Discussion of LSI-ISTj Subtypes

[Jarno]

This is not true at all, nor is it true that there are just two types of LSI. Through my experiences, I have learned that LSI - as is true for all types - come in a more varied range of behaviors than is commonly assumed. Perhaps Socionicists are so set in establishing a particular type for a type that they lose sight of the amount of variance can be found within a type. Similar problematic patterns arise in zoological typology of animals.

yes, I've noticed this with types too. There are definitely more than 2 subtypes, though the 2 subtype distinction has the advantage of a distinctive characteristic. accepting and producing results in two different behaviours. So even if there are let's say for example 8 subtypes. Then 4 of them are accepting behaviour and 4 of them producing. So far I haven't been able to see different behaviour in the other subtypes (only different VI). Therefor the 2 subtype distinction is most important.

[Logos]

yes, I've noticed this with types too. There are definitely more than 2 subtypes, though the 2 subtype distinction has the advantage of a distinctive characteristic. accepting and producing results in two different behaviours. So even if there are let's say for example 8 subtypes. Then 4 of them are accepting behaviour and 4 of them producing. So far I haven't been able to see different behaviour in the other subtypes (only different VI). Therefor the 2 subtype distinction is most important.

To generalize too liberally for a second, there appear to be two general typing methods at stake. The first method is essentialism which draws a vertical line and claims that lines marks the "essence" of a type. In order for a person to qualify as a type, they must stand on or exceptionally near this line. This line may be a particular type description, a celebrity benchmark, or a person's preconceived notion of a type through a personal benchmark. The second method draws two distantly-gaped parallel lines and claims that a person must fall within those ranges to be of a type.

While both approaches have their pitfalls, I personally prefer the second approach which allows for greater deviation from a normative ideal and is, typically, less insistent on the defining "essence" of a type. The second approach necessarily involves defining the parameters of the type range by constantly moving the lines closer or farther apart, but I have noticed that people of this second method are less reluctant to change their type conceptions with additional facts than those who think in terms of the first method.

[discojoe]

To generalize too liberally for a second, there appear to be two general typing methods at stake. The first method is essentialism which draws a vertical line and claims that lines marks the "essence" of a type. In order for a person to qualify as a type, they must stand on or exceptionally near this line. This line may be a particular type description, a celebrity benchmark, or a person's preconceived notion of a type through a personal benchmark. The second method draws two distantly-gaped parallel lines and claims that a person must fall within those ranges to be of a type.

While both approaches have their pitfalls, I personally prefer the second approach which allows for greater deviation from a normative ideal and is, typically, less insistent on the defining "essence" of a type. The second approach necessarily involves defining the parameters of the type range by constantly moving the lines closer or farther apart, but I have noticed that people of this second method are less reluctant to change their type conceptions with additional facts than those who think in terms of the first method.

What sources does the second method use to define its type range? What is the data based on?

[Logos]

What sources does the second method use to define its type range? What is the data based on?

Whether or not a subject meets the criteria of the functional arrangement of a given type. It's the difference between saying, "This person appears to have certain qualities that matches this particular arrangement of functions," versus "This person does not fit my preconception of this type based mostly around my hated Aunt Sally and this one type description I read."

The first method has a preconception that forms their central point of origin around which they build their understanding of a type. This is an in-to-outward method. The second method attempts to gather as many points of data as they can through either contracting or expanding their parameters of understanding the functions of a type. This is an out-to-inward method.

[07490]

yes, I've noticed this with types too. There are definitely more than 2 subtypes, though the 2 subtype distinction has the advantage of a distinctive characteristic. accepting and producing results in two different behaviours. So even if there are let's say for example 8 subtypes. Then 4 of them are accepting behaviour and 4 of them producing. So far I haven't been able to see different behaviour in the other subtypes (only different VI). Therefor the 2 subtype distinction is most important.

Yes. and you add differences in E-types and stacking, DCNH subtype(if it is not the same as enneagram type). You get a lot of variation.