Subtypes are very useful and there isn't enough emphasis on them
There is enough emphasis on subtypes, and they have some use
There is enough emphasis on subtypes and we don't want any more, because they're not that useful
Subtypes have some use, but there is too much emphasis on them
Subtypes are useless; get rid of them
Opinions of Subtypes
I've been talking to a few people about subtypes, and they've said they think they're too vague, or make it seem as if someone's creative function is actually their base function etc. According to machintruc, subtypes don't even exist in classical socionics theory.
What are you opinions of socionics subtypes?
I think subtypes are stupid and worthless. Whoever thought of them had too much time on their hands, and probably could have used that time to do anything other than pull nonsense out of his ass.
I think subtype is pretty important, actually.
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
That is a little extreme don't you think? I find subtypes useful. There are times where there are blatant or subtle differences in people of the same type (in terms of socionics) that I find subtypes accounts for quite well.Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
The only useless thing about subtypes is in relation to opposing quadras. But for both adjacent inter- and intra-quadra relationships there are definite effects.
Ceci n'est pas une eii.
I agree. Some people have been saying this for a long time, but it's always been ignored.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Can you be more clear in explaining this idea of "quadra rotation", ifmd95? Normally I understand you pretty well, but this is abstract stuff you're talking about. A lot of it just goes over my head, but I'm interested in it.
subtypes are useful because they focus more on the functions' relative interactions with each other instead of limiting them to "blocks."
4w3-5w6-8w7
i think he's referring to the notion of subtypes as being points around a certain temperament. Each point may fall into a quadra, or be inbetween two quadras, e.g.:
E(S)Tp -->
ESp -->
E(S)Fp -->
ESFp -->
ES(F)p -->
EFp -->
EN(F)p -->
ENFp -->
E(N)Fp -->
ENp -->
E(N)Tp -->
ENTp -->
EN(T)p -->
ETp -->
ES(T)p -->
ESTp -->
E(S)Tp --> back to beginning
Beta --> Beta-Gamma --> Gamma --> Gamma-Delta --> Delta --> Delta-Alpha --> Alpha --> Alpha-Beta --> Beta
the 12 subtypes he's referring to are the temperament sets excluding the inbetween-quadra (e.g. ETp) types
What an earth is the point of that theory?
It looks like just a list to me...
I don't think your subtype is part of your type, but it does help to describe your behavior, in a way that's related to Socionics.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
It's a way of defining what the subtypes are. How would you define them? One alternative would be to say the the producing subtype is more similar to their mirror than the accepting subtype (presumably this is the "mixed temperaments" that imfd95 mentioned).
I like the idea of subtypes existing around the quadra ring for each temperament. It allows for some sort of continuum in strengths and preferences while not totally messing up Model A. I believe this is a large part of Smilexian socionics.
I agree with Ezra and find this system to be not only useless but counterproductive. Even though there is the same level of activity between types with the same temperament, there is very little similarity between them.
The only difference between Lenin and Tyson was that one was that one was born into a poor black family and was not especially intellectually gifted and the other one was born into middle/upper class and was, intellectually, elite. Had Lenin several fewer points of IQ, perhaps he would have been known as the first Russian boxing champion.
Continuing with my main point, why do you think that the subtype similarity lies between types of the same temperament? That is true in a minority of cases, and only when the individual already has an emphasis on his leading function. A SEE with Fi subtype does not somehow magically gain a better understanding of Ne. There is no reason for that other than supposing that this somehow leads him to ignore his Se-base function. Since creative functions are linked to the input they receive from the leading function, a creative subtype would only have more output from his creative function and receive more input into it. That's it. It does not reveal the door that leads an SEE into the realm of Ne.
Furthermore, types of the same temperament are more intune with each other energy-wise, but they by no means share their goals or understand each other. Kinship relations are hypocritical to each other while having different goals. Business relations are alien to each other in viewpoint. Super-ego relations only really get along if they leave each other alone; their outlooks on life are so different that someone of their combined type would be clinically insane.
ifmd95 or someone else may wish to retort with a theoretical existence of equally mixed temperamental functions (equal portions of Ti & Fi, Te & Fe, Ne & Se, or Ni & Si). This "existence" does not exist, for the simple reason that such an existence would violate the conditions set by Model A.
Personally, I also disapprove of VI that includes subtypes. As far as I am concerned, a person's genetics are a better explanation for why the same type looks different in photos. Yeah, I'd go with genetics.
