subtypes
Aren't subtypes just your type adapting to situation in which the assistance of one function is required more than the other function?
If that is true, then doesn't that mean that subtypes don't actually exists?
If you are mostly faced with situations demanding one function more than the other, then you use one function more than the other. But if suddenly, you are faced with a situation demanding assistance of the other function, then you use that function more.
What do you think?
Slight tangent - are subtypes the reason for the sudden appearance of parenthesis in type acronymns? I think I might have missed something
On topic now: while I agree with you about using functions that are best for the situation, I don't think it rules out favouring one function when "at leisure", so to speak.
Do you mean for example: I(N)TjOriginally Posted by ishysquishy
Slight tangent - are subtypes the reason for the sudden appearance of parenthesis in type acronymns? I think I might have missed something
If so, yes.
Good pointOn topic now: while I agree with you about using functions that are best for the situation, I don't think it rules out favouring one function when "at leisure", so to speak.
But if a person is at leisure, then wouldn't that mean that there is a balance between the two functions since one function is not been adapted for use over the other function?
I guess it depends on how one occupies themself (internally or externally). Or the types of thoughts they have - are they moreor
etc.? I think personal motivations might be an influence here.
Of course, if that's true, as personal motivations change your subtype will change, but it will probably stay around for long enough to be significant enough to be named as a subtype.
I'll be honest, I don't know what to think of subtypes. I know that people in the same type can be different, but I don't know if that is just personality shaped by enviorment, or if there are literally "genetic sub-classifications". If it is the former, then subtype theory is bullshit. If it is the latter, then I don't know if the common subtype theory on here can really explain it. There is probably something else to it besides "logical subtype" , etc...
I'd like to add that I find sub-classifications interesting even though we can't describe them yet. I have another Sensory-logical Introverted friend who I've known since elementary school, and we've always been different from each other. I didn't even suspect us to be the same type at first. It's things like that that make me think that the differnt sub-types more or less come with the type. It's just that there is no good sub-type system.
Why does if have to be genetic, or biological, in temperament theory to matter? Social and Biological weight is equally strong and equally important. Do you have a bias against social aspect? I see the two as intertwined.
I suspect subtypes are biological if they actually exist. Before I knew about socionics and I was familiar with Kiersey I could clearly see that this person and that were both of the same type but I began to find difficulty when trying to explain it to other people. If they took the test they came out the same as well. But they looked and acted so different from each other. What was the difference? For example one estj is passive and this one bossy, this estj is defensive and sarcastic just like that one over there but this one is cool and moves differently. It seemed reflected not only in personality but in body type and movement. Thats why I suspect it is not so much environmental. At first I thought all estjs were stocky, robust creatures, then I started to meet some that looked more like NTs, rather thin. Same with the other types with similar personalities to match. Almost like the somotypes that were spoken of earlier.
One experiement I did was with a number of istjs that I was aquainted with. I applied the eneagram just to see what kinds of differnences I would come up with. Some came out as 5s, clearly more Ti dominant also more introverted. Some came out 6, more Se and even including Fe, with parinoid traits. Some came out as 1s more rule oriented than the other two and stiffer in motion. Im not suggesting the eneagram should be used as a tool for differentiating subtype but my experiment just underscored some interesting differences to me.
Topaz
The artifact which is the source of my power will not be kept on the Mountain of Despair beyond the River of Fire guarded by the Dragons of Eternity. It will be in my safe-deposit box. The same applies to the object which is my one weakness.
That's highly debatable (please dont make me argue sides again, =[ ). I dont think it is important either way unless one is bent on changing it. I'm not sure why one would... kinda Frankenstein-ish imo. It is what it is.
From my perspective, it looks like sub-types are probably shaped by environment. I don't think it necessarily means it's bullshit, though. Genes become muh more fun when you look at the phenotypes
Something like, "this environmental pressure filtered through these genes...", not literally, of course, but you see what I mean (I hope).
I feel that genetics is limited, in terms of personality especially. Genes are really only potential (and the limiting factors of potential). Having genes for producing certain amounts melatonin doesn't necessarily mean one will have as dark skin as their genes suggest. I know you know this, I'm just explaining why I think phenotypes are still valid.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote