Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 121 to 160 of 196

Thread: How do subtypes affect intertype relationships?

  1. #121
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,255
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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?
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  2. #122
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,428
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ESI-Fi best match is LIE-Te.

  3. #123
    six turnin', four burnin' stevENTj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    DC area, US
    TIM
    Te-INTp (ILI)
    Posts
    768
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianosinger View Post
    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.
    Te-INTp/ILI, my wife: Fi-ISFj/ESI, with laser beam death rays for ESTp/SLEs, lol
    16 years of bliss in an Activity relationship

  4. #124
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,200
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianosinger View Post
    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.
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  5. #125
    boom boom boom blackburry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    3,228
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Azeroffs View Post
    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.

  6. #126
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianosinger View Post
    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.

  7. #127
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,200
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackburry View Post
    you're so right..ugh, i guess this is just an attempt for me to try to understand what went wrong and why.
    I don't think there's anything wrong with that. If it helps you, then by all means go ahead. I just personally see it as superfluous. They're vaguely descriptive even by socionics standards.
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  8. #128
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stevENTj View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Azeroffs View Post
    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.

  9. #129
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,200
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanks Arthur View Post
    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.
    So what makes you think it's not their actual temperament?

    Better yet, what makes you think that what you see as a first impression even accurately reflects their type?

    Edit: to get to the point, you don't. All I'm saying is that people are getting too cocky with all this subtype business. They think they can get into such detail.
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  10. #130
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Azeroffs View Post
    So what makes you think it's not their actual temperament?
    Because your actual temperament is more influential than your DCNH subtype. Hence why it is a "subtype".

    The other nice thing about DCNH is the names are very intuitive. Take my father, for instance. He's definitely an SLE, but he has a lot of introverted and harmonising traits; e.g. he'll often try to smooth over fights, and is generally a fairly impassive, calm, collected individual. At the same time, he's clearly an EP in that he'll often jump up and start doing something in a way that makes it seem like it came completely out of nowhere, and he spends a lot of energy on his work and his hobbies. So I think he's a H-SLE.

    Or take me. I'm definitely an IP, because I just don't have much energy for anything, and will naturally tend toward a fairly passive, inactive routine ("routine" being used very loosely ). I have a loose tendency towards not initiating things (less loose when it comes to establishing a relationship; in that respect I'm completely reliant on others reaching out to me of their own accord), but this is diluted a bit by the fact that I'm quite happy and willing to get the ball rolling and organise things if (again, though, IP temperament, so that's a very substantial "if"; are you starting to see how temperament and subtype play off each other?) I start to get impatient or if there's some pressing need to.

    Anyway, you probably get the point, right?

    That said, there are some less intuitive aspects that you can derive from the "temperament subtype" way of thinking about it. Each temperament carries three elements by virtue of being based on two dichotomies: I/E and J/P:

    Are you more introverted, or extraverted?
    Do you live in your own world (due to being Static/Ignoring), or are you more intimately connected with what's happening around you (due to being Dynamic/Connecting)?
    Do you tend to finish tasks (due to Rationality/Terminating), or start things up and then abandon them (due to Irrationality/Initiating)?

    (I may have gotten some of the DCNH dichotomy terms wrong, btw.)

    This is of worth because it can, for example, be very easy to spot a Creative subtype thanks to that Static element. Creative subtypes very clearly are their own thinkers, due to not having exceptional influence from the outside world. The story that gets repeated over and over because it's such a clear example is Archimedes working on equations in the dirt while the Romans came and sacked his city: the Creative pays very little attention to anything outside than his own world and thoughts.

    EDIT

    Quote Originally Posted by Azeroffs View Post
    So what makes you think it's not their actual temperament?

    Better yet, what makes you think that what you see as a first impression even accurately reflects their type?

    Edit: to get to the point, you don't. All I'm saying is that people are getting too cocky with all this subtype business. They think they can get into such detail.
    What makes me so confident? Because I get people's types right with my methods. If I didn't then I wouldn't use them! That's not to say I have 100% accuracy (because if I did then there would be an issue with circular reasoning most likely), however.