What you are doing is not theoretical. It is hogwash. This "demarcation" that ifmd95 found "boring and superfluous" and "of no theoretical depth" stands; these arguments are boring, superfluous, of no depth whatsoever, and supported by scant evidence.
Your time would be better spent looking at reasons outside of socionics for why there are intratype differences. I suggest looking at lifestyle, family, biography, close relations, medical problems, life-changing occurences, the person's current girlfriend/fuck buddy/sex toy, the person's imaginary friend, the schools he/she attended, the person's private interests, what philosophers he has read in his lifetime, consider how each philosopher affected him at that point in his life, the books he has read, the books he has read when happy or that lead him to be happy, the books he has read when depressed or that made him depressed, how his favorite sports team is doing, how he regards his job, when the last time he had a vacation was, which Victoria's Secret model he would most like to bang, how he is in the sack, how comfortable he is with his sexuality, and how alchemy affects his daily life before I would look at the way your cooky theory sees his subtype.
You relate everything to temperament and your "cycle" revolves around the temperament. Your system is focused on similarities between the temperaments. That is why I made my statement.
Are there a lot of SEEs that produce theoretical output? You also missed the fact that, if Lenin did resemble a type other than SLE, it was LIE. His outputs were as theoretical as they were meant to be put into practice.
As for the rest, upbringing is the most important thing. You are comparing a guy who grew up in gangs to three guys who were smart enough to get into universities (only Lenin actually graduated). Furthermore, consider what they were involved in: Tyson - boxing, Stallone and Lundgren - acting, Lenin - politics. Which of these is more likely to come up with theoretical output?
If you truly want to compare SLEs, you have to look at somebody like Lenin and Churchill. However, there you have more of a distinction with what type of output, as Churchill liked to write historical books and Lenin theoretical works.
Gulenko did not observe what you say; his observation was more that each acts differently (one takes the lead, another comes up with ideas, another checks and corrects, another ties everything together) while remaining fully true to their type. Gulenko's model is completely independent of socionics and Model A, while remaining a part of it. He also did not even consider that there were changes in quadra relations with each of his subtypes, as his subtypes are not more or less like any of the quadras. His final conclusion of eight subtypes per each type also goes against your observations of an irrational subtype preferring someone with a rational subtype.
That's enough on Gulenko. The nearing of the relationship between mirrors does vary quadra relations. Take an LIE. An LIE, especially LIE-Te, will prefer the Delta quadra, which has his semi-dual, his benefactor, his kinship, and his supervisor (2 beneficial relations, 1 so-so, and 1 negative), to the Beta quadra, which has his illusion, his beneficiary, his business, and his supervisee (there are no real "good" relationships here, mainly so-so and negative while the illusion can be fine). I will not write it out, but an ILI will be closer to Beta for the exact same reasons. As an ILI type comes closer to a LIE type and vice versa, their relations with each quadra improve or worsen, respectively.
This is not to mention that individual values can make someone value another quadra through no correlation with the subtype. I know an LSE who loved the Soviet Union, although, individually, she hates the type of policies they pursued.
Finally, the quadras and clubs are there for a reason. Rotating them around does upset the balance of intertype relations. I do not see why it would not.
A difference of how we think of type: I do not see temperament as relatively useful, easily discernable on a case-by-case basis, or useful before actually typing.
Anyhow, as I've mentioned before in other threads, a creative function will not exceed the strength of the base function. The second it does that, it becomes the base function as the person starts to rely more on the input from it than the input from his former base function.
Completely don't understand what you mean.
Who is isolating Se? Why is it reduced? How can it be isolated? Why would that matter? How does the base correspond to a mixture of Ne and Se? How is the connotation of this sentence even possible (that Ne and Se want to mix in the base function)? Why do I get the feeling I'm reading stringed words with no logic behind them? How would this mixture be as strong? How is such a mixture possible? Are Se and Ne not alternate concepts to the same thing? Why would this mixture be as strong? Why would this mixture work or be possible in the first place? What does the last sentence even mean (other than apparently being a Jesus parable)?
I understand that, but you mentioned them going in a full ring. Moreover, a LII-Ti would not be more like an LSI. They would analyze, think through single thoughts rather than look at many different factors more then a regular LII. By itself, this is in no way more LSI. The reverse would not be true for an LSI. A LSI-Ti would not necessarily seem more like an LII in the willingness to consider other possibilities, or more like an ESI, if you were going to make some +/- argument.
