1. ## Four-type subtype theory

copied from here (too lazy to write it up again).

Originally Posted by mclane
While you are onto something, I think I beat you to it. I believe I've completed Tcaudillg's dual type theory (but I haven't still quite pinned down all the specifics). People have three types in total (it's actually four, but the fourth is kind of mystical -- it belongs to the soul). It is very similar to the enneagram tritype theory. The first dual type is going to invariably be supervisee or beneficiary (so as a LII, it would be either IEE or SLI). This one would belong to the head. The second dual type will be benefactor or supervisor (in the case of LII, IEI or SLE). This one would belong to the gut. Whatever club you have in the first passes on to the second (so if you are a LII-IEE, then you must be LII-IEE-IEI). Dual types also have subtypes in the two-subtype theory just as the main type. Also, subtype switches around for the second type (if one is producing the other one has to be accepting and so on). So in the case of LII, it gives these possible combinations:

1. LII-Ti - IEE-Ne - IEI-Fe
2. LII-Ti - IEE-Fi - IEI-Ni
3. LII-Ti - SLI-Si - SLE-Ti
4. LII-Ti - SLI-Te - SLE-Se
5. LII-Ne - IEE-Ne - IEI-Fe
6. LII-Ne - IEE-Fi - IEI-Ni
7. LII-Ne - SLI-Si - SLE-Ti
8. LII-Ne - SLI-Te - SLE-Se

This certainly would give more flavour to the possible types a person can be, and also explains the differences between people of the same type. If you add the "soul type" to these, it gives even more combination to a total of 16 (this number again?) per main type. So, doing the math, people would fall in total in a possible combined type out of 256 possiblities.
Let me know what you think of this theory.

2. Hi here's the devil's advocate watch my satanic words ay

My says no potential. My says too complex, and holy Augusta how are you even trying to make this soul type a thing. Yeah I'm an SLI and an EIE at once! Yeah like in enneagram where types are not mutually exclusive! Said no one ever.

3. Hey, that's interesting, so I'm curious, have you ever tried with socionics functions tests like this one http://aimtoknow.com/test_beta?

If possible, would you mind to share your functions scores with me? I want to compare it to mine... hope you have no inconvenience (you can pm me if you like).

4. I have to be honest, I don't like this idea. It calls to mind too many questions. I mean, for one, what makes someone an LII-IEI? Is it because they are more 'dreamy' than a regular LII? Fundamentally, I don't agree that the qualities this is attempting to assess constitute a legitimate subtype. Taking the two subtype system as an example, an SLI-Te should be more cognitively associated with Te. They should be more focused on production, efficiency, etc. They should actually be dealing with that element more than the other subtype. This same SLI could be dreamy, imaginative, any other intuitive label you want to put on them, but that wouldn't make him an intuitive. It might make this person look like an intuitive, depending on your definition of intuitive, but intuition has very specific parameters that it is measuring. Elements also bestow an energetic quality that can not be replicated in another type. The idea that this would shift type relations in any way that is significant is highly unlikely to me, and if that is the case, why bother with this theory at all? I'm more into the practical applications of this system though, so if it isn't meant to be looked at this way, I suppose its an interesting thought experiment. There is also a struggle to understand how Enneagram would not assess this better, an LII 4 for instance makes more sense than an LII-IEI in terms of measuring the types of qualities you are looking into here.

5. Originally Posted by Slugabed
Hey, that's interesting, so I'm curious, have you ever tried with socionics functions tests like this one http://aimtoknow.com/test_beta?

If possible, would you mind to share your functions scores with me? I want to compare it to mine... hope you have no inconvenience (you can pm me if you like).
Here you have them =)

Meh. It's about time I use my real typing; not gonna fool around anymore with legit SLI-Te's around.

I have to be honest, I don't like this idea. It calls to mind too many questions. I mean, for one, what makes someone an LII-IEI? Is it because they are more 'dreamy' than a regular LII?
You should ask tcaudillg because that's the exact typing he has in his dual-type subtype system. He explained his theory to me himself; he told me he needed to find an explanation for the perceived variations within each type, so he came up with the idea that one has a "dual-type". Although I think he got some part wrong; I think he actually is a LII-IEE (his second type would be IEE, according to my system). LII-IEE-IEI. If you believe in ennegram tritype theory, it makes perfect sense. Why would someone have a single type when they have three different enneagram types (which I believe are actually four)?

At the moment, what I think is that the second type is the sort of information you tend to "feed" from, and it also tells what sort of skills you have. Like for example, a LII-IEE would be a LII that focuses on information and has abilities of the IEE type. This LII would have good psychological abilities. The third and fourth types I'm not entirely sure yet of what they affect exactly, but if the hypothesis that they function similarly to the enneagram tritype is correct, it would mean that the third type has something to do with how your body and your sense of space functions. In the LII-IEE-IEI example; this LII would be a LII with the "mind" of an IEE, and the "body" of an IEI.

Fundamentally, I don't agree with the qualities this is attempting to assess constitute a legitimate subtype. Taking the two subtype system as an example, an SLI-Te should be more cognitively associate with Te. They should be more focused on production, efficiency, etc. They should actually be dealing with that element more than the other subtype.
This is usually the case.

This same SLI could be dreamy, imaginative, any other intuitive label you want to put on them, but that wouldn't make him an intuitive. It might make this person look like an intuitive, depending on your definition of intuitive, but intuition has very specific parameters that it is measuring.
This exactly is where the "second type" would come into play. An SLI-LIE would be very imaginative, but an SLI-ESI would be more focused on sensoric matters. The SLI-LIE wouldn't technically be an intuitive type, since their "First type" is a sensing type, but they could probably pass off as one (and possibly mistype as one).

