The Purpose of Subtypes: to satisfy a need

[Lewis Stern]

Why does Socionics allow for subtypes? Is it aimed at giving flexibility or more relativity to those who expect to fit into an absolute box?

For every one else who remains content with a base-16 type, does that just prove that you understand the philosophy of intrumentalism i.e. a type identified merely as a tool and little or no need to get serious about it in the long term.

Of course the reverse would seem true for the intertype relations which seem more absolute and defined at 16 with only your experiences to act as the relative component that can coninually refine and expand.

All in all, do i actually need the MBTI to understand people and relationships? Probably not though keep it close to my heart as an 'easier' tool that started off my whole fascination with typology in the first place and soon became limited.

After all, it was created by an Idealist who seemed to limit the system's potential i.e. package and round it off. I haven't seen any significant updates to the MBTI.

[cracka]

For every one else who remains content with a base-16 type, does that just prove that you understand the philosophy of intrumentalism i.e. a type identified merely as a tool and little or no need to get serious about it in the long term.

yes.

[FDG]

The purpose of your left hand: to masturbate your penis instead of bothering us.

[Creepy-pokeball]

The purpose of your left hand: to masturbate your penis instead of bothering us.

Wouldnt it be easier to use your right hand and type with your left hand? :/

[Gilly]

The purpose of your left hand: to masturbate your penis instead of bothering us.

Wouldnt it be easier to use your right hand and type with your left hand? :/

Do we want him typing? =\

[Lewis Stern]

It seems we have two types of people:

Those who understand 'type' as merely an instrument of identification in the short-term acting as a awe inspiring 'reference point' for personal development.

"Type 2" equates to the person who found their type so to speak and now has the perfect rationalization to remain 'as-is' getting sensitive to any talk about how type only has benefits for a 'practical psychologist'.

For I know because a 'type 2' person is usually how one starts off with looking at this stuff. It either becomes a problem or you move to the first type I identified.

I think plenty of 'less technical people' would look at this stuff at a quick glance i.e. they just want to a know the benefits of 'type identification' with no tomfoolery.

-over

[Phaedrus]

It seems we have two types of people:

Those who understand 'type' as merely an instrument of identification in the short-term acting as a awe inspiring 'reference point' for personal development.

"Type 2" equates to the person who found their type so to speak and now has the perfect rationalization to remain 'as-is' getting sensitive to any talk about how type only has benefits for a 'practical psychologist'.

I clearly belong to type 2 above. And I believe that everyone who see types only in the instrumental way are totally and fundamentally mistaken.

If the majority of people on this forum and elsewhere understand types with adherence to instrumentalism, that would explain why so many seem to disagree with me and/or don't understand what I am talking about.

Types are real, they are not theoretical constructs. And they have been around long before the theories and categories by which we try to explain them were discovered. Instrumentalism is a false theory of meaning and truth. The only acceptable philosophical foundation for an understanding of the types is realism.

[Jonathan]

I don't see types 1 and 2 as mutually exclusive.

On one hand, naturally, the purpose of typology is to understand oneself and others better. One should never use type to make excuses or limit one's capability ("I'm a P so don't expect me to finish the assignment" or "I'm an F, so I'm not ever going to learn about anything that's not related to 'F' topics"). Even if one identifies with a type, that doesn't mean that one can't learn to use all functions and even different combinations of functions in different situations.

On the other hand, "instrumentalism" can also be a way to avoid true understanding. One must confront all the difficult and confusing issues in order to understand reality. Science would never have developed if people weren't persistent in trying to come up with definite answers to questions.

[Jonathan]

By the way, regarding subtypes, I think they're one way of attempting to resolve situations where a person's functions seem to contradict their J/P behavior. Thus, if someone seems to be INTP but with and more than and , then subtype theory proposes that the person could be INTj intuitive subtype.

[Phaedrus]

@Jonathan

Basically I think we agree here. I might have read more into those two types of people than what is actually there.

Have you looked at the discussion and my latest post at the thread about niffweed17's type? You have written about it before and your participation might be helpful. This mess with the real nature of INTjs and INTps is starting to irritate me very much. There must be a solution that will solve this problem once and for all. But where is it? I am sure that you and I are the same type, whatever that type really is and whatever we should call it.

[Cone]

Don't forget about the type 3 person, who expects type theory to somehow bend to his will, and if it doesn't, then he proclaims that either the theory is wrong or he is special somehow. These people probably are very poor in self-observation.

[Phaedrus]

Don't forget about the type 3 person, who expects type theory to somehow bend to his will, and if it doesn't, then he proclaims that either the theory is wrong or he is special somehow. These people probably are very poor in self-observation.

That might be true, but it is still very unlikely that I am one those type 3 person's. And even if I were, there is still something wrong with the theory. If there is nothing wrong with the theory, then it is your duty to come up with the empirical evidence for it, Cone. (Look at the thread about niffweed17, who really must be the same main type as me and Jonathan too.)