How do subtypes affect intertype relationships?

[UDP]

Generally speaking, is it more preferable for a mix of subtypes (rational and irrational subtypes), or the same rationality?

[aestrivex]

i don't think you can make such a generality.


although there is some dissent with the effect of subtypes on most forms of relations, it should be at least fairly clear that conflicting relations are least strained when both types are producing or accepting subtypes rather than a mix of those, to minimize polr bashing (or maybe subtype has no effect on this at all; who really knows?) most people, however, seem to agree that duality is "best" with subtypes of the same axis, whatever that means.

if true, these would be an example that the subtype theory does not apply uniformly to intertype relations, at least in the way you describe.

[Ms. Kensington]

I thought it would be good to have a thread about this topic. I think now that subtypes can have a significant affect on a relation.

Please place examples and discussion here.

I have seen a smoother relationship with ENTjs who are logical subtype rather than intuitive. I think this does have to do with my preference for Ne (and corresponding discomfort with Se, which I would assume the intuitive subtype ENTj puts more emphasis on than the thinking subtype).

I have also seen significant difference in my relationships with different subtypes of my mirror, the ENTp. Also, INFp.

I have seen less extreme but noticeable differences with the different subtypes of ESFj, ISFp, and ISTp.

On one level this can seem extremely obvious but on another not so simple. One question I have been having is that in the case of extreme subtypes, do you think one class of relation can become "better" than another or do you think you must trek around looking for a dual with as an extreme subtype as you? Would the subtypes need to match or be opposite?

[machintruc]

basically, this would add 1 basic dichotomy for relations : "mono-subtype" and "hetero-subtype" ; if we could explain the interaction of subtypes...

[tcaudilllg]

I thought it would be good to have a thread about this topic. I think now that subtypes can have a significant affect on a relation.

Please place examples and discussion here.

I have seen a smoother relationship with ENTjs who are logical subtype rather than intuitive. I think this does have to do with my preference for Ne (and corresponding discomfort with Se, which I would assume the intuitive subtype ENTj puts more emphasis on than the thinking subtype).

I have also seen significant difference in my relationships with different subtypes of my mirror, the ENTp. Also, INFp.

I have seen less extreme but noticeable differences with the different subtypes of ESFj, ISFp, and ISTp.

On one level this can seem extremely obvious but on another not so simple. One question I have been having is that in the case of extreme subtypes, do you think one class of relation can become "better" than another or do you think you must trek around looking for a dual with as an extreme subtype as you? Would the subtypes need to match or be opposite?

...That's it.

You moron, you are interpreting crosstype information as subtype information. Idiot.

If you want an answer to this question, see the crosstype theory and start typing RIGHT.

[machintruc]

...That's it.

You moron, you are interpreting crosstype information as subtype information. Idiot.

If you want an answer to this question, see the crosstype theory and start typing RIGHT.

how can crosstypes be correlated to subtypes ?

[tcaudilllg]

I'm increasingly skeptical that subtypes exist....

...At first I thought "this person uses more energy for this function than that one; that's why they look different from me", which is what the crosstype theory tells us. Now I completely account VI differences for differences in information exertion, so I don't need that rather feeble crutch any longer. Nor do I have any reason to believe that one person's function is "stronger" than another in any way that is not already explained by Model-A.

Are you not getting along with your dual? Could be that they're your dual-conflictor, which means that what you do actually conflicts with what they themselves are trying to do. Will that influence your relations with them? Absolutely.

The dual-type model allows for 240 VI possibilities... if you see a portly, big-boned INTj, consider that they might have an ISFp exertion type. Or consider that they might just be overweight.

[Exodus]

I'm beginning to realize that, at least within my quadra, I tend to get along much better with all creative subtypes (which I am myself). Also I(N)Fj better than IN(F)j.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[FDG]

Well I think people should start reading one of the smilingeyes latest posts that sheds light on how relations really go.

Some few examples are that EXXP-Pe and IXXP-Je relations can be strained, whereas EXXP-Pe and IXXJ-Pe can be good, even if the types are supposedly conflictors. Ex that's why an ESTp-Se can get along better with an INTj-Ne than an INTj-Ti even if the relations would predict that the INTj-Ne and ESTp-Se would basically be conflictors.

Here it is:

http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9033 <-- one of the last posts

[tcaudilllg]

I thought it would be good to have a thread about this topic. I think now that subtypes can have a significant affect on a relation.

Please place examples and discussion here.

I have seen a smoother relationship with ENTjs who are logical subtype rather than intuitive. I think this does have to do with my preference for Ne (and corresponding discomfort with Se, which I would assume the intuitive subtype ENTj puts more emphasis on than the thinking subtype).

I have also seen significant difference in my relationships with different subtypes of my mirror, the ENTp. Also, INFp.

I have seen less extreme but noticeable differences with the different subtypes of ESFj, ISFp, and ISTp.

On one level this can seem extremely obvious but on another not so simple. One question I have been having is that in the case of extreme subtypes, do you think one class of relation can become "better" than another or do you think you must trek around looking for a dual with as an extreme subtype as you? Would the subtypes need to match or be opposite?

...That's it.

You moron, you are interpreting crosstype information as subtype information. Idiot.

