How do subtypes affect intertype relationships?

[Steve]

(Decided to make a new topic with my above post.)

Tcaudilllg, I think there are some differences in VI of the subs, when I give you an example it may be hard to see at first, but if you keep in mind the objects vs field dichotomy, its easier to see a difference.

Ok, so take an Ne sub ENTp such as Bill Murray (I know some disagree on his type, but I do think he's ENTp-N. Some people may think he's an F type because he gives off a lot of Fe, which he does, however N subs tend to do that)
Anyway, notice the more object-driven look in his eyes, and notice how he looks like he's perceiving from a standpoint of being removed from the objects that he's perceiving.




Now on the other hand take 2 Ti subs such as Jon Stewart and Michael McDonald from MadTV. Notice the "field" look, and how they look like they're surrounded in the fields that they're experiencing, and are not separate from the field of their experience:

[tcaudilllg]

For an ENTp-Ti, they experience things in primarily a field mode, or an applied field mode, focusing on the systems and coherence connecting objects, and their look will reflect them being immersed in the fields that surround them. Now how Ne functions for a Ti sub is it takes these fields the person experiences, and treats those fields as objects, and perceives the internal static qualities of these fields.

You can't do that. You can NEVER go backward in the cycle, it's impossible. You can at most say "by accepting this possibility I will trigger this activity which will compel the creation of this logic."

"or an applied field mode, focusing on the systems and coherence connecting objects, and their look will reflect them being immersed in the fields that surround them"

That sounds like . It sounds nothing like . Does it matter if you consider something an object or a field? Yes, but there is a definite potential for confusion. We have internal statics of objects and internal statics of fields. If is observing the internal statics of fields, it is by definition not but .

[Steve]

Perhaps this sounded confusing. By Ti sub Ne I meant that Ne perceives the INTERNAL STATICS of the EXTERNAL STATICS OF FIELDS.

Here's an example, although this has the potential for confusion. Say a Ti sub realizes something in experience that is incoherent (Ti). He then will use Ne to figure out why it is incoherent, and possibly figure out a context by drawing on possibilities in order to make something coherent and make sense within the applied Ti field (resolve the inconsistency using Ne)

[tcaudilllg]

Perhaps this sounded confusing. By Ti sub Ne I meant that Ne perceives the INTERNAL STATICS of the EXTERNAL STATICS OF FIELDS.

Here's an example, although this has the potential for confusion. Say a Ti sub realizes something in experience that is incoherent (Ti). He then will use Ne to figure out why it is incoherent, and possibly figure out a context by drawing on possibilities in order to make something coherent and make sense within the applied Ti field (resolve the inconsistency using Ne)

Basically, looking at an army and seeing its dominant leaders. Or knowing that person A will remain the dominant force in organization B.

...Maybe this doesn't have much to do with the crosstype theory after all.... I admittedly think nothing along those lines.

Equally, it seems totally unrelated to function order... but almost reminds me of something Jung said: "fusions of parts of functions with other functions... archaic". So basically is invoking within itself? No wait, that's what I do probably; you mean invokes inside of itself.

So if I say, "If he is feeling this, then..." that would be subtype?

[Ms. Kensington]

the warning is.. ? perhaps the rhetoric of a battle that must be won is understandable to you CS if you share it but it just seems bizarre otherwise.

I am assuming a building mudpies on the beach theory a la CS Lewis. However options must be clear, and any such idiocy due to inefficiency of getting "the answer" about intertype relations would be accounted for as ignorance, not a lack of intelligence. Nor does it a "conservative" make. There must be resistance in order to force something on others. I have displayed none willfully. the battles should be fought elsewhere.

[aestrivex]

Let's all take a moment to imagine an ESFj-ISTj coming along and touching up the 'ethicial blunder' of the LII

*pictureshow*

Very good class. Essays are due next week.

