Subtype and process/result dichotomy

[ooo]

IDK, I've created a model to which I still stick to, where the order of the functions is read by the accentuation of the base or contact functions. I stick to it because, as you say, subtypes deff change the way we relate to the other types. Ideally the same subtypes will have the kind of relationships that exist between the basic types, so why should the subtypes maintain the same relationships with the normal types... I doubt it.

Yeah I think the same, the dichotomies and the level of subtypes are to be taken in consideration and that's why I've pointed the same thing out 40 posts above.

If you're a very boosted Ne subtype, then yes, the process-result dichotomy can easily be altered since it is dependent on the base/creative functions.

[myresearch]

IDK, I've created a model to which I still stick to, where the order of the functions is read by the accentuation of the base or contact functions. I stick to it because, as you say, subtypes deff change the way we relate to the other types. Ideally the same subtypes will have the kind of relationships that exist between the basic types, so why should the subtypes maintain the same relationships with the normal types... I doubt it.

Yeah I think the same, the dichotomies and the level of subtypes are to be taken in consideration and that's why I've pointed the same thing out 40 posts above.

If you're a very boosted Ne subtype, then yes, the process-result dichotomy can easily be altered since it is dependent on the base/creative functions.

I think I mispresented my thoughts. Emotivism is associated about the usage of both Fe and Fi. So since LII-Ne has more boosted Fi and Fe, I think that it LII-Ne would be more skilled at emotivism. However, LII-Ne isn't more emotivist than LII-Ti. If that was the case all F creatives would be more emotivist then all T-doms, which is not the case. Emotivism isn't about the strength/boost or the dimmension of Fi and Fe. Hence dichotomies does not change according to subtype. Process and result doesn't even based on specific IEs that's why I left it out of the picture.

I think I understand your confusion, correct me if I am wrong. You think intertype relations change according to subtype, hence process/result must differ again according to subtype. I don't know the algorithms behind inter-type calculators. However, if I had to guess, I think the calculations doesn't change due to process/result type difference. For example, lets consider the relationship with IEE and LII and lets assume that both have very strong contact type, according to some intertype calculators IEE is partially supervising LII in this case (as you said before). IEE with very strong contact type has boosted Se role, LII-Ne has weakened Se. Hence even in this case, Ti of LII-Ne still get information from Se, is supervised by the role function of IEE or LII's role function Fi gets information from N - the lead function of IEE. Hence I think intertype relations differences of that calculators relies on validity of process/result dichotomies.

Besides that, I think it is not wise to consider the results of intertype calculators as accurate, at least I could say that I haven't seen any sophisticated one that considers all aspects of socionics. The position of IE determines some limits, role function will always remain in the boundaries of role function regardless of how much it is boosted. Apart from this process and result types have differently signed IEs, I think that also changes the dynamics of intertype relations.