Sillyness

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Cone]

you can prefer your dominant very much, or only a little.

I see this statement thrown around so much that the more I see it, the more I hate it. But at this time, I cannot explain why. I have a theory that is still developing in my mind, and it's not ready for me to show it to the world yet; I still have a lot of research to do.

That is, many other ENTp's are unthoughtful, horrible with people, and have a specific look

What's funny is that they probably think the same about you...

All that I can say is that I'm still a non-believer in subtypes.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Cone]

I suppose I can only see two subtypes in people: the intelligent type and the non-intelligent type. :wink:

And that wasn't an insult towards you, Transigent.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[metaiwan]

Sorry Cone, but I have to agree with you again here (I know you don't like that)
I've seen intellegent ENTjs who wouldn't bullshit too much, and other dumb ENTjs who get caught up in their lies and have gotten fired, banks and the law after them for fraud.

I still see Model A as 'complete' for information metabolism and relations and such, and subtype discussions always reference preference which for me falls clearly into the personality of a person, something important, yet seperate from information metabolism. I think subtypes muddle the difference between personality and information metabolism. I prefer the term 'information metabolism types' to 'personality types' because ironically I don't like to type personalities. A personality belongs to an individual and is unique to them, while they can share the same information metabolism type.
Part of the reason for my believing this is that I have changed 'subtypes' (logical and intuitive) several times(or I should say my 'subtype' has changed) according to the descriptions, due to influences of different people(sets of parents actually). In an environment where my creativity was not supplemented, my logic developed more. When my creativity was supplemented, my intuition(my creativity) developed more, and my personality resembled the intuitive subtype more. The word 'subtype' implies subset of information metabolism types, when it's actually a grouping of personality qualities, since IM can't change and personality can. Then again, I've said all this before and believe what you want.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Cone]

What I often find in the variances between the types is that it's the reputation that they've built up from what they've been praised for. I know two other INTps other than myself, so maybe I can show you what I mean.

1. This INTp is a hopeless extravert in my eyes. He can get along with the people around him by making absurd connections between things to form a joke. But what happens here is that he often overdoes it. His entire conversation can take the form of only these absurd jokes, which makes you wonder if he has anything better to say. If you didn't know his type at first, you would probably identify his hidden agenda as "to be loved, albeit indirectly." I think he does this because he cannot be praised for his intelligence, so he capitalizes on the fact that people find his jokes to be funny. Once you have a "funnyman" reputation, you can't change it. Everything that goes against this image will be considered artificial and "not according to personality." And this is the hopelessly static nature of reputation.

2. Here's the physical embodiment of the hidden agenda, "to love." Although this applies in no way to romance, this INTp comes off as a "generally well-meaning person." He will apologize for getting in your way or bumping you, take on the tasks of others, and he's not obtrusive in any way. I actually caught him in the act of exerting his hidden agenda once: he was helping a blind kid move from the balcony of the auditorium to the bottom floor. He would direct him wherever he needed to go, and he took complete interest in the task. What funny is that INTps, when the hidden agenda comes out like this, become more energized and start talking alot, like suggesting things and talking to the people immediately around them. This kid even asked me if I wanted to take him down the rest of the way, probably because he wanted to pass this act of good will to everyone. You could just see the emotion he felt at that point in time. Anyway, he's also a car freak and an outdoorsman.

3. 110% introverted. This is me, labelled as both the "smartest kid in school" and the "shyest kid in school." I've been asked many times, "why don't you talk?" "I'm afraid that you'll hate me," I would think to myself. From that, I'm a well-known person and generally liked. But there are some people who dislike me and who feel depressed because of me. These "depressive" people are the ones who compare their low intelligence to mine and say, "man, I'm dumb, and you're so smart." I absolutely hate when they do that, lowering their expectations of themselves because of me. Then the ones who dislike me are the ones who can't stand my shyness, like this one kid who used to pick on me.

So there you have it, three types: "funnyman", "hidden agenda boy", and "the man of few words."