As an ESFj-ISTj, as typed by tcaudilllg, I have to say - although with a heavy heart - that I fully agree with the warning.

wake up, people; crosstypes do not exist and have no basis in terms of real people, and you idiots (mostly the alphas) have encouraged the proliferation of an extremely conceited and abrasive nutcase running around this forum.

were you expecting civility or reason?

[redbaron]

I know some don't believe in subtypes, but I remember reading somewhere on this board (and I can't find it now despite the search feature) how having different subtypes can affect your intertype relationships. Can someone explain how that works? For example an INFp-Ni with ESFj-Fe, how that would be different than INFp-Fe with ESFj-Fe or something. Is there a chart for these?

[Jarno]

I've made on thread about different subtypes in supervision relationship.

The effect is only small. But there seems to be a pattern. One that also could easely be explained by looking at the preference of the subtype functions.

I've never read an article about it, it was just because I'm in a lot of supervision relations that I noticed it.

[FDG]

I still believe subtype completely modifies the nature of the relationship.

To put it simply:

Pe-EPs have a mirror relation with Pe-IJs of the same function group (Se or Ne)
Supervision takes place between EPs and IJs of mismatching subtypes.

The same applies to EJs - Pi EJs and Pi IPs effectively are in always in a mirror relation, whereas mismatching subtypes create supervision.

Furthering this line of reasoning: I personally think that a Ti-ESTp is the conflictor of both a Fi-ISFj and Fi-INFj.

[redbaron]

Thanks. What about between two Ip types? ISFp-Fe and INFp-Fe for example? Would the same subtype make them look identical?

[Expat]

Not quite identical, but close, especially with regard to those two types. The INFp-Fe would still see the ISFp-Fe as a bit "naive" and "unambitious" and the ISFp-Fe would still see the INFp-Fe as "worrying too much" and "dreaming too much". But they'd find a lot of common ground.

[Jarno]

I still believe subtype completely modifies the nature of the relationship.

To put it simply:

Pe-EPs have a mirror relation with Pe-IJs of the same function group (Se or Ne)
Supervision takes place between EPs and IJs of mismatching subtypes.

The same applies to EJs - Pi EJs and Pi IPs effectively are in always in a mirror relation, whereas mismatching subtypes create supervision.

Furthering this line of reasoning: I personally think that a Ti-ESTp is the conflictor of both a Fi-ISFj and Fi-INFj.

If we agree on that everyone is a certain subtype, that would implie that you have created a whole new relationship chart with this. A chart which is totally different then the original socionics chart.

That can't be right, can it?

[redbaron]

Not quite identical, but close, especially with regard to those two types. The INFp-Fe would still see the ISFp-Fe as a bit "naive" and "unambitious" and the ISFp-Fe would still see the INFp-Fe as "worrying too much" and "dreaming too much". But they'd find a lot of common ground.

Hmmmm, sounds familiar. I wonder if I am Fe subtype after all.

[FDG]

I still believe subtype completely modifies the nature of the relationship.

To put it simply:

Pe-EPs have a mirror relation with Pe-IJs of the same function group (Se or Ne)
Supervision takes place between EPs and IJs of mismatching subtypes.

The same applies to EJs - Pi EJs and Pi IPs effectively are in always in a mirror relation, whereas mismatching subtypes create supervision.

Furthering this line of reasoning: I personally think that a Ti-ESTp is the conflictor of both a Fi-ISFj and Fi-INFj.

If we agree on that everyone is a certain subtype, that would implie that you have created a whole new relationship chart with this. A chart which is totally different then the original socionics chart.

That can't be right, can it?

My observations so far support my line of reasoning. So yes, I personally use a different chart than the socionics one; Smilingeyes' actually proposed first what I'm talking about, and I immediatly agreed with him.

You're of course free to think/use the original chart if everything you have observed so far matches that one.

[Jarno]

Thanks. What about between two Ip types? ISFp-Fe and INFp-Fe for example? Would the same subtype make them look identical?

IMO

Their relationship will still follow the description of the Look-a-like (or sometimes called Business) relationship.

There will be however a small deviation because of the subtypes. How it works out, I don't know.

