To conclude, the problem with these subtype systems is not that they try to refine the 16 types - they don't even do it - it is that they're bullshit. There are exactly 16 types because this is how the model can logically work together, this is how it is constructed, precisely like the classification of natural kindgoms, you can't just say "this is a plant partially animal" (eg some carnivorous plans) or that "a bat is partially an animal partially bird", especially since you don't even research, you need to find
different and consistent criteria. You can write such "gem" in an exam, though that doesn't make it biology. The criteria we use in Socionics (that I know of) can acknowledge only 16 types. The rest is sham, don't believe it.
The only useful kind of addition that I know of so far is something like Gulenko's DCHN system (*if* it is true). However, that is still not Socionics, Socionics is like the
biological classification, while DCHN is more like separating life in terrestrial/aquatic, or wild/domesticated. The same goes for social roles, classes, styles, gender and whatnot.
I reiterate, in order to make sure everyone gets it: double types, IE subtypes, EM subtypes are not "subtype systems" and have no base in Socionics,
they are bullshit.
Originally Posted by The Ineffable
To conclude, the problem with these subtype systems is not that they try to refine the 16 types - they don't even do it - it is that they're bullshit. There are exactly 16 types because this is how the model can logically work together, this is how it is constructed, precisely like the classification of natural kindgoms, you can't just say "this is a plant partially animal" (eg some carnivorous plans) or that "a bat is partially an animal partially bird", especially since you don't even research, you need to find different and consistent criteria. You can write such "gem" in an exam, though that doesn't make it biology. The criteria we use in Socionics (that I know of) can acknowledge only 16 types. The rest is sham, don't believe it.
Reply With Quote