Your INTp friend,

Cone

[Cone]

Sorry Cone, but I have to agree with you again here (I know you don't like that)

Haha, yes, well, I don't like it only when I don't know what I'm talking about.

And your comments make sense to me, i.e. it all depends on the current environment.

Look at it like this.

Say each type was a number, 1-16.

In my opinion, people are not assigned a discrete whole number, but a real number that has an infinite number of values from 1-16.

Say someone has a type 2.407, they might have a problem deciding 2 or 3, but have an easier time if the choice was between 2.33 and 2.66.

Of course, this makes the pure types decide back and forth between two subtypes, like a type 2.000 would then have to pick 2.33 or 1.66.

But it seems like it has some promise doesn't it? I mean, maybe different things happen for different subtypes and if we look at it closer it might open many things up.

Congratulations, Transigent! You just came up with the "individual" subtype!


Your INTp friend,

Cone

[science as magic]

In my experience "subtypes" interact the same way with people that their "stereotyped" counterparts do.

By the way Cone "hidden agenda boy" has got to be the best name ever.

Maybe I can be Captain Estimative.

[Waddlesworth]

I recall way back in the days of Lev Kamensky's incessant posting, the talk of his sub-type theory. Now I have always been stand-offish towards the sub-type stuff, predominantly because of the lack of solid information on the socionics theory- for example what the hell is the model A, really? i mean, we can hypothesize forever about it but there really needs to be some more elaborate description on what makes the 'model A' the 'model A'.

now a genuinely trained and experienced socionist, Lytov being the only one i know of who posts on this board, I would assume, would be the best candidate for describing the essence of what the model A really is. But from examining the model A from simple observation it seems obvious that the formulas of each type are displayed in two rings, the conscious and unconscious. the model A is set up to allow every type to be constructed within each model A. So you can mix the second function with the third, but you can't connect the first with the third(sounds sorta "duh" i know, but maybe its something to make a stronger note of anyway). its almost as though each type exists within person in some form. Freud talked about a conflict of Ego and Super-Ego, where the Super-Ego riddles the Ego with so much guilt and becomes possessed by an unconscious "death libido"(not his words, exaclty). If the person does not live up to the ideal of the Super-Ego the Super-Ego literally kills the Ego(suicide). As though there is another person within our consciousness- a distant, "mysterious ideal"(in the Socionics.com Super-Ego description), which we must consciously try to please. this is half of the conscious ring, which contains a ring of supervision within it(travelling in opposite directions). the IJ types and the EP types are constructed consciously of the same information elements. So I'm assuming that consciously our sub-type can only exist in our conscious ring. So perhaps there are conscious and unconscious sub-types? well, i'll need a stronger understanding of the essence of the model A to conclude that, but it seems likely that there, as Lev was saying, indeed are expressions of all 16 Jungian archetypes within us. Our minds are in constant inner turmoil and need a stable environment in order to actualize the higher functions. With the presence of a complete quadra aimed in one direction a person can evolve and actualize, attaining new heights of thought by accumulating just the right amount of information at the right time. as though an elementary and very elegant informational structure is being built in the mind, one which lacks resources without corresponding support functions and Understanding. Correction and inhibition structure are used to actualize(make conscious the expression which is unconscious), or "express" this inner pattern. its A structure which probably has form, like molecules begin to take on elementary forms, so does information.

with that being said, I have deduced that the unconscious is the means of expression for the conscious. that is, if i am trying to express my Fi it is voiced as Fe(hence the term "vital", implying bodily action, the means towards my conscious end.) and i have very little control of the output because the function is so distant and so underdeveloped. So when i am trying to express my inner feelings i use my higher conscious Ego to organize something i dont really even comprehend.

But even when i am not attempting to express my inner emotions consciously, the mind is still receiving and processing this information. Just today i had a conversation with a girl and she mentioned the word "clitoris". upon saying this she remarked that i was blushing- something i was wholley unaware of and which frightened me. Also, Every INTj i meet seems prone to expressing in their words and actions a great deal of sexuality without being aware, as well. they often make note of this later on, or try to put it behind them. a "freudian slip" one could say. Such things happen to all types. Information Metabolism helps us to put a finger on these things os long as we know what we're talking about.