If you want an answer to this question, see the crosstype theory and start typing RIGHT.

Hey now, no reason to insult msk! That's right, everyone else is wrong, and only you're right. As far as I've seen you haven't ever clearly explained yourself or why you believe crosstypes are a more reasonable explanation than subtypes.

Shut up Diana. That's an order from one liberal to another.

And you will stand with me in support of the crosstype theory. You are acting foolish by feigning ignorance of it. Or are you not a liberal?

I warn that any who dare attempt to render all my hard work against adversity for nought will pay dearly for their transgression. This is fate and you cannot change it. I will succeed.

[UDP]

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.

[Slacker]

I thought it would be good to have a thread about this topic. I think now that subtypes can have a significant affect on a relation.

Please place examples and discussion here.

I have seen a smoother relationship with ENTjs who are logical subtype rather than intuitive. I think this does have to do with my preference for Ne (and corresponding discomfort with Se, which I would assume the intuitive subtype ENTj puts more emphasis on than the thinking subtype).

I have also seen significant difference in my relationships with different subtypes of my mirror, the ENTp. Also, INFp.

I have seen less extreme but noticeable differences with the different subtypes of ESFj, ISFp, and ISTp.

On one level this can seem extremely obvious but on another not so simple. One question I have been having is that in the case of extreme subtypes, do you think one class of relation can become "better" than another or do you think you must trek around looking for a dual with as an extreme subtype as you? Would the subtypes need to match or be opposite?

...That's it.

You moron, you are interpreting crosstype information as subtype information. Idiot.

If you want an answer to this question, see the crosstype theory and start typing RIGHT.

I hope you're joking, because otherwise you are way way way out of line. 1. Calling anyone a moron or idiot, and 2. trying to force someone to follow your theory.

[Steve]

I do believe subtypes exist, infact I've seen very clear examples of the different subtypes.

I am a believer that with each subtype, its not that one function is used more than the other or that one is stronger, it's that the functions are used differently.

Basic socionics theory states that functions are made up of different information elements. They are as follows:

extraverted intuition = internal statics of objects
extraverted sensing = external statics of objects
extraverted logic = external dynamics of objects
extraverted ethics = internal dynamics of objects
introverted intuition = internal dynamics of fields
introverted sensing = external dynamics of fields
introverted logic = external statics of fields
introverted ethics = internal statics of fields
(taken from socionics.us)

Also it is important to note the distinction between object and fields:

Objects:Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)
Fields:Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject.
(from socionics.us)

So, in term of subtypes, I believe that the functions work in a slightly different context and process information in a slightly different order for each subtype.

For example:

Take an ENTp, whose primary functions are Ne and Ti; in other words, Internal Statics of Objects and External Statics of Fields

In my view, an ENTp-Ne subtype will experience things in primarily an object mode, and their look will reflect looking AT something, perceiving something separate from themselves. Their Ne perceives the internal static qualities of objects, and then the person takes those static qualities of objects and forms them into a Ti field (a more abstract, theoretical form), so in essence Ti forms together Ne's perceptions.

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.

So, in summation, (Note: I had to use """""" simply for spacing purposes and ignore it when interpreting the diagram)

Ne sub: [Ne-Ne-Ne-Ne-Ne-Ne-Ne-Ne-Ne-Ne-Ne-Ne] (Ne, an applied perception of the internal static qualities of objects)
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''\ /
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''Ti (An abstract mental field of Ne objects)

Ti sub: Ti,-Ti,- Ti, - Ti,-Ti,- Ti,- Ti, (Ti, An applied judgment on the external static qualities of the fields and their coherence)
'''''''''''''''|'''''|''''''|'''''''|''''''|'''''' |''''''|
''''''''''''''Ne-Ne-Ne- Ne- Ne-Ne-Ne (Ne, an abstract perception of the internal static qualities of the fields)

If you wanted to you could even call each version of Ne and Ti something different.

You could say the Ne sub uses "Object Ne" (Ne operating within the context of objects) and "Object Ti" (Ti operating within the context of Ne perceptions of objects)

And that the Ti subs use "Field Ne (Ne operating within the context of Ti fields, treating fields as objects to perceive) and "Field Ti" (Ti based in applied fields and the coherence of the fields that surrounds them)

[tcaudilllg]

It is kind of difficult now because I don't have much pretension to authority. But when I get my degree in a few years that will all change: the concerted effort to depressure aristocracy into integrating the theory into the realm of "respected" study will begin; if they disagree with my (liberalism's) methods, then we'll just have to have a revolution. (and I'm confident the plebian wing of traditionalism will join reform and liberalism in its conduction, as they have historically done. Nor do I suspect conservatism will protest at all, because accurate logic is consistent with their philosophy)

Listen, if subtypes exist, that's great. It's just looking to me really unlikely at this point. I will say this: if someone can demonstrate to me a concrete difference in VI between people of the same IM and exertion types, then I'll believe subtypes exist; but if not, subtype theory is gonna have to go.

"Respected" or not, wrong is wrong. I don't mean to get anybody upset, but if the sun doesn't rotate about the earth, then it doesn't. There won't be a question of an "inquisition" response to the advent of the dual-type theory. We know how to play the game and our persecution of it will be ruthless.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[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?