Elements also bestow an energetic quality that can not be replicated in another type.
What do you mean by this?

The idea that this would shift type relations in any way that is significant is highly unlikely to me, and if that is the case, why bother with this theory at all?
Actually, from what I've been observing, it changes dramatically how intertypes occur. For example, somebody could have full duality in their first types, but then have identity or different subtype duality in the second and third types. Or they could be mirrors in the first type, but then be conflictors in their second and third types. Between the different centers, inter-types could also occur: somebody could be a benefactor to another's second type or third type for example. Essentially, what all this could mean is that intertypes are much more complex that what they seemed to be initially.

I'm more into the practical applications of this system though, so if it isn't meant to be looked at this way, I suppose its an interesting thought experiment.
I am using this theory at the moment, so it is certainly applicable practically. I have typed a lot of people using this system, and this is how I noticed the rules that suggest that the second type is always beneficiary or supervisee, and the third type is benefactor or supervisor. I've found very few people that break these rules. For example; I break them. My second type is EII, when it should be IEI or SLE. This makes me have a "super-PoLR" in the form of +Si/-Se.

There is also a struggle to understand how Enneagram would not assess this better, an LII 4 for instance makes more sense than an LII-IEI in terms of measuring the types of qualities you are looking into here.
That's a whole different dimension; maybe there are correlations between the four-types and enneagram, but they are independent parameters.

6. NooOOo way

anyway before you came out with that I came in here to say I like your system but I need it to be fleshed out more because it does seem to suffer from some problems, namely that slippage could mean eventually everyone is everything; but at the same time I see how that could be the underlying truth and this is in someway hitting on that

id also like to know how this effects quadra values because I feel like that is a major cornerstone of how I understand socionics and type people

7. Originally Posted by mclane
Here you have them =)

Meh. It's about time I use my real typing; not gonna fool around anymore with legit SLI-Te's around.
...are these your scores for real? why were you typing yourself as SLI?

8. Originally Posted by Slugabed
...are these your scores for real? why were you typing yourself as SLI?
I wanted to test if somebody noticed the incongruence. 1 person caught me, so all hope is not lost on this forum.

Also, I felt like it =P

9. Wouldn't this completely take away from the point of Socionics?

10. Originally Posted by mclane
I wanted to test if somebody noticed the incongruence. 1 person caught me, so all hope is not lost on this forum.

Also, I felt like it =P
I'm still not convinced by this pretensions, I'll keep an eye on you...

11. Alright, Ms. Supervisor

12. Which subtype is Seth Lloyd according to you? LII-Ne or LII-Ti?

13. Originally Posted by Petter
Which subtype is Seth Lloyd according to you? LII-Ne or LII-Ti?

He is LII-Ne. But take in mind that there are people that are hard to type in the two subtype system, because they seem to have a very 'soft' subtype which makes them be sort of in between and have traits of both subtypes. An example would be user @niffer from here. These people are just about 5 percent of total.

14. Originally Posted by Bertrand
NooOOo way

anyway before you came out with that I came in here to say I like your system but I need it to be fleshed out more because it does seem to suffer from some problems, namely that slippage could mean eventually everyone is everything; but at the same time I see how that could be the underlying truth and this is in someway hitting on that

id also like to know how this effects quadra values because I feel like that is a major cornerstone of how I understand socionics and type people
At the moment what I think is that quadra values depend on which center is more active. I have seen IEIs that seem to embody more the gamma quadra than beta due to having a more prominent third center (in which they would be a gamma rational).

And yeah, this theory needs to be developed more throughly, but I also feel that there is underlying truth in it.

15. Originally Posted by mclane
At the moment what I think is that quadra values depend on which center is more active. I have seen IEIs that seem to embody more the gamma quadra than beta due to having a more prominent third center (in which they would be a gamma rational).

And yeah, this theory needs to be developed more throughly, but I also feel that there is underlying truth in it.
I agree, the good IEI's feel like they have one foot in gamma

without going into the theory just spitballing off of feels I feel like I'd be LII EIE ESI and SLI. Do you think it has to do with how we "feel" our blocks? Like to me LII represents super ego, but even without thinking explicitly in those terms I just feel like I have a little LII in me; same goes for EIE/SLI, etc.. it doesn't line up as nicely in the other blocks (for me) yet I still think I exhibit traits from those types that is potentially coming from that direction

16. Originally Posted by Bertrand
I agree, the good IEI's feel like they have one foot in gamma

without going into the theory just spitballing off of feels I feel like I'd be LII EIE ESI and SLI. Do you think it has to do with how we "feel" our blocks? Like to me LII represents super ego, but even without thinking explicitly in those terms I just feel like I have a little LII in me; same goes for EIE/SLI, etc.. it doesn't line up as nicely in the other blocks (for me) yet I still think I exhibit traits from those types that is potentially coming from that direction
A preliminary typing for you in this theory could be ESI-SLE-SLI-LII. Your body and soul centers could have prominence. I followed a similar procedure when finding my types; I knew that I had an EII, SEE and SLI in me besides my main type. I bet many people feel the same when they begin researching their type; they find that they relate to more than one type.