But it cannot be classified as an Identical relationship, because they don't have the same primairy function.

[FDG]

Thanks. What about between two Ip types? ISFp-Fe and INFp-Fe for example? Would the same subtype make them look identical?

No, you'd be a positivist, and she/he'd be a negativist. In my experience, this switch is what is most easily distinguishable in look-a-likes and comparatives of the same subtype.

[Jarno]

So yes, I personally use a different chart than the socionics one; Smilingeyes' actually proposed first what I'm talking about, and I immediatly agreed with him.

You're of course free to think/use the original chart if everything you have observed so far matches that one.

Don't you think you could be wrong, if the original socionics chart works for over 35 years, and nobody ever complained about it, all psychologist agreed on it.

But smiling eyes shouts something and that would be right??

C'mon.

[redbaron]

Thanks. What about between two Ip types? ISFp-Fe and INFp-Fe for example? Would the same subtype make them look identical?

IMO

Their relationship will still follow the description of the Look-a-like (or sometimes called Business) relationship.

There will be however a small deviation because of the subtypes. How it works out, I don't know.

But it cannot be classified as an Identical relationship, because they don't have the same primairy function.

Right, it's not identical (and pretty obviously not) but maybe leans toward identical.

[redbaron]

Thanks. What about between two Ip types? ISFp-Fe and INFp-Fe for example? Would the same subtype make them look identical?

No, you'd be a positivist, and she/he'd be a negativist. In my experience, this switch is what is most easily distinguishable in look-a-likes and comparatives of the same subtype.

Well that is interesting. I tend to think of myself as a negativist and him as a positivist. I'll have to think about that one.

[FDG]

So yes, I personally use a different chart than the socionics one; Smilingeyes' actually proposed first what I'm talking about, and I immediatly agreed with him.

You're of course free to think/use the original chart if everything you have observed so far matches that one.

Don't you think you could be wrong, if the original socionics chart works for over 35 years, and nobody ever complained about it, all psychologist agreed on it.

But smiling eyes shouts something and that would be right??

C'mon.

I don't really care if I'm wrong or right - it works for me and that's all I care about. Your conservative perispective actually horrifies me.

I also think you're an idiot for thinking I adopted it just because se said so - of course it's because i had already noticed the difference.

[FDG]

Thanks. What about between two Ip types? ISFp-Fe and INFp-Fe for example? Would the same subtype make them look identical?

No, you'd be a positivist, and she/he'd be a negativist. In my experience, this switch is what is most easily distinguishable in look-a-likes and comparatives of the same subtype.

Well that is interesting. I tend to think of myself as a negativist and him as a positivist. I'll have to think about that one.

Then you're an INFp-Ni - Pi IP is a limited type an Je IP is an empowered type. If you were both Je IPs, (Je= extraverted judging function), then you'd be pretty clearly more positive than him.

[redbaron]

Thanks. What about between two Ip types? ISFp-Fe and INFp-Fe for example? Would the same subtype make them look identical?

No, you'd be a positivist, and she/he'd be a negativist. In my experience, this switch is what is most easily distinguishable in look-a-likes and comparatives of the same subtype.

Well that is interesting. I tend to think of myself as a negativist and him as a positivist. I'll have to think about that one.

Then you're an INFp-Ni - Pi IP is a limited type an Je IP is an empowered type. If you were both Je IPs, (Je= extraverted judging function), then you'd be pretty clearly more positive than him.

I don't think I'm more positive than him. I'm more animated and excitable at times--I definitely play the role of the extravert in our relationship--I think he depends on me for initiation as well as setting the mood but when considering the whole of who I am with everyone else, I am not a positivist.

[Jarno]

being conservative isn't wrong when something has been thoroughly figured out.

But oke, maybe it's better I just acknowledge that we disagree on this part.

[ScarlettLux]

Still a bit confused. What about INFps and ENTps? Say I am an INFp Fe and he is an ENTp Ti. Would this make our relationship closer to Semi-Duality, Duality, or something? It sure feels like it.

