subtype experiment

[Ave]

This is only an experiment. Take it with a grain of salt.

Could it be that a person's subtype can be discovered by their ressemblance with look a like or comparative partners? Possibly. (Notice Im referring to Gulenko's subtype theory here where you prefer either your dominant or creative function.) I've devised a few questions for anyone who is bored enough to answer, and maybe help us all out in the end. Here they are:

1.What is your type?

2.What is your subtype?(if you know it)

3.What type do you identify with more, your comparative, or your look a like?

[Catholic Schoolboy]

INTp
Ni subtype (pretty sure)
Comparative

I adore INFps, ISTps baffle me.

[Gilly]

ENTp

Intuitive Subtype

Comparative for sure, I used to think I was ENFp.

[Cone]

INTp
Thinking subtype
Look-a-like.

[CuriousSoul]

INFj (If you insist on the small letter.)
Probably intuitive subtype.
(The subtype description seems to fit me better, but it remains speculative as there does not seem to me any external method of verification even remotely comparable to the intertype relations theory.)
Look-a-like.

Your theory seems to hold water - so far... :wink:

[Rocky]

ISTP
Logical probably
I'd say comparative. Sorry.

[Jimbean]

Holy crap its Curious Soul!

okay, me

I think I am either over confident or strong in all me functions. I'm guessing that I am a logical subtype and resemble my look-alike.

[Smilingeyes]

ENTj
Intuitive subtype

Look-a-like

[Expat]

ENTj
unsure about subtype, split or slightly intuitive
no real preference over ESTj (comparative) or ENFj (look-alike).

[Park]

ISTp
Sensory subtype
Look-a-like

[Creepy-]

1) INFp

2) most likely Intuitive subtype

3) Comparative

[Ave]

My theory seems rather accurate overall.

Im INTp, N subtype, comparative.

[tempus]

I don't see how identifying with your look-a-like could be related to being of the producing subtype.

[Creepy-]

I don't see how identifying with your look-a-like could be related to being of the producing subtype.

Your preferred function (Fe for producing INFps) would be a shared function with them, I assume that's the rationale.

[tcaudilllg]

INTJ

Intuitive subtype

look a like


*just a note: you can tell when someone's an intutive subtype by a semblance of "aloofness" in their eyes*

[tempus]

"Your preferred function (Fe for producing INFps) would be a shared function with them, I assume that's the rationale."

Yeah, but ISFps only have Fe as a creative function. In my opinion, the difference between an accepting subtype and a producing subtype could better be described as identication with one's comparitive or one's mirror partner.

[Creepy-]

"Your preferred function (Fe for producing INFps) would be a shared function with them, I assume that's the rationale."

Yeah, but ISFps only have Fe as a creative function. In my opinion, the difference between an accepting subtype and a producing subtype could better be described as identication with one's comparitive or one's mirror partner.

Actually I have thought that myself, the producing subtype would act a little bit like their mirror.

[Raver]

ENFP

Intuitive Subtype (I think)

Comparative

[Ave]

"Your preferred function (Fe for producing INFps) would be a shared function with them, I assume that's the rationale."

Yeah, but ISFps only have Fe as a creative function. In my opinion, the difference between an accepting subtype and a producing subtype could better be described as identication with one's comparitive or one's mirror partner.

I see your point, but appearantly experience would have it differently. Almost everyone seems to agree with my theory for their type.

You can make comparisons between mirror and comparative, in theory, but I idntentify with both, so I wasnt to convinced it was a balanced comparison.

Most likely there is an explanation as to why most people who are a producing subtype identify with their look a like and most who are accepting subtype identify with their comparative, we just havent found it yet.

[Smilingeyes]

Most likely there is an explanation as to why most people who are a producing subtype identify with their look a like and most who are accepting subtype identify with their comparative, we just havent found it yet.

Thanks for making this thread polyfather Cheer. I've had the same premiss you've had for a few months. I didn't want to make a thread of it myself because the answer to the question you're proposing in the end of your post involves the "changing of the type", still a taboo subject for many. (Accepting subtype spends more time with the same functions in his ego block as his comparatives than his look-a-like and thus he has more familiarity with how the former lives than the latter.)

[Ave]

That could actually be a better theory of subtypes. It certainly sticks to observation well, appearantly.

Your theory does not necessarily have to involve a "changing of types" as you put it- an ENTj who uses his Fe more would still have as role function, one who prefers his would still have as POLR. (Thats one way to look at it, at least, perhaps this is wrong, but bear with me)

The original theory of subtypes was invented, if Im not mistaken, to explain away the confusion of people who have trouble deciding if they are their quasi identical("am I intp or intj?", big cliché there).

Your theory might explain the confusion between comparatives and look a likes.

Im trying to think of a theory which could combine both theories.

[Smilingeyes]

I don't know if there's actually any difference between the theories except the nomenclature, there are so damn many of those I try to keep an open mind. But good luck on you research Polyfather.

[Ave]

Thanks for the opinions, archbishop smiling_eyes, my faithful ally in creating a sane theory of subtypes.