17. Originally Posted by mclane
He is LII-Ne. But take in mind that there are people that are hard to type in the two subtype system, because they seem to have a very 'soft' subtype which makes them be sort of in between and have traits of both subtypes. An example would be user @niffer from here. These people are just about 5 percent of total.
wotwotm8

18. niffer is fat capybara type

19. Originally Posted by mclane
He is LII-Ne. But take in mind that there are people that are hard to type in the two subtype system, because they seem to have a very 'soft' subtype which makes them be sort of in between and have traits of both subtypes. An example would be user @niffer from here. These people are just about 5 percent of total.
If you strengthen his Ne then another function must be weakened, right? Which one? Also, are you saying that his Ti is not accentuated (i.e. same as the average LII)? That doesn't make any sense to me since he his job is extremely theoretical/mathematical.

20. Originally Posted by Petter
If you strengthen his Ne then another function must be weakened, right? Which one? Also, are you saying that his Ti is not accentuated (i.e. same as the average LII)? That doesn't make any sense to me since he his job is extremely theoretical/mathematical.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ional-analysis

He still has -Ti base which is all he needs to deal with highly theoretical material.

21. Originally Posted by mclane
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ional-analysis

He still has -Ti base which is all he needs to deal with highly theoretical material.
First of all, that is not Model B (i.e. Bukalov's model).

"*Base is “loose”, and may be not very proficient. Doesn’t possess the full skillset of the function."

Dimensionality or "strength" of a function is not about a skillset. It is about interest / preference. And I still don't think the average LII pays as much attention to (mathematical) definitions and formulas, Ti, as Seth does.

22. Originally Posted by Petter
First of all, that is not Model B (i.e. Bukalov's model).
I know that is not model B; it is Hitta's interpretation of it which is what I find useful. I believe the idea that there is a + and a - element in each IM originated from that. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

"*Base is “loose”, and may be not very proficient. Doesn’t possess the full skillset of the function."

Dimensionality or "strength" of a function is not about a skillset. It is about interest / preference. And I still don't think the average LII pays as much attention to (mathematical) definitions and formulas, Ti, as Seth does.
Dimensionality =/= strength. Dimensionality just tells the breadth of scope an element has. How nuanced, or not, their usage of it is.

I'll try to explain better: LII-Ne, the only logic IM they have available, and that they are proficient in, is -Ti (although they are also somewhat proficiend at -Te ignoring, but only in an accepting role). Thus, that is what one will be able to observe most from them. By contrast, LII-Ti, having strengthened the logic pathway, will have all logic elements (+Ti, -Ti, +Te, -Te) to choose from, and thus it is likely that in the event that they focus on logic (due to being a normalizing DCHN subtype for example) they will not appear as theoretical and mathematical (-Ti).

23. if I'm understanding you correctly, we have several layers which would be the positive (+) or negative usage (-) of a function, as well as its dimensionality, as well as its position within the blocks, and then we have whether it falls into a "producing" or "receiving" role? So for ESI it would be something like:

EGO
1. Program (4d): Fi
2. Creative (3d): Se

SUPEREGO
3. Role (2d): Ti
4. Painful (1d): Ne

SUPER ID
5. Suggestive (1d):Te
6. Mobilizing (2d): Ni

ID
7. Ignoring (3d): Fe
8. Demonstrative (4d): Si

now to apply subtypes we would either positive charge 1, 4, 6, and 7 with 2,3,5 and 8 being negative charged (Fi subtype) or reverse it and make it +1467 and -2356 (Se subtype)

the difference being between Fi:

(1) +Fi: My attitude to people. Necessity to express my attitude, opinion, feelings of love. Pleasant/unpleasant. My evaluation of a thing, an object, a person.
(2) -Se: Beautiful/ugly (judgment). Physical violence, danger.
(3) -Ti: Difficult task; a challenge to the intellect. Necessity to figure out and understand.
(4) +Ne: Integrity of the environment: everything is known from beginning to end; the world as if rolls on straight tracks; there is a schedule; the world is predictable, people are predictable, too.
(5) -Te: Loss of values, money. Infringement of the order. Natural disasters. Traffic jams. “Facts are the objective reality.” Numbers, statistics. Loss of territory. Car breakage; TV, home appliance breakage. Dirt in the hall on the carpet.
(6) +Ni: Integrity of the inner situation: good, pleasant mood, harmony with the external world; fun, happiness; plunging in thought.
(7) +Fe: External relationships. Relationships with people. People’s attitude to me. Negotiations. Meetings with friends. Fellowship with close ones.
(8) -Si: Indisposition, pain, hunger, fatigue, unpleasant sensations of other origin.

and Se:

(1) -Fi: I abhor, reject, detest.
(2) +Se: Form, fashion, appearance. Movement, action, activity. Skills. Will.
(3) +Ti: Understanding, hierarchy, structure.
(4) -Ne: Infringement of the integrity of environment: unexpectedness, breach of schedule; the result of events is unpredictable, or an unexpected event.
(5) +Te: External circumstances, events, facts. Personal space. Technology of arrangement. Statistics. The external world is the objective reality. Matter. Documents. Rules, laws. Material values. External social norms.
(6) -Ni: Infringement of the inner peace: irritation, moral discomfort; internal contradictions.
(7) -Fe: Conflicts. Intrigues. Slander. Quarrel with near and dear ones. Conflicts at work.
(8) +Si: Various bodily sensations: that of being strong and healthy, taste, color, smells. The practice of cleansing and healing techniques and diets; attention to health. Following fashions in the area of health.