[redbaron]

Still a bit confused. What about INFps and ENTps? Say I am an INFp Fe and he is an ENTp Ti. Would this make our relationship closer to Semi-Duality, Duality, or something? It sure feels like it.

The other thing is, in some of these relationships (mine at least), I wonder if we take on the roles of the other's dual without even realizing it. I think that in my friendship with the ISFp I play the extravert doing most of the initiating and drawing out. I mean not only do I do it but it's expected by the other party and if I don't do it, he thinks something is wrong. In your relationship with the ENTp, does one of you naturally seem to display more of a sensing function?

[Jarno]

In my experience, people with the same category subtype (accepting/producing) regardless of type, have a somewhat better relationship/understanding, then people with differing subtypes.

How are your experiences? Have you noticed this too?

[ScarlettLux]

Definitely. My relationships with Ti-ENTps and Ti-INTjs have been awesome, to the point of almost feeling like they were of my quadra or I of theirs. I'm not sure why this happens? ... Well, the obvious explanation being that along the Ti-Fe axis, we are more situated and thus, we complement eachother more as we do put more emphasis on these two functions rather than on the others.

I also in general just get along better with anyone who focuses on Ti instead of whatever their other function in the Ego block is.

I've noticed as well that a lot of Ti-ISTjs get along famously with Fe-ESFjs to the point of it seeming like real duality instead of just semi-duality. They can act quite Alpha-ish. I know one Fe-ESFj girl and she has flocks of Ti dominants around her for close friends.

[Jarno]

Well it is written in the relationships descriptions that a dual with the same subtype as you are yourself, feels better then one with a contradicting subtype.

I wonder if it works this way with all relationships. That somehow you get this feeling like you have something in common.

I've noticed it already with my conflictor too.

[Ms. Kensington]

I have been thinking about this pairing since realizing that my best friend, an INFj, probably married her identical of opposite subtype.

I have always had in the back of my mind Aleesha's theory that an opposite subtype dual would be preferable to same subtype dual because, I believe she said, theoretically your dual would be stronger in your polr.

Since coming across them again, I realized that Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin were likely INFp-Ni and INFp-Fe. I think Jane is the INFp Fe, and I could see ISFp (for a lookalike relation) but I think she is INFp currently.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q4IPaTgsK7g

hate that song

also what is she wearing on her crotch at 1:46? I didnt know you could wear bags/cameras slung on your pelvic bone

and ugh they look like bliss

EDIT: ah.. did i neglect to ask a question? What are your thoughts and experiences on this pairing?

[Enters Laughing]

I agree that Jane Birkin is probably an INFp, and I recall that someone made a good case for Serge being an ISFp, though my searches show that the INFp typing is favoured . I don't think I've come across an 'opposite subtype identical' pairing before, but I suppose you'd have to known dozens of couples and be good at typing to have a good chance.

also what is she wearing on her crotch at 1:46? I didnt know you could wear bags/cameras slung on your pelvic bone

I think that's some form of hunter chic.

[ScarlettLux]

If I am IEI-Fe, I would currently be in a relationship of this type.

However, I could also be EIE.

Therefore, I am probably of not much help =D

[BLauritson]

I work with another ILI. I'm not sure exactly what subtype she is, but I'd guess Te>Ni based purely on gut feeling (I honestly don't really know subtypes well enough to tell, despite having proclaimed Ni subtype for myself for so long). Either way, I'd say relations are pretty warm between us, although it took a long time before "warmth" really came into the equation so to speak. I dunno, it's hard to explain.

On the duals thing, maybe it's just me but personally I'd rather have more of my dual-seeking function than someone being stronger in my PoLR. But hey, an SEE is an SEE, regardless of subtype.

[Ms. Kensington]

salawa!!

what changed your mind? I know there has been some discussion about acting from subconscious functions (as in, it may be impossible).