So what I'll say is this, in my still budding understanding of this, is that subtypes are real, but, like Lev was saying again(im just now starting to appreciate it) they adapt with changing circumstances. Stimulation like how the Benefactor's activation function is stimulated by the dominant function of the benefactee. In reality, perhaps, the benefactee has an unconscious grasp, or control over the benefactor. when in the presence of such situations the benefactor's conscious reality takes on a new form.

so i agree with Admin. the model A is just the elementary nomenclature for each function relative to that type, it doesnt say anything about how strong each function is, it just says what each function is to that type(ex. Se=role function is a different type of Se from an Se program function. but i'm still trying to really deeply figure this out

[metaiwan]

Transigent:
I like your ideas, they are new and different from the other subtype theories out there. I think.

Pedro: Yeah, the main reason I can't find validity in subtype theories being anything but personality is that with each person of a type my relation feels and follows the same 'scripts' and has the same projections even through surprisingly different personalities and life experiences of a person. Intertype relations feels like a damn jail sometimes.

Waddlesworth:
Yeah what you said about the Super-Ego really makes sense. Which(unrelated mostly) makes me think about certain people who seem to be excellent rationalizers(not a particular type, a personality trait. oops I just typed personalities) who don't seem to have have to deal with their super-ego, their ego skilled enough to rationalize away any wrongdoings in their super-ego's understanding. It sounds like a good thing, like they've strengthened their ego functions and their weak functions don't get in the way, but in reality, we call those people psychopaths.
Annnnnyway, I've wondered what the purpose of correction and especially inhibition relation factors are, since it seems like theres no use to have two people who should be able to get along not to. Most things that exist have a purpose, natural selection takes care of that. Why would natural selection create these relation pathways, what purpose does it serve. Or is it just a law of perception and judgement, like how scientists with a photon detector(like ) and scientists with eletromagnetic radiation measurer thingies ( like ) can argue with each other all day long saying no, light is made of particles that go in a straight line, and no, light is radiation and travels only in sine waves, when both are correct yet seemingly contradictary
(wave-particle duality)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html

sorry I lost what I was saying, guess I was in an Intuitive subtype kind of mood

[science as magic]

I think this has inspired me to figure out why I can get along decently with ESFPs if we talk about nothing substantial.

[diamond]

Can't it just be as simple as any individual of a particular type can be in a different place with regard to their development and consciousness of their strengths and weaknesses?

Let's not forget there are also many psychosocial influences on any given individual's ability towards self development and/or consciousness which may enhance or detract from the process.

Getting into subtypes might be over analyzing the whole personality construct thing.

IMHO.

[Slava]

There are many factors to consider...

-Is the person's hidden agenda satisfied?
If not, they may act differently, if E might appear as I with a different subtype than the regualr I version. (Personally I tend to be very reserved when pissed off about life)

-Intelligence
This one is obvious and will make the type act differently because of an ego self worth reason. An ENTp who is not intelligent will most likely become a narcesist/pathalogical liar and might even seem introverted because of the cynical behavior.

-Social status
Somewhat similar to internal self worth. Those with more power are usually less developed in therms of personality because they never have to accept the existance of their weaknesses. Some rich people who never worked to earn their money act like children, and by children I mean, underdeveloped personality.

-Race (or species)
As we all know McDonnalds doesn't taste the same as Wendy's

-Cognitive strength distribution
Ever see those dudes that can calculate on what day a date in the callendar falls on? Well one of their functions is boosted extremely, but the others are bellow average, which makes them appear stupid in one field and brilliant in another.

Like I once mentioned before, we need a spatial/graphical/multidimensional representation of the Model A. The model might not be too hard to design, but it would be pretty tough to type someone for it.