So in this case it seems like positive or negative charge comes down to avoiding the bad versus actively promoting/seeking/creating the good manifestations of each element. I also read somewhere that a negative orientation entails a certain proficiency with the positive mode but not vice versa. In other words, (-) means you can do (+) as well, but (+) doesn't mean you use (-). Is that true? If that's the case it seems to create a puzzling result where the Se type is actually more versatile in the Fi "subtype" functions, it just uses them to avoid negative manifestations of them; likewise the Fi type, somewhat counter intuitively would have a broader mastery of "Se subtype functions" although it would use them mainly to promote (+) Fi subtype functions. Its a weird relationship where Fi is Fi mainly because its seeking +Fi but in doing so has greater range over Se subtype functions. I guess if the idea is Fi is not about proficiency but preference than all of that makes sense, but it seems weird because I imagine most people when they assess themselves think "hmm am I more Se based or Fi based?" and would look at their skill-set and abilities and think because they're better at "Se stuff" that makes them Se, but it could very well make them Fi.

If you go by "skills" then the Fi subtype can do both negative and positive (although primarily oriented at avoiding the negative): Se Si Te Ti, and is limited to mainly expressing the positive of: Fi Fe Ne Ni. The overall effect is someone who, paradoxically, could be considered a better "sensor/thinker" than the Se subtype, although mainly by way of (-) functions, so they would be better but they would not personally value those things; whereas the Se subtype would be "better" at Fi Fe Ne Ni although primarily oriented at sensing/thinking. In other words, the sensor type might have a more sophisticated handle on feeling/intuition, but simply employ it towards more sensory/thinking ends, whereas the feeling subtype would have a better handle on sensing/thinking, but it would show up not as manifesting those things but avoiding their negative potential.

When I go through this I think all those things appeal to me in some way or another, like both subtypes have things about them I identify with so it becomes difficult to separate the two, because they're separate but once you begin to think in terms of (-) and (+) they tend to kind of converge again, which makes sense because they are fundamentally still only subtypes and part of a greater unity. I feel like I have no subtype or that depending on mood I lean one way or the other. I see the value in each approach and think they're more or less context dependent. Sometimes you want to look good/feel good (Se type) and sometime you want to theorize (Fi type) etc

**I guess if you really think about the way I phrased that it militates towards Fi subtype because looking good/feeling good could be a (+) facet of (-) Se, and theorizing is pure +Ti Ni Ne and -Te. Which I find very much convincing that I'm Fi subtype, although because of gender roles and socialization and the range of skills entailed by (-Se) made me at first think I was Se subtype. It also makes me think the common stereotype of the ESI is the Se subtype mainly on the basis of "the external world is the objective reality" vs Fi "facts are the objective reality", which is where ESI gets its kind of "dull enforcer" reputation versus more a kind of Fi/Ni/Te moralizer

Does that sound right?

also how does producing/receiving relate to (+) or (-) usage/manifestations of functions?

24. Originally Posted by mclane
I know that is not model B; it is Hitta's interpretation of it which is what I find useful. I believe the idea that there is a + and a - element in each IM originated from that. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Viktor Gulenko introduced +/- functions in Model A. Aleksandr Bukalov uses +/- (and external/internal) functions in Model B in order to explain Process and Result types.

Dimensionality =/= strength. Dimensionality just tells the breadth of scope an element has. How nuanced, or not, their usage of it is.
Okay, so what is "strength" according to you?

Yes, dimensionality tells the breadth of scope an element has, or how nuanced it is. But that is not due to a skillset (of the element/function). LII's Ti seems very sophisticated since it considers many aspects of, for example, mathematical definitions. It spends more time on a subject, so it digs deeper.

I'll try to explain better: LII-Ne, the only logic IM they have available, and that they are proficient in, is -Ti (although they are also somewhat proficiend at -Te ignoring, but only in an accepting role). Thus, that is what one will be able to observe most from them. By contrast, LII-Ti, having strengthened the logic pathway, will have all logic elements (+Ti, -Ti, +Te, -Te) to choose from, and thus it is likely that in the event that they focus on logic (due to being a normalizing DCHN subtype for example) they will not appear as theoretical and mathematical (-Ti).
Hitta's interpretation is inaccurate (in my view) so "will have all logic elements (+Ti, -Ti, +Te, -Te) to choose from" does not make any sense. What causes +/- in this interpretation?

25. Originally Posted by Bertrand
if I'm understanding you correctly, we have several layers which would be the positive (+) or negative usage (-) of a function, as well as its dimensionality, as well as its position within the blocks, and then we have whether it falls into a "producing" or "receiving" role? So for ESI it would be something like:

EGO
1. Program (4d): Fi
2. Creative (3d): Se

SUPEREGO
3. Role (2d): Ti
4. Painful (1d): Ne

SUPER ID
5. Suggestive (1d):Te
6. Mobilizing (2d): Ni

ID
7. Ignoring (3d): Fe
8. Demonstrative (4d): Si

now to apply subtypes we would either positive charge 1, 4, 6, and 7 with 2,3,5 and 8 being negative charged (Fi subtype) or reverse it and make it +1467 and -2356 (Se subtype)

the difference being between Fi:

(1) +Fi: My attitude to people. Necessity to express my attitude, opinion, feelings of love. Pleasant/unpleasant. My evaluation of a thing, an object, a person.
(2) -Se: Beautiful/ugly (judgment). Physical violence, danger.
(3) -Ti: Difficult task; a challenge to the intellect. Necessity to figure out and understand.
(4) +Ne: Integrity of the environment: everything is known from beginning to end; the world as if rolls on straight tracks; there is a schedule; the world is predictable, people are predictable, too.
(5) -Te: Loss of values, money. Infringement of the order. Natural disasters. Traffic jams. “Facts are the objective reality.” Numbers, statistics. Loss of territory. Car breakage; TV, home appliance breakage. Dirt in the hall on the carpet.
(6) +Ni: Integrity of the inner situation: good, pleasant mood, harmony with the external world; fun, happiness; plunging in thought.
(7) +Fe: External relationships. Relationships with people. People’s attitude to me. Negotiations. Meetings with friends. Fellowship with close ones.
(8) -Si: Indisposition, pain, hunger, fatigue, unpleasant sensations of other origin.

and Se:

(1) -Fi: I abhor, reject, detest.
(2) +Se: Form, fashion, appearance. Movement, action, activity. Skills. Will.
(3) +Ti: Understanding, hierarchy, structure.
(4) -Ne: Infringement of the integrity of environment: unexpectedness, breach of schedule; the result of events is unpredictable, or an unexpected event.
(5) +Te: External circumstances, events, facts. Personal space. Technology of arrangement. Statistics. The external world is the objective reality. Matter. Documents. Rules, laws. Material values. External social norms.
(6) -Ni: Infringement of the inner peace: irritation, moral discomfort; internal contradictions.
(7) -Fe: Conflicts. Intrigues. Slander. Quarrel with near and dear ones. Conflicts at work.
(8) +Si: Various bodily sensations: that of being strong and healthy, taste, color, smells. The practice of cleansing and healing techniques and diets; attention to health. Following fashions in the area of health.

So in this case it seems like positive or negative charge comes down to avoiding the bad versus actively promoting/seeking/creating the good manifestations of each element. I also read somewhere that a negative orientation entails a certain proficiency with the positive mode but not vice versa. In other words, (-) means you can do (+) as well, but (+) doesn't mean you use (-). Is that true? If that's the case it seems to create a puzzling result where the Se type is actually more versatile in the Fi "subtype" functions, it just uses them to avoid negative manifestations of them; likewise the Fi type, somewhat counter intuitively would have a broader mastery of "Se subtype functions" although it would use them mainly to promote (+) Fi subtype functions. Its a weird relationship where Fi is Fi mainly because its seeking +Fi but in doing so has greater range over Se subtype functions. I guess if the idea is Fi is not about proficiency but preference than all of that makes sense, but it seems weird because I imagine most people when they assess themselves think "hmm am I more Se based or Fi based?" and would look at their skill-set and abilities and think because they're better at "Se stuff" that makes them Se, but it could very well make them Fi.

If you go by "skills" then the Fi subtype can do both negative and positive (although primarily oriented at avoiding the negative): Se Si Te Ti, and is limited to mainly expressing the positive of: Fi Fe Ne Ni. The overall effect is someone who, paradoxically, could be considered a better "sensor/thinker" than the Se subtype, although mainly by way of (-) functions, so they would be better but they would not personally value those things; whereas the Se subtype would be "better" at Fi Fe Ne Ni although primarily oriented at sensing/thinking. In other words, the sensor type might have a more sophisticated handle on feeling/intuition, but simply employ it towards more sensory/thinking ends, whereas the feeling subtype would have a better handle on sensing/thinking, but it would show up not as manifesting those things but avoiding their negative potential.

When I go through this I think all those things appeal to me in some way or another, like both subtypes have things about them I identify with so it becomes difficult to separate the two, because they're separate but once you begin to think in terms of (-) and (+) they tend to kind of converge again, which makes sense because they are fundamentally still only subtypes and part of a greater unity. I feel like I have no subtype or that depending on mood I lean one way or the other. I see the value in each approach and think they're more or less context dependent. Sometimes you want to look good/feel good (Se type) and sometime you want to theorize (Fi type) etc

**I guess if you really think about the way I phrased that it militates towards Fi subtype because looking good/feeling good could be a (+) facet of (-) Se, and theorizing is pure +Ti Ni Ne and -Te. Which I find very much convincing that I'm Fi subtype, although because of gender roles and socialization and the range of skills entailed by (-Se) made me at first think I was Se subtype. It also makes me think the common stereotype of the ESI is the Se subtype mainly on the basis of "the external world is the objective reality" vs Fi "facts are the objective reality", which is where ESI gets its kind of "dull enforcer" reputation versus more a kind of Fi/Ni/Te moralizer

Does that sound right?
I'm not sure. Those definitions... are you using gulenko's +/-spins or...?

also how does producing/receiving relate to (+) or (-) usage/manifestations of functions?
I haven't quite pinned down this yet, but I know that depending on subtype certain functions behave either in an accepting or producing manner. For example, in accepting subtype, base is used in an accepting manner and ignoring is not used iether in acccepting or producing, while in producing subtype, base seems to take a producing role, and ignoring accepting.

26. Originally Posted by Petter
Viktor Gulenko introduced +/- functions in Model A. Aleksandr Bukalov uses +/- (and external/internal) functions in Model B in order to explain Process and Result types.
But does Bukalov think that for example, the base of LII is -Ti/+Te (a plus and minus element in the same function)?
Okay, so what is "strength" according to you?
Certainly not the same as dimensionality. It just so happens that the 4D functions are also the strongest, but they are different parameters. I would define strength as the ability to use a certain function consistently. For example, the HA can have great strength, only that it cannot be used consistently like the ego functions or the demonstrative, so it is not defined as a "strong function".

