How do subtypes affect intertype relationships?

[Azeroffs]

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.

[Creepy-male]

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

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.

[Azeroffs]

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.

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.