[drake]

Patience and selfcontrol are the factors, by my humble oppinion, for subtypes. Those who are more patient and better selfcontrolled aren't going to do/say/think what they aren't supposed to at the first impulse.

Take ENTPs for example. Intution throws various illusions and by logic they tend to explain these illusions. If an ENTP is more intuitive then he/she would be saying more without depth, jumping from an idea to idea and creating connections between ideas which are incomplete, very hard to prove, understand and comprehend. If an ENTP is more logical, then he/she would look at the illusions/ideas and spend more time on forming what he/she is going to say. Such individual would say a global sentence which makes sense and he/she would think of a example and prove by this example his/hers sentence.

I'm not going to give examples from reality. Try to remember if you know some ENTP (your teacher at college, politician, etc.) who's more intuitive or who's more logical. Try to note the following: rate of speech, ammount of various ideas, voice tone.

Also note that intuitive ENTPs grasp far more information and THEREFORE they draw radical conclusions, their logic has more 'holes', they're harder to understand. Such inventors, for example, are less selfcontrolled, more accelerating at doing something, they use more 'force' ( ) to get the things done, while logical ENTPs don't.

[discourse]

If I am ENTp I must be the Logical subtype cause I am very phlegmatic. I get those ideas into my head , but I rather build up models in my mind. Guess that I am so introverted that I reming more of INTj than ENTp. This model building how ever is something I would like to talk more if I could have enough skills to do it in English.

[CuriousSoul]

Subtypes are real!.

I am glad to hear I am not completely alone with my belief. :wink:

First of all, on a theoretical basis, the Model A is too "discrete". There is actually a continuous spectrum of "type" (you can prefer your dominant very much, or only a little.)

I think the word prefer - and often especially within MBTI there is a lot of talk about "preferences" - is misleading, prefer implies conscious choice - we do not have it. Type is inborn and you do what you can with it. Within the constraints set by our enviroment and innate capabilities we may develop and use our functions in different ways, but the type stays the same, and I would say that at least to some extent the subtype as well...

However, even the creators of Model A can't ignore reality. Because of this, they have created "subtypes".

Maybe I am still lacking in faith, but I think we should never take Model A for granted, but always ask ourselves: Does it make testable predictions? Do they pan out in real life? If not, what is the use of the model?

Mainly, this post is meant to stimulate discussion amogst the "believers" and "non believers" of subtypes. Why do you agree/disagree? And secondly, I have just come across some subtype descriptions that clear many things up about typing myself.

In my opinion subtypes are needed primarily exactly for practical purposes - to explain why people with the same type can appear so very different. I would say that the differences are usually fairly permanent, probably determined by innate factors, not easily amenable by conscious decisions.

While subtypes are a type of "patch" to an incomplete theory, I do think it would help to consider them in typing.

I think the major problem with subtypes at this stage is the lack of theoretical structure. As long as we have just the subtype descriptions people think of subtypes only in terms of external behavior. You have to try to think of the differences in the information metabolism. My tentative hypothesis is that at least the two major subtypes are "real" and permanent, but they are only indirectly related to external behavior.

Think rather of rational (logical or ethical) subtype as people whose conscious information metabolism is capable of processing all or most of the information entering consciousness ("output" functions stronger than "input" functions) - and irrational (intuitive/sensing) subtype as people whose conscious information metabolism is only capable of processing a small fraction of all thoughts, impressions and memories entering their consciousness ("input" functions stronger than "output" functions). I am still working on this theory but I would very much like to get some feedback and exchange ideas...

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Cone]

"Why only 16 types"? What is so special about 16? Why not 32 or 64, etc?

After twenty years of research and observation, why did Carl Jung only come up with 16 types?