What is to say they are or have to be?
I fully support imfd95 on the matter (probably I've already stated it on the thread, but restating does not harm); I actually do not understand how what he says is not obvious to everyone. It's enough to look around yourself and you will notice the fine differences that, for example, become less and less prominent the closer you move on the temperament ring (i.e. an ENFP-Fi and an ESFP-Fi are very obviously much more simlar (actually, they are very similar) than an ENFP-Ne and and ESFP-Se). It's...obvious.
That's because you have not observed and understood enough, not because his points lack logic. All your questions are obviously related to the fact that you have never been able to observe that phenomena in action.Who is isolating Se? Why is it reduced? How can it be isolated? Why would that matter? How does the base correspond to a mixture of Ne and Se? How is the connotation of this sentence even possible (that Ne and Se want to mix in the base function)? Why do I get the feeling I'm reading stringed words with no logic behind them? How would this mixture be as strong? How is such a mixture possible? Are Se and Ne not alternate concepts to the same thing? Why would this mixture be as strong? Why would this mixture work or be possible in the first place? What does the last sentence even mean (other than apparently being a Jesus parable)?
Actually, this reasoning is not sophisticated enough. The error lies here: you think that creative-Fi stronger than base-Ne and base-Se is equal to base-Fi. But creative-Fi and base-Fi are two extremely different functions: base-Fi is rational, empowering, pliable and creative-Fi is irrational, limiting, obstinate (just to name a few differences - there are a lot more). An EP with stronger Fi than Se or Ne will have stronger creative-Fi, not base-Fi.Anyhow, as I've mentioned before in other threads, a creative function will not exceed the strength of the base function. The second it does that, it becomes the base function as the person starts to rely more on the input from it than the input from his former base function.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Of course an IEE-Fi is more similar to a SEE-Fi than an IEE-Ne to a SEE-Se. The first two focus more on their Fi environments; the latter two each focus on their own respective base functions. This does not mean an IEE-Fi has stronger Se, nor that a SEE-Fi has stronger Ne, nor that an IEE-Ne has stronger Ti, nor that a SEE-Se has stronger Ti. You are putting causal links and comparisons where there are none.
All of my questions are related to how what he said was strung words. Se is not isolated, nor can it be, since to function each element needs inputs from other elements. Se is reduced in magnitude to Fi; this does not have to allow a better use of Ne, nor does it in most instances. Ne and Se cannot mix in a base function because they can barely mix at all. I imagine you draw this from "people can use both to some extent," but that is not mixing in a base function; instead the person has a separate base function element and a separate role function element, which, depending on the fluctuation for an irrational, can be used at varying degrees to each other. This does not constitute a subtype. Such a mixture would not be strong or perhaps even possible, as it would actually require a mixture of mindsets that are always set against or deny each other.
What I actually think is happening in your thought process is the following:
A SEE-Fi subtype cares more about his Fi than does a regular SEE. But to preserve his temperament, he accepts more Ne. A SEE-Se subtype cares less about Fi. To preserve the temperament balance, he cares more for Ti. This is adding causation where there are none. A temperament does not need to be preserved because a temperament is not strictly defined. A SEE-Fi pays more attention to his Fi environment, and consequently less attention to his own Se goals or gains, but this in no way necessitates that he is better at accepting others viewpoints other than perhaps the ESI's propensity to listen to others to prefer the relationship. A SEE-Se listens less to his Fi environment and is more concerned about his Se goals and gains. He will try to win or be on top in more situations than a regular SEE, but this again does not mean he will consider a victory in a Ti framework that does not grant a benefit in his Fi environment a victory.
If a SEE-Fi is less self-oriented, he must have more Ne. If a SEE-Se is more self-oriented, he must have more Ti. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
No, you think that an element in the creative function is automatically changed with respect to its core functioning. You also mistakenly think that the accepting-producing function dichotomy comes not from function power levels but just exists. The above two fallacies are why you think that such a system is possible.