[crazedrat]

john lennon & paul mccartney were opposing subtype duals (entj-te vs isfp-se).
i think, generally, the relationship is a bit easier to start but more difficult to maintain... it is not as comfortable / at rest. but is in some ways more exciting. the excitement feels like it is derived from the imperative to maintain a certain level of functionality in the relationship. listening to the beatles, their music sounds kind of like a manic love. i've felt relations with ESFP-fis which are the same as their music. it is hard to explain, you should experience it. my opinion on this is they are better flings

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I have always had in the back of my mind Aleesha's theory that an opposite subtype dual would be preferable to same subtype dual because, I believe she said, theoretically your dual would be stronger in your polr.

Your dual isn't stronger in your polr per se. He kinda just ignores it and thinks it's no big deal. That's why they're so awesome. They don't see anything within you that is a natural defect in need of a fix. I guess you could say he's 'passively stronger' but he doesn't put any ego or nevermind in it himself. To other types, your polr is obvious no matter how you hide it, and they can use it to manipulate/take advantage of you, or unintentionally hurt you. Also why duals ignore each other in public social situations. "Oh he looks fine to me. Doesn't need my help or input on anything la da dah..." Then, when you are actually in trouble, they will protect you effortlessly.

I don't know about your theory though btw. You have one anecdotal example as evidence.

[Microknight]

Massive post incoming alert!

I’m uncertain which sub-forum to put this post in, it can conceivably go in Is it type related? Any relations or Other Personality Typologies

So far, one of the most cryptic subjects for me in Socionics is subtypes. I haven’t found any in depth description or explanation beyond the brief little paragraphs I’ve found on wikisocion. Some people say that it’s an emphasis on the creative function, but wouldn’t that just make the person the mirror type? Can anyone explain, or give a good link explaining what a subtype is?

Beyond my questions, working with what I have, and if there is such a thing as subtype, I would choose the Victor Gulenko logical subtype description for myself, as found here: ILI subtypes - Wikisocion I do dislike useless activity, and by useless I mean things that have no measurable positive effect either on society or smaller groups.

Okay, now I’ll explain why I put this in intertype relations. As with any budding socionicist, I’ve typed many of my friends, acquaintances, and family. For this post I’m going to use the types of three people, myself (an ILI), my best friend (LIE), and one of my favorite friends(ILI2). I am wondering if subtypes, supposing they exist, have effect on intertype relations.

With ILI2, I am mostly certain that he is the same type as me. We have the same interests, talk about the same things, enjoy the same things, independently arrive upon the same conclusions about different things and generally seem to share similar thought processes. In large groups, we’re the two sitting at the edge of the table talking about Star Trek or computers or technological progression into the future or video games. Things I like to talk about that most other people don’t. As such, I always want this dude to be present at social engagements.

Okay, now, onto my best friend of many years. I’m 95 percent he is an LIE. He is exceptionally intelligent, popular with most people, a giant math nerd, has strong political opinions, refuses to leave a problem unsolved, and is always quick to point out a flaw in someone’s argument. Beyond that, he is damn near always right, he is a great “tweaker” of ideas, always knows how to make things better. I get along great with him, was best man at his wedding, we mutually correct each other often and neither gets angry, yadda yadda, best friend stuff.

Here’s the deal, those two don’t get along. The LIE will invite me to do something, and I will say “invite ILI2” (ILI2 is LIE’s wife’s brother). Somewhat grudgingly, he will invite ILI2. LIE obviously has much higher respect for me than for ILI2, and from interactions I can tell that ILI2 has a higher respect for me than for LIE.

From my point of view, it’s a mystery why those two don’t get along, even though ILI2 seems to be a very similar person to me. From the LIE’s point of view, it is a mystery why I get along so well with ILI2. It seems he has a very different view of the two of us than I. When queried, my LIE friend describes me as stable, unemotional, and ILI2 as moody, and a butthole. He also thinks ILI2 is argumentative at the wrong times. LIE thinks that I get along with ILI2 because ILI2 isn’t always trying to argue with me. To be fair, this might be true. I’ve noticed he seems to argue with everybody, except me. So, why?