Yes, dimensionality tells the breadth of scope an element has, or how nuanced it is. But that is not due to a skillset (of the element/function). LII's Ti seems very sophisticated since it considers many aspects of, for example, mathematical definitions. It spends more time on a subject, so it digs deeper.
Now I would make another distinction. Actual skill with a function would be IMO another different parameter (apart from dimensionality and strength). Again, it just so happens that a person is most skilled at their strong, 4D functions, but this will not always be the case. For example, I've seen people use their role very proficiently.

Hitta's interpretation is inaccurate (in my view)
Why?
so "will have all logic elements (+Ti, -Ti, +Te, -Te) to choose from" does not make any sense. What causes +/- in this interpretation?
It's just how I think I've figured out how the accepting subtype works. All the logic functions in LII-Ti get an energy kick, and they can use all of them (all the + and - versions).

27. From what I have read, this system is too subjective. What exactly would constitute an LII - IEE - IEI? The other subtype systems explain variations of the same type by the relative strength of the information elements. For example a normalizing LII would have strengthened Ti and Fi, and an LII-Ne has strengthened Ne, Fe, Fi, and Ni. Are you trying to create something similar?

Originally Posted by mclane
At the moment, what I think is that the second type is the sort of information you tend to "feed" from, and it also tells what sort of skills you have. Like for example, a LII-IEE would be a LII that focuses on information and has abilities of the IEE type. This LII would have good psychological abilities. The third and fourth types I'm not entirely sure yet of what they affect exactly, but if the hypothesis that they function similarly to the enneagram tritype is correct, it would mean that the third type has something to do with how your body and your sense of space functions. In the LII-IEE-IEI example; this LII would be a LII with the "mind" of an IEE, and the "body" of an IEI.
Are you implying that this LII would have the thinking information elements of an IEE and the sensing elements of an IEI? Would it even be an LII in this case?

The first dual type is going to invariably be supervisee or beneficiary. The second dual type will be benefactor or supervisor
For what reasons?

I've found very few people that break these rules. For example; I break them. My second type is EII, when it should be IEI or SLE.
What is the point of all this if you can just break the rules?

28. Originally Posted by mclane
But does Bukalov think that for example, the base of LII is -Ti/+Te (a plus and minus element in the same function)?
No

Certainly not the same as dimensionality. It just so happens that the 4D functions are also the strongest, but they are different parameters. I would define strength as the ability to use a certain function consistently. For example, the HA can have great strength, only that it cannot be used consistently like the ego functions or the demonstrative, so it is not defined as a "strong function".
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-of-the-Psyche

"Related to the idea of function strength and weakness is the idea of dimensionality of functions. Dimensionality is a well-known way of describing the characteristics of the different positions of Model A in a systematic way. The concept was proposed by Kiev socionists (Bukalov, Yermak) and is now widely applied by socionists across the former Soviet Union."

This is my view as well. Dimensionality is just a more sophisticated way of describing the differences between functions 1, 2, 3 and 4 (or 5, 6, 7 and 8).

What do you mean by "HA can have great strength"?

Now I would make another distinction. Actual skill with a function would be IMO another different parameter (apart from dimensionality and strength). Again, it just so happens that a person is most skilled at their strong, 4D functions, but this will not always be the case. For example, I've seen people use their role very proficiently.
Yes. LIIs are usually more skilled at (for example) mathematics than other types due to more experience. But that is not directly related to a high-dimensional function (Ti). It is not as if LII mathematicians get stronger and stronger Ti (or "higher dimensionality").

Why?
+/- is caused by the blocking of functions/aspects according to most socionists (and me), so Te+/Ni- is not possible. Unless he used completely different definitions of +/-. But then it is Model H instead of an interpretation of Model B.

29. I feel like strength v dimensionality has to do with cultivation of a function over time. In other words an elder ILI may have deeper more sophisticated Ni than a teenage ILI. This presupposes a criterion with which to judge them against which is difficult, because it seems like dimensionality is the only non partial criterion, but there nevertheless seems to be a common sense principle at work here, where we can say one is more advanced or "stronger" than the other. In a certain sense they're exactly as strong as one another, but, from another point of view, that would mistakenly reduce all time out of the equation, it would in essence try to "freeze the river" by reducing it to a purely static Ti picture of the function, where there seems to be more. To take it a step further it seems that lower dimension functions could likewise be "stronger" in this sense than higher dimension functions. In essence dimensionality might frame the dimensions of the glass, but time and effort and experience are what fills it. You may have a smaller glass but it could be nevertheless more full (in absolute, not merely relative terms) than someone with a larger glass (although there may be some nooks and crannies you never fill). Again, this presupposes some ill defined notion of commensurability, but just because we lack a good model for such a thing doesn't mean the phenomena in question doesn't exist in some form

30. Originally Posted by Syynth
From what I have read, this system is too subjective.
Yep, at the moment it has this flaw. That is why I am putting it out there to the public to see if some measure of objetivity can be achieved. This is just something that I believe I have picked up with my intuition, and the specifics are not clear to me yet, so please bear with me.
lizing LII would have strWhat exactly would constitute an LII - IEE - IEI? The other subtype systems explain variations of the same type by the relative strength of the information elements. For example a normaengthened Ti and Fi, and an LII-Ne has strengthened Ne, Fe, Fi, and Ni. Are you trying to create something similar?
LII-Main type; IEE-Secong Type, IEI-Third type. Heart, Head, and Gut, or Energy, Matter and Space. What it means? That the person is a cross-over of those types. Also, I think means that the IM elements are expressed in a way that binds them depending on their functional position in each types. For example, a LII-IEE-IEI's first function would be -Ti*-Ne*-Ni, and their PoRL would be +Se*+Ti*+Te.

