Four-type subtype theory

[mclane]

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

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.

[Chae]

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.

[Hope]

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).

[Slade]

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.

[mclane]

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.

[Hope]

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?

[mclane]

...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

[Hope]

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...

[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

[mclane]

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.

[Bertrand]

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

[mclane]

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.

[Jake]

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

[mclane]

Alright, Ms. Supervisor

[Petter]

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0R12fcTUvs

[mclane]

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0R12fcTUvs

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.

[niffer]

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

[Petter]

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.

[mclane]

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.

[Petter]

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."

You are somewhat contradicting yourself.

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.

[Bertrand]

niffer is fat capybara type

[Syynth]

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?

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?

[mclane]

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.

[Bertrand]

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

[mclane]

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.

[mclane]

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

[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

[mclane]

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.

[mclane]

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.