Gulenko's IE subtype system

[Gilly]

It's like Internal/External, only:

Abstract = N+T
Involved = S+F

So you can re-phrase the IM combinations as such:

Ne: Abstract Statics of Objects
Ni: Abstract Dynamics of Fields
Fe: Involved Dynamics of Objects
Fi: Involved Statics of Fields
Se: Involved Statics of Objects
Si: Involved Dynamics of Fields
Te: Abstract Dynamics of Objects
Ti: Abstract Statics of Fields

Or...

Ne: Internal Abstraction of Objects
Ni: Internal Abstraction of Fields
Fe: Internal Involvement of Objects
Fi: Internal Involvement of Fields
Se: External Involvement of Objects
Si: External Involvement of Fields
Te: External Abstraction of Objects
Ti: External Abstraction of Fields

...or...

Ne: Internal Static Abstraction
Ni: Internal Dynamic Abstraction
Fe: Internal Dynamic Involvement
Fi: Internal Static Involvement
Se: External Static Involvement
Si: External Dynamic Involvement
Te: External Dynamic Abstraction
Ti: External Static Abstraction

And if you want to go all out and don't mind being redundant for the sake of thoroughness:

Ne: Internal Static Abstraction of Objects
Ni: Internal Dynamic Abstraction of Fields
Fe: Internal Dynamic Involvement of Objects
Fi: Internal Static Involvement of Fields
Se: External Static Involvement of Objects
Si: External Dynamic Involvement of Fields
Te: External Dynamic Abstraction of Objects
Ti: External Static Abstraction of Fields

[Gilly]

The basic concept refers to each function's level of "human engagement" - S and F functions deal with things as living, not necessarily tangible but of being connected or having the potential for connection and direct experiential engagement or interchange, whereas T and N functions deal with these matters from a more removed, isolated, calculating standpoint. It is, IME, the dichotomy most easily translated to VI.

For example, look at the eyes of "fully" Abstract (NT) individuals:
















For contrast, some fully Involved (SF) individuals:











Abstract eyes are vacant, flat; Involved eyes are full and suggestive.

[JohnDo]

Interesting. Do you also have names for the two remaining IM dichotomies?


Fe Se Ti Ni --- Fi Si Te Ne = Aggressive/Peaceful...? This dichotomy could also be called Beta/Delta...

Fi Se Te Ni --- Fe Si Ti Ne = Business/Research? Corresponds to Gamma/Alpha...

[Gilly]

They're not mine, and I have neither invented nor heard of any others. I think the quadra distinctions do just fine for what remains; there isn't really anything that could be called a metabolic similarity between them that isn't immediately obvious upon examining the quadras.

[Pookie]

Typing people based off of physical features is obviously going to be inaccurate.

I mean.... Obviously. If not, then why dont all the other IEI's i know look like me? Subtype? shenanigans. Your parents play a huge role in shaping your outlook of life, and instilling the values you learn to uphold. You cant ignore the Nurture side of development. Both Nurture and Nature shape who you are/what type you choose to be.

[tcaudilllg]

pookie you have no evidence for that assertion.

[Pookie]

So if i have an identical twin, they have to be both my personality type and my subtype?

Because if physical features directly correlate to socionic elements, then that would have to be the case.

And it would also mean that if someone didnt look like me at all, that we couldnt be the same type and subtype.

You don't need evidence in the face of common sense.

[Crispy]

(Ignoring subtype to avoid confusion)

So if i have an identical twin, they have to be both my personality type

VI would ultimately rely on this, and at the moment I assume Yes.

And it would also mean that if someone didnt look like me at all, that we couldnt be the same type

No. But if they didn't give out looks like yours (facial expressions) then there may be an issue.

[Pookie]

I can understand facial expressions, that makes total sense. But Physical features themselves, being purely genetic, just doesnt make sense that it would directly correlate to Personality.

That hypothesis would completely ignore the nurture side of development. Which is, in my eyes, absolutely undisputable that both Nurture and Nature play a role in development.

[tcaudilllg]

In my experience, the EM type in particular is associated with specific skeletal shapes.