Are you implying that this LII would have the thinking information elements of an IEE and the sensing elements of an IEI? Would it even be an LII in this case?
I think that when this LII thinks, they're still a LII but they do it with the mindset of an IEE. Then this LII's physical properties (like the way of moving and actual physical stregth, etc) resembles that of an IEI.

For what reasons?
From what I've observed.

What is the point of all this if you can just break the rules?
So far, I have seen very few people that break them.

31. Originally Posted by Petter
No
Then it is Hitta's own contribution.

What do you mean by "HA can have great strength"?
Great situational strength. In fact, especially in producing subtypes, HA can eclipse base when it is used. But it cannot be used all the time; it sort of runs out of gas.

Yes. LIIs are usually more skilled at (for example) mathematics than other types due to more experience. But that is not directly related to a high-dimensional function (Ti). It is not as if LII mathematicians get stronger and stronger Ti (or "higher dimensionality").
Don't agree. Another thing that higher dimensionality means is that a person can acquire more skill in a particular function. So for example, in the 4D functions, one can become a real "magician" (this term I've read in some russian sources). In contrast, for the 2D functions, they can also be "mastered", but they will always be 2D functions. Think about it this way: somebody majors in physics while another person minors just in electromagnetism. The person that majors in physics will also know electromagnetism, and be possibly a master at it. However, will they actually be better than the one that just knows electromagnetism? They can be better or not, but just having the major does not instantly mean that they are better than the person with the minor. IOW: A 2D function skill can be more proficient than a 4D function skill, only that with less breadth.

+/- is caused by the blocking of functions/aspects according to most socionists (and me), so Te+/Ni- is not possible. Unless he used completely different definitions of +/-. But then it is Model H instead of an interpretation of Model B.
+Te/-Ni? Who has said this would be valid? No type would have this configuration. -Te/+Ni is what gamma NT's have. But what Hitta says, is that is is actually -Te/+Ti and +Ni/-Ne. In other words; IM elements are composed of a + and - part. This is what I did not know where he got it from. If it is his own contribution, props to him, because this is what I've tested and concluded to be correct. He noticed the similarity between certain clubs of different quadras, and the only explanation for this is what Hitta proposed.

32. Originally Posted by Bertrand
To take it a step further it seems that lower dimension functions could likewise be "stronger" in this sense than higher dimension functions. In essence dimensionality might frame the dimensions of the glass, but time and effort and experience are what fills it. You may have a smaller glass but it could be nevertheless more full (in absolute, not merely relative terms) than someone with a larger glass (although there may be some nooks and crannies you never fill).
Exactly.

33. Originally Posted by mclane
Then it is Hitta's own contribution.
Yes

Great situational strength. In fact, especially in producing subtypes, HA can eclipse base when it is used. But it cannot be used all the time; it sort of runs out of gas.
Can you give me a concrete example of this?

Don't agree. Another thing that higher dimensionality means is that a person can acquire more skill in a particular function. So for example, in the 4D functions, one can become a real "magician" (this term I've read in some russian sources). In contrast, for the 2D functions, they can also be "mastered", but they will always be 2D functions. Think about it this way: somebody majors in physics while another person minors just in electromagnetism. The person that majors in physics will also know electromagnetism, and be possibly a master at it. However, will they actually be better than the one that just knows electromagnetism? They can be better or not, but just having the major does not instantly mean that they are better than the person with the minor. IOW: A 2D function skill can be more proficient than a 4D function skill, only that with less breadth.
Dimensionality is not about being good at certain subjects, and we cannot make them stronger (i.e. "higher dimensionality"). Dimensionality is an innate quality of the functions (according to SSS), which was your previous argument... and I have partially changed my mind.

+Te/-Ni? Who has said this would be valid? No type would have this configuration. -Te/+Ni is what gamma NT's have. But what Hitta says, is that is is actually -Te/+Ti and +Ni/-Ne. In other words; IM elements are composed of a + and - part. This is what I did not know where he got it from. If it is his own contribution, props to him, because this is what I've tested and concluded to be correct. He noticed the similarity between certain clubs of different quadras, and the only explanation for this is what Hitta proposed.
I meant -Ti, +Te / +Ne, -Ni. I don't think his version of + and - is accurate. For example:

"+Ti/-Te: Betas and Gammas use this functional continuum. It is a judging function so it doesn't have anything to do with the area of expertise. The functions involves common sense intelligence. This function attempts to find the "proper" way to do something; using the social decorum and repetitious logic as a backbone for solving problems. They usually believe there is a right way to proceed; and this right way is usually based upon a pattern of accepting certain standards."

This does not correspond to ILI's -Te, but it corresponds to LSE's +Te.

34. Originally Posted by Petter
Can you give me a concrete example of this?
I've observed that HA can be as strong as base or demonstrative for short period of time (it is "activated" that's why HA is also called "activation"). The problem with HA is that when a person engages in it, they forget about their porl. An example would be how ENxj's can become very aggresive for a short period of time, but later get lesions and cramps as a result. Or how an IEI might contruct a very logically sound argument, but that has shoddy usage of the actual facts of a situation.