Again, reading ILI subtypes - Wikisocion. I fit in with the logical subtype. Reading the two, I noticed that ILI2 seems to fit in with the intuitive descriptions, just going by behavior. Perhaps different subtypes have different type compatibilities? Perhaps ILI intuitive subtype not compatible with LIE, or whatever subtype my friend happens to be?

Oh well, I gotta go walk my dog. Back in a bit.

Thoughts of a Socionoob
Microknight

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[JuJu]

Diana says it well above.

In my experience, subtype doesn't alter specific inter-type relations so much as the character of broader groups, e.g. I've noticed that Se-LSIs and Ti-LSIs like slightly different scenes.

I've come to realize VI can help a lot in determining subtype.

[Creepy-bg]

Submarine

The use of the term submarine or sub is widespread,[2] and its origin is disputed. One theory is that it originated in a restaurant in Scollay Square in Boston, Massachusetts at the beginning of World War I. The sandwich was created to entice the large numbers of navy servicemen stationed at the Charlestown Navy Yard. The bread was a smaller specially baked baguette intended to resemble the hull of the submarines it was named after.[4]

Another theory suggests the submarine sandwich was brought to the US by Dominic Conti (1874–1954), an Italian immigrant who came to New York in the early 1900s.[5] In 1910 he started Dominic Conti's Grocery Store in on Mill Street in Paterson, NJ and named the sandwich after seeing the recovered 1878 submarine called "Holland 1" in the local Paterson museum in 1918. His granddaughter has stated the following: "My grandfather came to this country circa 1895 from Montella, Italy. Around 1910, he started his grocery store, called Dominic Conti's Grocery Store, on Mill Street in Paterson, New Jersey where he was selling the traditional Italian sandwiches. His sandwiches were made from a recipe he brought with him from Italy which consisted of a long crust roll, filled with cold cuts, topped with lettuce, tomatoes, peppers, onions, oil, vinegar, Italian herbs and spices, salt, and pepper. The sandwich started with a layer of cheese and ended with a layer of cheese (this was so the bread wouldn’t get soggy)."[6]


Hero

The term hero originated in New York in the late 19th century when Italian laborers wanted a convenient lunch that reminded them of home. The name is credited to New York Herald Tribune food writer Clementine Paddleford, who wrote in the 1930s that you needed to be a hero to finish the gigantic Italian sandwich.[3]

"Hero" remains the prevailing New York term for most sandwiches on an oblong roll with a generally Italian flavor, in addition to the original described above. Pizzeria menus often include eggplant parmigiana, chicken parmigiana, and meatball heroes, each served with tomato sauce. Pepper and egg heroes and potato and egg heroes are also popular.


Hoagie

The term hoagie originated in the Philadelphia area. Domenic Vitiello, professor of Urban Studies at the University of Pennsylvania asserts that Italians working at the World War II shipyard in Philadelphia, known as Hog Island where emergency shipping was produced for the war effort, introduced the sandwich, by putting various meats, cheeses, and lettuce between two slices of bread. This became known as the "Hog Island" sandwich; hence, the "hoagie".[7]

The Philadelphia Almanac and Citizen's Manual offers a different explanation, that the sandwich was created by early twentieth century street vendors called "hokey-pokey men", who sold antipasto salad, along with meats and cookies. When Gilbert and Sullivan’s operetta H.M.S. Pinafore opened in Philadelphia in 1879, bakeries produced a long loaf called the pinafore. Entrepreneurial "hokey-pokey men" sliced the loaf in half, stuffed it with antipasto salad, and sold the world's first "hoagie".[8]

Another explanation is that the word "hoagie" arose in the late 19th-early 20th century, among the Italian community in South Philadelphia, when "on the hoke" was a slang used to describe a destitute person. Deli owners would give away scraps of cheeses and meats in an Italian bread-roll known as a "hokie", but the Italian immigrants pronounced it "hoagie."[9] By 1955, restaurants throughout the area were using the term "hoagie", with many selling hoagies and subs or hoagies and pizza. Listings in Pittsburgh show hoagies arriving in 1961 and becoming widespread in that city by 1966.