    I also don't type exclusively by my first impressions, they just help me narrow things down quite significantly. I usually close down a typing with an interview to check out what a person's ego functions are. Of course this can mean I narrow people down into the wrong pool, making them untypable messes for months on end, but all-in-all I find my methods reliable and yielding of types that are consistent with Socionics' keystone: intertype relationships.

    Please don't presume that I cannot type people. If this is a simple epistemological debate, then so be it, we can leave it as being a disagreement as to what can be known and what can not, but please don't be so presumptuous as to assume you can tell me what I can and cannot know.

  11. #131
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,200
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanks Arthur View Post
    Because your actual temperament is more influential than your DCNH subtype. Hence why it is a "subtype".

    The other nice thing about DCNH is the names are very intuitive. Take my father, for instance. He's definitely an SLE, but he has a lot of introverted and harmonising traits; e.g. he'll often try to smooth over fights, and is generally a fairly impassive, calm, collected individual. At the same time, he's clearly an EP in that he'll often jump up and start doing something in a way that makes it seem like it came completely out of nowhere, and he spends a lot of energy on his work and his hobbies. So I think he's a H-SLE.
    So how is he definitely SLE? Clearly he has traits that point towards it not being so. That's not to say that he isn't SLE. Maybe it just isn't type related, and it's just unrelated variance. Are you saying that he doesn't act in a way that could be D or N or even C?

    Or take me. I'm definitely an IP, because I just don't have much energy for anything, and will naturally tend toward a fairly passive, inactive routine ("routine" being used very loosely ). I have a loose tendency towards not initiating things (less loose when it comes to establishing a relationship; in that respect I'm completely reliant on others reaching out to me of their own accord), but this is diluted a bit by the fact that I'm quite happy and willing to get the ball rolling and organise things if (again, though, IP temperament, so that's a very substantial "if"; are you starting to see how temperament and subtype play off each other?) I start to get impatient or if there's some pressing need to.
    Same thing as above.

    Anyway, you probably get the point, right?
    You just showed how it took quite a bit of extra observation to figure out the subtype/temperament difference. You still didn't show how an initial impression can be differentiated into an actual temperament versus a subtype.

    Also, if a person is EP-H.. does that mean they usually act EP but sometimes IP? So what is an EP-C? someone who always acts EP?

    It's all unclear. It's easier to just say they are EP, and that they are human so they don't always act according to rigid definitions.

    That said, there are some less intuitive aspects that you can derive from the "temperament subtype" way of thinking about it. Each temperament carries three elements by virtue of being based on two dichotomies: I/E and J/P:

    Are you more introverted, or extraverted?
    Do you live in your own world (due to being Static/Ignoring), or are you more intimately connected with what's happening around you (due to being Dynamic/Connecting)?
    Do you tend to finish tasks (due to Rationality/Terminating), or start things up and then abandon them (due to Irrationality/Initiating)?

    (I may have gotten some of the DCNH dichotomy terms wrong, btw.)
    Such terms are already blurry between base types. What makes you so confident that you can draw more lines within a type?

    If we could type people with certainty, I wouldn't have any problem taking more steps to make more detailed definitions, but we can't, so why would anyone insist on going further?

    What makes me so confident? Because I get people's types right with my methods. If I didn't then I wouldn't use them! That's not to say I have 100% accuracy (because if I did then there would be an issue with circular reasoning most likely), however.

    I also don't type exclusively by my first impressions, they just help me narrow things down quite significantly. I usually close down a typing with an interview to check out what a person's ego functions are. Of course this can mean I narrow people down into the wrong pool, making them untypable messes for months on end, but all-in-all I find my methods reliable and yielding of types that are consistent with Socionics' keystone: intertype relationships.
    I'm not questioning you personally. I'm just saying there are limitations in socionics as to how confident people can be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thanks Arthur View Post
    Please don't presume that I cannot type people. If this is a simple epistemological debate, then so be it, we can leave it as being a disagreement as to what can be known and what can not, but please don't be so presumptuous as to assume you can tell me what I can and cannot know.
    More or less, this.
    It's not about 'you', it's about what people in general can really know about socionics.
    They're wandering off without having settled the foundation on which they're building.