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Slava]

Cause he noticed the functions in people with extreme personalities. Once you see enough of them youll realize the pattern. You'll see the extreme logic, youll see the extreme feelings, the extreme conceptual/paranoid thinking, and the extreme hyperfocus and lack of conceptual understanding. I'm sure he also saw the diff between the introverted and extraverted versions of the functions. He went through enough aptients to see the pattern become clear luckily nautre also made it symetrical so that you sorta know what to anticipate intuitively. And socionics describes the functions as monitoring energy, matter, space and time, what else is there? It already symetrical and covers all aspects of reality that physics can interact with. thats why theres 16 and not 32 or 64... But there may be another factor that affects the functions from a higher level (but not on the same level as the functions). Sorta like there being a subset of the functions... or the functions being a subset of another axis. This is a tough thing though considering that genetics can be so different and its hard to isolate subtype from genetic types.

[science as magic]

There is no way in hell you are INTJ Transigent.

[Creepy-kaido21]

Let's just say that right now I think I could easily be INTp, ENTp, ENFp, or INTj based on whatever "life situation" that I found myself in.

No you are wrong cause your dual is always your dual and it does not change from your dual into your activity or conflicting partner or neither into anithing elsse.

[Cone]

Well, I like kaido21's concrete approach to all of this.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[discourse]

And we now just have to wait untill Pedro-The-Lion shows up and does the Socionical analyzis to Transigents talking. He opened up a lot and there is possible to study from what function does he's problems come from.

[Cone]

Transigent, let me explain something here.

When you say that you can be a different type depending on the life situation, you explain how you would think like a different type. But what you are doing is reducing a cognitive process (TIM) to a static stereotype. By the Socionics definition, you can never truly act like another type, because that would mean changing hard-wired cognitive structures inside your brain. But by your definition, you can change type. However, what your definition does is assigns each function a list of characteristics, as if the functions were simply static objects. Fi is not love, affection, or caring, but rather it is a cognitive process that deals with the connection of emotions and feelings to objects in the environment, and it just so happens that love, affection, and caring are emotions. But ultimately, a true type with strong Fi can deal with these connections much more creatively than a type with weak Fi. That is why, Transigent, you will always be emotionally dependent on others (especially ISFps), and ENFps won't.


Your INTp friend,

Cone

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Cone]

I would love to belive this, but if I am emotionally dependent upon others, why do I consistently stay away? And when I do stay away from people, how come I feel better?

It doesn't seem to fit, you know?

Oh, it fits fine. Being "emotionally dependent" on others means that you trust their feelings rather than your own, and it can also mean that you're happy when they're happy, sad when they're sad, and angry when they're angry. Remember what you said before?

Like an ESTp chick may often wonder if you love her or not. (weak understanding of Fe 6th: She can't fully understand/trust all the emotional signals.)

So ExTps need constant reassurance of others' love for them (of which IxFps are great at doing.)

And then here:

An ISTp chick may wonder why do don't love her all the time. (weak understanding of Fi 6th: She can't relate to the fact that you like to play with your Fi.)

So IxTps tend to orientate their own moods to others' moods.


Your INTp friend,

Cone

[Cone]

Oh, and I was just saying that hypothetically I would be ENFp. But would your reasoning imply that ENFp's have to have other people tell them how to understand things?

Rather, they are amazed by people who know things. Or something like that...

[Creepy-]

Oh, it fits fine. Being "emotionally dependent" on others means that you trust their feelings rather than your own, and it can also mean that you're happy when they're happy, sad when they're sad, and angry when they're angry. Remember what you said before?

I question the fact that I am emotionally dependent, because I really don't see any evidence of it at all.

Like an ESTp chick may often wonder if you love her or not. (weak understanding of Fe 6th: She can't fully understand/trust all the emotional signals.)

So ExTps need constant reassurance of others' love for them (of which IxFps are great at doing.)

I stand by what I wrote, but I now question if I see it in myself. I don't need reassurance. Actually, I find it somewhat embarassing and unnecessary. I have a feeling when someone is going to tell me these things and I become somewhat uneasy.

It is weird, but I think that I really don't like it in a way.

An ISTp chick may wonder why do don't love her all the time. (weak understanding of Fi 6th: She can't relate to the fact that you like to play with your Fi.)

So IxTps tend to orientate their own moods to others' moods.

