me to go about subtypes:

1) I've seen it posted that there are 2 subtypes for each type. No, rather 4. Never mind, 16...wtf? which one is it?! Can't we just say people are different?

2) If they DO exist, then should they not alter relations? If two people act completely differently, then how would their relations with others be exactly the same? Unless of coarse the differences within type are VERY small...

1) 2 subtypes system is most easely observable in behaviour. if I need to further explain just ask.

2) yes they alter relationship in a slightly way. It's general consensus that same subtype duality is better than differing subtype duality.

[DividedsGhost]

So, a couple of things that got me to go about subtypes:

1) I've seen it posted that there are 2 subtypes for each type. No, rather 4. Never mind, 16...wtf? which one is it?! Can't we just say people are different?

2) If they DO exist, then should they not alter relations? If two people act completely differently, then how would their relations with others be exactly the same? Unless of coarse the differences within type are VERY small...

3) Will the 3rd Batman be better than the 2nd?

4) does the second subtype make the polr more pronounced? Can these types be used to benchmark and explain polr?

[Morcheeba]

They do alter relations. My brother is an ISFj- and I get along better with him than a INTj. It's not so much that I just have a closer bond with him, but since I'm an intuitive subtype I feel that I help him with his hazardous ways.

[Nowisthetime]

"Subtype duality" (in DCNH) seems common in married couples: Dominant+Normalizing or Harmonizing+Creative

Like my parents: D-ESI and N-LSI

[Krig the Viking]

It's been my experience that subtype most strongly affects the more minor, short-term, day-to-day type interactions, whereas the base type primarily affects the major, long-term, deeper aspects of the relationship.

For example, one person you might find annoying, even aggravating, in their habits of behaviour, but despite the frustration at all these annoying little things, hidden underneath it all there is a deeper connection and a genuine affection. You see this in buddy comedies a lot. This likely indicates clashing subtypes with compatible base types.

With someone else, you might find their mannerisms largely pleasant and easy to handle, but you find that you can't really connect with that person on a deeper level; their views and way of thinking is just too foreign to relate to on a really intimate level. This might indicate compatible subtypes with clashing base types.

Of course, there are a lot of different variables once you get into the specifics of how each type and subtype manifests. This is something I've been studying a lot lately, and hopefully will produce a big long article on it one of these days.

[gooey]

Gulenko seems to thinks so.

Do subtypes affect intertype relations?
"It goes without saying that their influence is considerable, especially due to the conditions of intensive and close contact within a small space." (link: http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Dcnh)

Doesn't this...kind-of, sort-of throw intertype relations out the window? Or is it just that some basic relations are comfortable and some (more specific ones) are more comfortable? Thoughts?

[Galen]

I don't know how many threads we've had about this.

Yes I definitely think subtypes play a factor in intertypes. Of course it depends on the individual, but as an Fi sub, Si-ISTps can prove to be too muted and inert for my taste, while the Te subs seem much better suited for my energy. Likewise, I don't feel as supervised by Ne-INTjs as I do by the Ti subs. You can kind of think of subtype as the type's "actual" leading function, so that an ENTp can either be Ne or Ti primary.

[Crispy]

They alter relations at around 1/16th the rate of normal types, IE relatively negligible.

[Leader]

They don't alter shit..because they don't exist.

[Ave]

They don't alter shit..because they don't exist.

prove it!