    People can barely come up with a clear difference between ILE and LII for example. In definition, it may be clear, but in practice rarely is it so clear.
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  12. #132

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default If subtypes exist, then shouldn't they alter "relations"?

    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?

  13. #133
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,682
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  14. #134

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

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

    Can you elaborate on this?

  15. #135
    Darn Socks DirectorAbbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    7,123
    Mentioned
    382 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

    LSE
    1-6-2 so/sx
    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  16. #136
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  17. #137
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,428
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sar View Post
    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.

  18. #138
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,682
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sar View Post
    "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.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  19. #139
    Robot Assassin Pa3s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    Ne-LII, 5w6
    Posts
    3,629
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

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

    Yay for redundancy!
    „Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
    – Arthur Schopenhauer

  20. #140
    an object in motion woofwoofl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern Arizona
    TIM
    x s x p s p s x
    Posts
    2,111
    Mentioned
    329 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sar View Post
    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?!
    All of the above, though the 2 subtype Accepting/Producing system is the most common, and the one I use almost exclusively. Anything more specific doesn't leave the necessary breathing room for people to be people, and can often be wrong as a result...

    Quote Originally Posted by sar View Post
    Can't we just say people are different?
    Yep, and subtype's one of many ways of doing this

    Quote Originally Posted by sar View Post
    2) If they DO exist, then should they not alter relations?
    Subtly, yes; the easiest example that comes to mind is the difference in my relations with Ne-ILEs as opposed to Ti-ILEs, I generally get along much better with the former...

    Quote Originally Posted by sar View Post
    3) Will the 3rd Batman be better than the 2nd?
    Not until they put the nipples back on the batsuit
    p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
    trad metalz | (more coming)

  21. #141

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    South Korea
    TIM
    INTJ - intuitive sub
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    the socionics.com website has mentioned subtypes but with minimal effort. They do recognize the accepting/producing dicotomy. They have yet to actually produce an article that is meant to explain the difference.

    http://www.socionics.com/advan/qa.htm?1122150578 - this is a link to the socionics.com website (copy and paste it). The admin briefly clarifies the difference and alludes to the publication of a subtype theory in english but they have yet to make good on their word. My comment is "november 2, 2009. can't wait" so ya its been awhile.

    Subtypes differ in mannerisms, physical appearance, dress and social behaviour. They display distinctive behavioural traits in times when they are at their best and their worst. The wikionics.com website mentions a proficiency in either your dominant or auxiliary function (first or second function). In that regard you could notice slight differences when given similiar circumstances.

    Basically identicals may not appear identical unless they have the same subtype. That is an ESE-Fe appears identical with an ESE-Fe but an ESE-Si may not come across as having the same basic personality unless with another ESE-Si. So on and so forth for all 16 types.

    Personal example: I have two friends who are identical but different subtypes. I wouldn't consider them to be identical with one another. I actually find it difficult to consider them identical without resorting to subtype theory to explain the differences.

  22. #142
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,645
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sar View Post
    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?

  23. #143

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Saugerties,NY
    TIM
    ENFj-fe
    Posts
    946
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.
    EIE tritype 5w4, 4w5, 9w1


    As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being.
    Carl Jung, "Memories, Dreams, Reflections", 1962

  24. #144
    "Information without energy is useless" Nowisthetime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    near Russia
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,022
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

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

    Like my parents: D-ESI and N-LSI

  25. #145
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.
    Quaero Veritas.

  26. #146
    Cat King Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    TIM
    IIEE so/sp 4w5
    Posts
    735
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Looking forward to it
    Know I'm mistyped?


    Why I am now.
    Why I was , once.

