Type subtypes and PoLR

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I've never really subscribed to the sub-type theory and still have my doubts however something happened recently that made me re-think.

I've had several recent interactions with a junior co-worker who in the sub-type theory would be described as an ISTJ-se.

Now the is quite obvious as you would expect, in an "i'm going to stand my ground" sort of way. Knowing the theory i'm particularly careful with ISTJ types so as not to offend them as i consider them to be a great asset on any team.

But what really struck me was the apparent severity in which was absent in this particular individual. I've never seen it lacking to this extent in any ISTJ i've ever worked with before (and i've worked with quite a few).

I won't describe the situation but she seemed entirely out of her depth in dealing with any sort of ambiguity (which was natural and inevitable in the circumstances) or understanding that there was simply more than one way to skin a cat.

Assuming subtype theory could this be due to a strong focus on -creative almost canabilizing -PoLR out of existence? Would be interested in any views on this.

I've seen this in an ISTj-Se too, it's almost fascinating in a way watching them drown themselves in things that don't matter or are not that big a deal.

Yes, it could be explained by sub type theory, when you think about dichotomies, as S goes up, it's counterpart N goes down, in this case the Se increases so there is less and less use of the Ne.

However, as there is more focus on the Se, there is an increased use of the role function of Fi, which can in extreme cases make a blur between ISTj and ISFj, however, out of those with strong sub types i've encountered, in this instance they seem like an ISTj with some slight ISFj qualities, but overall their actual type - the dominant function still wins over in them.

[redbaron]

Se says, "Here are my ingredients, what can I do with them?"

I do this all the time when I have to make dinner. Mostly to avoid having to run to the store. lol

[ladyinred]

Irrationals:

Dominant subtype - weakened functions are: Creative, PoLR, DS, and Demonstrative
Creative subtype - weakened functions are: Dominant, Role, HA, and Ignoring

Rationals:

Dominant subtype - weakened functions are: Creative, PoLR, HA, and Ignoring
Creative subtype - weakened functions are: Dominant, Role, DS, and Demonstrative

this is true way of subtypes??

[Jarno]

No, it's the other way round. Ti-ISTjs have extremely weak Ne.

I thought so too.

[Trevor]

Se-Creative = Ne-PoLR. Pronounced Se-Creative = pronounced Ne-PoLR. Se subtyes have pronounced Se-Creative, right?

[squark]

Se-Creative = Ne-PoLR. Pronounced Se-Creative = pronounced Ne-PoLR. Se subtyes have pronounced Se-Creative, right?

Yes. also, what cyclops said.

[tcaudilllg]

The whole "weakened", "strengthened" concept with subtypes never made any sense. It smacks of relativism and bias.

[Aleksei]

Yes. Se-creative is Ne-PoLR. Given that in strong Se-creative subtypes (ISFj-Se and ISTj-Se) the Se is accentuated it makes sense that Ne is even more PoLRarizing than in ISTj-Tis and ISFj-Fis.

Dunno if this post was deleted or what, but I'd disagree with this. Se-creative creates Ne-PoLR by weakening Ne (SLEs have Ne-role, which is stronger). A focus on Se thus should strengthen Ne.

[FDG]

Dunno if this post was deleted or what, but I'd disagree with this. Se-creative creates Ne-PoLR by weakening Ne (SLEs have Ne-role, which is stronger). A focus on Se thus should strengthen Ne.

This type of problem is the ultimate reason why the creative version of a function shouldn't interchangeably be used with its base version. I would convert your reasoning to something like: an IJ type creates by weakening as an EP type creates by weakening or an EJ type creates by weakening .