Other less likely explanations involve "Hogan" (a nickname for Irish workers at the Hogg Island shipyard), a reference to the pork or "hog" meat used in hoagies, "honky sandwich" (using a racial slur for white people seen eating them) or "hooky sandwich" (derived from "hookie" for truant kids seen eating them).[3] Shortly after WWII, there were numerous varieties of the term in use throughout Philadelphia. By the 1940s, the spellings "hoagie" and, to a lesser extent, "hoagy" had come to dominate lesser user variations like "hoogie" and "hoggie".[10] By 1955, restaurants throughout the area were using the term "hoagie", with many selling hoagies and subs or hoagies and pizza. Listing in Pittsburgh show hoagies arriving in 1961 and becoming widespread in that city by 1966.[10]

Former Philadelphia mayor (now Pennsylvania governor) Ed Rendell declared the hoagie the "Official Sandwich of Philadelphia"[11]. However, there are claims that the hoagie was actually a product of nearby Chester, Pennsylvania.


Other Types of Subs

* Blimpie (shaped like a blimp) From the Hoboken, New Jersey founded chain, Blimpie.
* Bomber (shaped like a bomber plane) — various areas.
* Cosmo (cosmopolitan) — North Central Pennsylvania near Williamsport
* Grinder (Italian-American slang for a dock worker) — Midwest, New England. Inland Empire of Southern California.[3]
* Italian Sandwich (named for origin) — Maine and parts of New England.
* Poor boy — Saint Louis
* Po' boy — New Orleans
* Rocket (shaped like a rocket) — various areas.
* Spuckie (Italian-American slang for a long roll) — Boston, Massachusetts (used particularly in Italian immigrant neighborhoods)
* Torpedo (shaped like a torpedo) — New York, New Jersey, other areas.
* Wedge (served between two wedges of bread) — Prevalent in Yonkers, New York and other parts of Westchester County, New York, parts of The Bronx and portions of Upstate New York.[13]
* Zeppelin (shaped like a zeppelin) — New Jersey; Phoenixville, PA and Norristown, PA.

[ArchonAlarion]

*The following is my "humble" opinion, so take it or leave it*

*Also I have pretentiously begun using spivak pronouns when referring to gender neutral third person singular*

Ti ENTp has Ti mode (leading), Ne is the utility (creative), Si is the agenda, and Fe is the activation.

The Ti ENTp's main role in society (caused by eir role in eir family unit during early childhood) is what I call the "Architect". The reason why I call em this is because, eir main orientation of perception is Ti, which basically organizes the world and things into a clear, defined, and categorical framework, sorta like a blueprint. But eir agenda is Si. Types want to use their mode to produce actions which affect their agenda.

So I, being Ti ENTp systematize reality, categorizing everything, etc. and I use this to produce Si related things like alternate worlds, artwork, organic sytems, and even aesthetically pleasing things. Steve, for instance, is a muscian, and has told me how it stems from his Si agenda. The agenda is like a sandbox. I really love games like Spore in which I can play around and make lots of different forms, creatures, systems.

Because both my mode and agenda are "field" elements, I can easily slide from one to the other, without any major shift in perceptual cognition. This has led me to become fluid in my thoughts/behavior and I would rather avoid obstacles than confront them. I want fluid progression and am "obstacle-phobic". When your "Project Block" (Mode-Agenda) goes object-object or field-field, I call this "Homo-productive". When it goes object-field or field-object I call this "Hetero-productive"

Homo-productive types are commonly referred to as "irrational" and Hetero-productive types as "rational". This is because the hetero types have to make mental switches from seeing things as objects/fields to the opposite more often than homo types (Dont be a dick). Homo types glide along the field-field or object-object track happily specializing and are sorta of "lazy". Hetero's are more active mentally, requiring lots of effort, making em more controlled and stable (in thought and indirectly in behavior).


So temperament is more complicated in a way. Maybe I'll expand later.