All the differences between base-Fi and creative-Fi come from the fact that the base holds most of a person's thought process, only allowing the other mental functions to appear in continuously decreasing stretches of time and frequencies. Thus, a base-Fi maintains constant thought, while a creative-Fi bursts through at moments, bestowing insights that the person sees as important and subjects to his base's rumination. As the creative function strengthens, its outbursts become more frequent and more constant, taking over the base's role as soon as it becomes stronger than the base. (It would be quite pointless to consider the stronger element subservient to the weaker one. Moreover, the stronger element would now subject insights from the weaker element to its own goals and needs.)
I may be mistaken, but you gave the impression that you also thought a creative element was subject to the rationality of the type. This is wrong and I would point out that Model A was not explicitly developed with the dichotomies in mind. (Also I have no idea what you meant by this - "creative-Fi stronger than base-Ne and base-Se is equal to base-Fi" [the latter part I get more or less] - but I do not seem to think the first part.)
I would not use VI at all. His thinking in no way reflects an ILE or an ILE's opinions or an ILE's views. Lenin did what every tactician does: took the theoretical foundation (Das Kapital and Marxism) and applied it to the actual scenario. It in no way was more or less like an ILE. He wrote his works as a way of sharing his view and showing them to be credible as Leninism was a far shoot-off of Marxism, as Marx did not even consider a communist revolution in an agricultural country like Russia possible. Similar to Lenin, every communist revolutionary in Asia has come up with a new theoretical doctrine to apply specifically to his country.
Your examples and claims do not project the situation accurately. One, you suppose that theorization lies in Alpha when theory is as much a part of Beta. Two, more than intelligence, the disparity between the four comes from living conditions, which you do not address. Three, aside from individual differences, I see no correlation in the choice of profession and lifestyle
They can, but they do not have to. I'm talking about what must exist. Theoretically, there could be a politician/artist who also won a Nobel Prize in literature. Oh, wait, that's Churchill, the regular SLE.
Neither do I support Gulenko's views. You can create a system of infintite subtypes, but that does not mean that it is either useful or practical to our understanding. His system, at least, goes outside (or into the depths) of socionics to understand type nuances because he recognizes that the each of the different identicals are in no way less representative of their type. Your system assumes that because a type has behaviors that are not typical of his type, his type relations change, he likes one club more or less, or that he somehow goes out of his quadra.
The divide is quite large, once you experience it. The fact is that mirrors are the worst relation in the quadra, and correspondingly have vastly different relations.
No. Activity partners in the long term, aggravate and irritate each other, which can evetually lead to a breaking of relations. Activation relations need periods of "cooldown time" and may need an interlocutor to get back into contact and maintain the relationship. A semi-duality relationship can be more stable and beneficial, honestly speaking.
You can say that semi-duality is generally universally more pleasing than illusionary. The first provides the individual with what he craves; the second provides the individual with what he finds useful, but might be able to do without. Illusion relations can be strained while semi-duality ones are generally pleasant and mutually beneficial.
If by comparative you mean kinship, then no. Kinships can at the very least understand each other or share similar interests. Business relationships are called so because they function best when kept at hands distance, as each tends to irritate the other at close range. The "threat level" people experience with kinship is due to the possibility for the closeness of that relationship, as people do not regularly even interact with their business relations unless they have to. (Ganin quite possibly confuses his own type.)
Given equal circumstances, a type will prefer his benefactors to his beneficiaries and prefer interacting with his supervisee than with his supervisor. Over the course of an individual's lifetime, these trends would become fairly obvious unless he lived in an environment that heavily promoted interaction with one and not the other.
A LSE would never block an ILI's base; he would only be weak in it and the relationship may grow strained without the ILI realizing what is going on. Similarly, an ILI would have much more problems dealing with PoLR hits that he could not fight off.
I'm not. As this person is very close to me, I know that what she likes/values is the extremely Beta ST-generated environment of the USSR. She harshly criticizes some of the same policy procedures and faults of the USSR when they happen today.
Neither does it mean that it is logical to rotate or interchange them.
I do not think this addresses the issue I raised. Because socionics is a theory, many have misconceptions about how it translates to the real world or how some of the functions manifest. Socionics deals with thought processes, which are not necessarily revealed by outside demeanor or behavior. Thus, a person we do not know well can be one way, when in reality they are quite different. We can either reevaluate their type, or we can turn to theories of quadra/club change.
Arguments cannot correlate to clubs, for fairly obvious reasons. Anyhow, arguments can relate to quadras, but neither can they change type relations, as, in the quadra itself, "outer quadra arguments" can be used to check your quadra if its philosophy goes out of hand.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