Hmm. I don't know about this as much, I think it does hold, but I came up with the idea because I was thinking about an ISTp girl that I dated, but she may have even been ESTp, or maybe something else (actually thinking about it now, obvious F type.)

Story is, after a while, I didn't like her anymore, but I didn't want to break her (she seemed very emotionally unstable) so I just went through the motions without breaking up with her.

She must have sensed something though, because the ESTp-like hidden agenda started up.

But, actually, no, I take it back, I actually thought of this idea after discussing the subject with an INTp friend of mine who didn't understand that his wife didn't respond to his uxoriousness. (er, um....that is, constant loving.)

But anyway, I appreciate your help Cone, and I am sorry that I am making some people crazy with my psychosis! (kidding) But I was checking the "rest" of the functions for ENTp other than 1,2,7,8, and it don't seem to fit.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[science as magic]

If the emotional reassurance were unspoken and simply "understood" you'd probably feel a lot better.

About your type I've thought ENxP for awhile for various reasons (don't feel like digging up all the old posts). I think it is clear by what you have said in the past that you are not really impressed with "intellectuals" and stuff so that makes ENFP less likely. Also it seems obvious that you have problems establishing stable relationships with people (yourself included) and that is a sign of the ENTPs problems. You said in another post that you randomly call up people that you've established some kind of relationship with in the past and start talking with them while being unsure of what you want from them. I would speculate that you want the emotional contact but you can't really ACTUALLY INITIATE IT. I think that is a problem with all of the hidden agendas.

For example when I am in a depressed one thing that gets me out of it is relaxing comfortably in a cozy environment with cheerful people. What I actually do is isolate myself from people, don't take showers, eat very little or waaay too much, brush my teeth not at all or obsessively, sleep for 14 hours a day and sink into further lethargy.

You think this would help me but it does not because it is not simply a matter of doing your hidden agenda but using it productively. If you could like an ESFJ does FOR REAL and not because you have to or are supposed to or can't help but do it you would be happier. The problem is you can't really do it, you don't have the ability.

Thanks for writing this because it helped me realize what I need to do. Hopefully I will pull myself out of this and you will too.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[science as magic]

Sorry that was Waddlesworth... I'm not thinking too clearly right now... I need to get out... maybe I will help later now I can't... bye... oh and i guessed ENxP...

[Cone]

For example when I am in a depressed one thing that gets me out of it is relaxing comfortably in a cozy environment with cheerful people. What I actually do is isolate myself from people, don't take showers, eat very little or waaay too much, brush my teeth not at all or obsessively, sleep for 14 hours a day and sink into further lethargy.

This is interesting, Pedro. When I become depressed, I uncontrollably obsess over things, like TV, books, or Socionics. Then I jump between these things, tiring of them quickly. When it comes to the stuff I need to do, it becomes unbearable. Thus, I never get anything done.

I find that when I focus on Se stuff, I become normal again. For instance, I can, for no apparent reason, start doing mindless physical tasks, like shoveling snow for an hour or doing chores without being asked. People find this quite odd, but I find it very refreshing. I do some of my best thinking in this mode.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose I should tell you guys this now, for it's been sitting on my mind for some time now. At the very end of May (or whenever I get out of school,) I am quitting Socionics. I cannot live with an obsession any longer. I must focus on living for awhile, and the only way I can do this is to cut back on my interests. During the summer, I hope to focus most of my energy on my piano and love. Introverted Complexity No. 47 is going to haunt me no longer.

Expect a goodbye post to appear here sometime either next week or the week after. I may come back to Socionics at a later time in my life, after I've lived awhile.

Socionics will not die!


Your INTp friend,

Cone

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Cone]

I knew before I started that things like socionics are ultimately futile. Hell, I studied Mathematics and things like Godel's Incompleteness therom in my younger days! Things like this more or less "short circuit" logic and they are ultimately incomprehensible.

The ultimate message of Wittgenstein.

But in the end, our paths take us wherever we go, and there is no way around that.

Just you wait and see, Transigent. Wait and see where I take my life...

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.