Dimensionality is not about being good at certain subjects, and we cannot make them stronger (i.e. "higher dimensionality"). Dimensionality is an innate quality of the functions (according to SSS), which was your previous argument... and I have partially changed my mind.
It does not tell the strength, but it tells the capacity one has for a certain function.

I meant -Ti, +Te / +Ne, -Ni. I don't think his version of + and - is accurate. For example:

"+Ti/-Te: Betas and Gammas use this functional continuum. It is a judging function so it doesn't have anything to do with the area of expertise. The functions involves common sense intelligence. This function attempts to find the "proper" way to do something; using the social decorum and repetitious logic as a backbone for solving problems. They usually believe there is a right way to proceed; and this right way is usually based upon a pattern of accepting certain standards."

This does not correspond to ILI's -Te, but it corresponds to LSE's +Te.
To be honest, hitta's explanations in that thread are a bit dubious. I do not go by them. The "true model A" image though, is spot on.

35. Originally Posted by mclane
I've observed that HA can be as strong as base or demonstrative for short period of time (it is "activated" that's why HA is also called "activation"). The problem with HA is that when a person engages in it, they forget about their porl. An example would be how ENxj's can become very aggresive for a short period of time, but later get lesions and cramps as a result. Or how an IEI might contruct a very logically sound argument, but that has shoddy usage of the actual facts of a situation.
Weak functions (1D, 2D) often pay too little attention to an object or a situation, so our behaviors come across as inappropriate. It is either too much or too little of something. This is probably why you have observed a "strong", i.e. exaggerated, HA.

My view is that IEI's Ti+ is low-dimensional but Ti- is high-dimensional.

To be honest, hitta's explanations in that thread are a bit dubious. I do not go by them. The "true model A" image though, is spot on.
What causes +/- in the "true model A", though? And what kind of +/- do you suggest?

36. In case anybody has been following this theory (which I doubt) , I'm going to reveal what are the options for the "soul type":

For example let's take an ESE-Fe, the possiblities would be as follows:

ESE-Fe [heart] + (supervisee/beneficiary) [head] + (supervisor/benefactor) [gut] + (contrary/superego) [soul]

Rules:

- The second and the third type follow this pattern; if second type is supervisee, the third type will always be benefactor. If beneficiary, third will be supervisor. They will belong to the same club.
- The second and third type will have the same subtype vertness. i.e. ESE-Fe - SLI-Te [extraverted] - SLE-Se [extraverted].
- The soul type is independent from the other two, but follows this pattern: if main type's subtype is extraverted (i.e ESE-Fe) the soul type must be either extraverted subtype contrary (ESI-Se) or Introverted subtype superego (LIE-Ni). If main's type's subtype is introverted (i.e. ESE-Si), the soul type must be either introverted contrary (ESI-Fi) or extroverted superego (LIE-Te).

This means that there are 8 combined types of ESE-Fe, and everyone that is ESE-Fe falls into one of these types.

#1~ ESE-Fe - SLI-Si - SLE-Ti - ESI-Se
#2~ ESE-Fe - SLI-Si - SLE-Ti - LIE-Ni
#3~ ESE-Fe - SLI-Te - SLE-Se - ESI-Se
#4~ ESE-Fe - SLI-Te - SLE-Se - LIE-Ni
#5~ ESE-Fe - IEE-Ne - IEI-Fe - ESI-Se
#6~ ESE-Fe - IEE-Ne - IEI-Fe - LIE-Ni
#7~ ESE-Fe - IEE-Fi - IEI-Ni - ESI-Se
#8~ ESE-Fe - IEE-Fi - IEI-Ni - LIE-Ni

37. I'm quite sure that information processing is as varied as DNA. Many find it difficult enough to try to fit under one of 16 general categories let alone more. I think it would be quite an achievement to get accurate specifications for the 16 general types because, by definition, subcategories should all fit under the same general category; if not, the specification of the general category has to be wrong - one shouldn't be able get a building permit to add rooms to a house that's already on a shaky foundation....

a.k.a. I/O

38. Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
I'm quite sure that information processing is as varied as DNA. Many find it difficult enough to try to fit under one of 16 general categories let alone more. I think it would be quite an achievement to get accurate specifications for the 16 general types because, by definition, subcategories should all fit under the same general category; if not, the specification of the general category has to be wrong - one shouldn't be able get a building permit to add rooms to a house that's already on a shaky foundation....

a.k.a. I/O
So far we have two-subtype and DCNH. There are so many factors that can add flavor to a type (not only socionics, but also enneagram-related) that the more that a person's type can be defined, the better. And still, like you say it is so varied since every person is different that you couldn't ever narrow it down 100% (but as an experiment, try to find two people that belong to the a same combined group from those I mentioned above, and you will find that they will be veeery similar).

This is a different (but complementary) theory all together. This theory attemps to merge the enneagram trifix (which is actually a quatrifix if the premise in this theory is true) theory with socionics.

39. As an addendum to this theory; I wanted to mention that sometimes a secondary or tertiary type has prominence and that can lead to mistypes. For example, An SLE-Ti - ESE-Si - ESI-Fi might have a very active third type, and could lead people into thinking this person is ESI-Fi (because this person would have a very pronounced ESI-Fi vibe to their personality).

Also, I have circumstantial evidence from another forum (some user noticed it same as I did) that sometimes you use the cognition of a secondary type as if it was your main type. So an IEI could be seen an ESE or a LII at times, or a LIE or ESI at times, or SLI or IEE at times.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•