    DISCLAIMER
    The statements expressed in this signature may not necessarily reflect reality.

  27. #147

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Krig the Viking, great job! I like your explanation. Particularly in that it doesn't contradict itself unlike some other explanations I've heard...

  28. #148
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I find that they do alter relations, but dont change them. For instance I get more activation from ESTps than from ESTps, who in turn give me more subjects to discuss than the subtypes do. In the two subtypes theory they do not change the basic relation you have with a type but they might change what you get out of a relation.

    As far as DCNH theory goes, Gulenko himself said that the different subtypes have different relations.


  29. #149

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    South Korea
    TIM
    INTJ - intuitive sub
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The DCNH-theory has merit because it effectively explains the difference between introverted-extroverts and extroverted-introverts but I heavily disagree that the DCNH can appear for each socionic type. Here is my interpretation:

    Alpha as my example:
    1)ENTP - Extroverted Extrovert = Creative () = Accepting subtype.
    2)ENTP - Introverted Extrovert = Normalizing () = Producing subtype.

    1)ISFP - Introverted Introvert = Harmonizing () = Accepting subtype.
    2)ISFP - Extroverted Introvert = Dominant () = Producing subtype.

    At this point you can easily transition between accepting/producing theory of subtypes, model A, duality and DCNH. As many people wonder do subtypes make better partners and well DCNH would suggest so. Two Thumbs up!!

    Gamma as my example:
    1)ISFJ - Extroverted Introvert = Creative () = Producing subtype.
    2)ISFJ - Introverted Introvert = Normalizing () = Accepting subtype.

    1)ENTJ - Extroverted Extrovert = Dominant () = Accepting subtype.
    2)ENTJ - Introverted Extrovert = Harmonizing () = Producing subtype.

    At this point when you compare the Alpha example with the Gamma example conflictor is consistent with DCNH. ENTP is incompatible with ISFJ as is ENTJ incompatible with ISFP. Incompatiblity simply means a mis-match. As many people wonder do subtypes make worse partners and well DCNH would suggest so. Two Thumbs up!!!

    So we have duality theory, accepting/producing subtype theory, model A and DCNH-theory all in collaboration with one another. However the point of departure is the nonsense that unfolds into absurdity when DCNH-theory turns into a free for all of abnormal socionics. The ENTP can fit all categories of DCNH and so too can all socionic types, therefore an ENTP can be compatible with a ISFP and a ISFJ. So on and so forth. Two nubs down!!!

  30. #150

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    141
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Do subtypes alter intertype relations?

    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?

  31. #151
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  32. #152
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,034
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    They alter relations at around 1/16th the rate of normal types, IE relatively negligible.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  33. #153
    "Cool Mafia Godfather" ~SLE Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    TIM
    ESTp 8
    Posts
    918
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

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

  34. #154
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agee View Post
    They don't alter shit..because they don't exist.
    prove it!

  35. #155
    "Cool Mafia Godfather" ~SLE Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    TIM
    ESTp 8
    Posts
    918
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I can't, they do not exist.

    Try proving that they do.

  36. #156
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I dont think its possible proving any of socionics exists. I was just challenging you. And you should know I have a tendency to say "prove it" whenever someone makes a declaration about the existence of something .

  37. #157
    "Cool Mafia Godfather" ~SLE Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    TIM
    ESTp 8
    Posts
    918
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Okay

  38. #158
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agee View Post
    I can't, they do not exist.

    Try proving that they do.
    Anything can exist so long as you develop a system that allows for its existence.

  39. #159
    "Cool Mafia Godfather" ~SLE Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    TIM
    ESTp 8
    Posts
    918
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No, anything can be fabricated, but to exist means to be actual in reality.

  40. #160
    Ver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    net
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    526
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    For me, there is a significant change. Si ISTp are too soft for me as well. My boyfriend is ESTj Si, which makes him less harsh than Te subtype and it's also easier for me to interact with him . The same about INTjs - I get on really well with Ne subtype, much worse with Ti subtype.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •