Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Do subtypes affect dimensionality?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    67
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Question Do subtypes affect dimensionality?

    .
    Last edited by asd; 10-27-2020 at 06:30 PM.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    12,560
    Mentioned
    1149 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    no dimensions and no subtypes in Socionics
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    897
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    no dimensions and no subtypes in Socionics
    Explain no dimensions.

  4. #4
    Akira's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    Га6eH
    Posts
    3,268
    Mentioned
    397 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    If subtype affects dimensionality the sociotype would change. Therefore we wouldnt be talking about "subtypes" anymore but the whole "type" instead.

    As example Dimensionality goes like this:
    SLI
    4DSi
    3DTe
    2DNi
    1DFe
    1DNe
    2DFi
    3DSe
    4DTi

    If you change the dimensionality of those you wouldnt have an SLI anymore but a different type.

  5. #5
    peteronfireee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,334
    Mentioned
    90 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Psych View Post
    Right but I have seen claims of changing the dimensionality by adding or subtracting .5 for example so it’s still technically the same type and I don’t really get what “2.5 dimensionality” is supposed to mean for example
    The idea is that when looking at subtypes you are adding to the strength of a subset of functions, while subtracting from a subset of others:



    Using @Tommy 's example

    Look at the dimensionality difference for each subtype (SLI-Si vs SLI-Te)

    SLI Si Te
    4DSi 4.5 3.5
    3DTe 2.5 3.5
    2DNi 1.5 2.5
    1DFe 1.5 0.5
    1DNe 0.5 1.5
    2DFi 2.5 1.5
    3DSe 3.5 2.5
    4DTi 3.5 4.5

    why mistypings may happen. ex: look at the SLI-Te 's 4.5DTi.... Can lead to mistakingly type as an LSI
    Last edited by peteronfireee; 10-03-2020 at 03:10 AM.

  6. #6
    peteronfireee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,334
    Mentioned
    90 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Psych View Post
    the 4th dimension is of time but there's no 5th dimension - so what does 4.5 D mean? Can you have half a dimension, what does that mean in practice?
    Quote Originally Posted by DEAD View Post

    What is this numbers thing?

    It just means that strengths and weaknesses exist ona spectrum relative to one's own psyche....The numbers (+,-) are there to simply illustrate this relativity.

    Kinda reminds me of the MBTI % score strengths of each function, a spectrum or think of it as shades of a particular color.

    In addition,

    When it comes to socionics dimensionality,

    You can look at it as how easy it is for you to develop abilities in that area and maybe how confident you are with that area. Again, like a spectrum:

    (Greater than) 4 D: “I know my shit.”
    (Greater than) 3 D: “I am rather good at this.”
    Greater than 2 D: ”I can handle this.”
    Less than 2 D: “I think I need help.”
    (Less than) 1D: “I don’t know I need (a lot of) help.”

    So lets say you're trying to type someone, and you were looking at a questionnaire they filled out, you'd compare his functions amongst him/herself and not compared to a different person.

    As for the 5th dimension ??? I have no idea

    Last edited by peteronfireee; 10-03-2020 at 03:01 AM.

  7. #7
    Akira's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    Га6eH
    Posts
    3,268
    Mentioned
    397 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Psych View Post
    the 4th dimension is of time but there's no 5th dimension - so what does 4.5 D mean? Can you have half a dimension, what does that mean in practice?
    It means that you are a superhuman.

    Did you read it from a socionist? If not then mb we shouldn't take it too seriously.

  8. #8
    a two horned unicorn renegade Chin Diaper 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On a toilet, right above you
    TIM
    mb ILE-H🄯 LE
    Posts
    6,016
    Mentioned
    262 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have thought about having a partial dimension but then even I couldn't fool myself to make it sound. There are projections from m to n for instance like in computer graphics but even those deal with integers. You can restrict the dimension in terms of access in R for instance... but it still remains an integer even if it is a point in its own dimension and nothing else. Please, do not use half dimension if you can not explain it.
    Uncertified public verbal executioner of ESI. Tickets will be available soon.
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type

    Your life is too short to actually do anything useful with it without being wasteful.

  9. #9
    chocolatte's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    TIM
    IEI 417
    Posts
    354
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've wondered the same

    Quote Originally Posted by Tommy View Post
    If subtype affects dimensionality the sociotype would change. Therefore we wouldnt be talking about "subtypes" anymore but the whole "type" instead.

    As example Dimensionality goes like this:
    SLI
    4DSi
    3DTe
    2DNi
    1DFe
    1DNe
    2DFi
    3DSe
    4DTi

    If you change the dimensionality of those you wouldnt have an SLI anymore but a different type.

    so then the "other type" that is not a pure SLI is basically a "subtype" since all the dimensionalities are being adjusted in proportion to the others.. ?

    I sort of agree with the arguments of people who don't believe in subtype, but IRL i definitely observe individuals who of the same type who have different accentuations, so.. i'm not sure what to think

  10. #10
    Akira's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    Га6eH
    Posts
    3,268
    Mentioned
    397 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chocolatte View Post
    I've wondered the same




    so then the "other type" that is not a pure SLI is basically a "subtype" since all the dimensionalities are being adjusted in proportion to the others.. ?

    I sort of agree with the arguments of people who don't believe in subtype, but IRL i definitely observe individuals who of the same type who have different accentuations, so.. i'm not sure what to think
    As psych said, how could an element exist in the 4.5 dimension? I suspect ppl who try to understand subtype in that way is basically missing what dimensionality means. Then if someone says 'is not about .5, is about +1 or -1', then you are literally talking about a different type. Thats why I don't think subtypes are about dimensionality of the elements but just the usual behavior in groups or society(as Gulenko explains).

  11. #11
    L QUE SABE, SABE DEAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Pluto
    TIM
    SxE Whatever
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    9 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fireee View Post
    The idea is that when looking at subtypes you are adding to the strength of a subset of functions, while subtracting from a subset of others:



    Using @Tommy 's example

    Look at the dimensionality difference for each subtype (SLI-Si vs SLI-Te)

    SLI Si Te
    4DSi 4.5 3.5
    3DTe 2.5 3.5
    2DNi 1.5 2.5
    1DFe 1.5 0.5
    1DNe 0.5 1.5
    2DFi 2.5 1.5
    3DSe 3.5 2.5
    4DTi 3.5 4.5

    In this light, we can see why mistypings may happen. For example, look at the SLI-Te 's 4.5DTi.... Can lead to mistakingly type as an LSI
    SO if there's an SLI-Te, it means that the Si and Te exist on the same equality? (3.5, 3.5) and the Ti is actually stronger? And an Si-SLI is the basic, typical one? (Stronger Si, weaker Te and similar par Ti?) That explains a lot.

  12. #12
    удобный сукин сын Cybel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    rat
    TIM
    SLI2Te
    Posts
    386
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DEAD View Post
    SO if there's an SLI-Te, it means that the Si and Te exist on the same equality? (3.5, 3.5) and the Ti is actually stronger? And an Si-SLI is the basic, typical one? (Stronger Si, weaker Te and similar par Ti?) That explains a lot.
    How would demonstrative ever be greater than lead? Lead leads. Also wouldn't creative subtype remind one more of mirror than quasi, which would then have to involve flipping all of the unconscious and conscious functions as well as temperament? Strengthening of creative leading to strengthening of demonstrative is also debatable. For example SEE-Se are more gregarious/territorial (mostly associated with strengthened Fe and Te) than SEE-Fi usually imo. SEE-Fi can be glamorous socialites but that seems like a slight focus more on F in general than strengthened Fe. The spotlight is moved rather than the brightness turning up imo

     



  13. #13
    L QUE SABE, SABE DEAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Pluto
    TIM
    SxE Whatever
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    9 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cybel View Post
    How would demonstrative ever be greater than lead? Lead leads. Also wouldn't creative subtype remind one more of mirror than quasi, which would then have to involve flipping all of the unconscious and conscious functions as well as temperament? Strengthening of creative leading to strengthening of demonstrative is also debatable. For example SEE-Se are more gregarious/territorial (mostly associated with strengthened Fe and Te) than SEE-Fi usually imo. SEE-Fi can be glamorous socialites but that seems like a slight focus more on F in general than strengthened Fe. The spotlight is moved rather than the brightness turning up imo
    I guess that make sense. I think I am SEE-Se. That's what I thought but this thing here is confusing me:

    4DSi 4.5 3.5
    3DTe 2.5 3.5
    2DNi 1.5 2.5
    1DFe 1.5 0.5
    1DNe 0.5 1.5
    2DFi 2.5 1.5
    3DSe 3.5 2.5
    4DTi 3.5 4.5
    What is this numbers thing?

  14. #14
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    9,444
    Mentioned
    1018 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CoViD Spurdo 007 View Post
    I have thought about having a partial dimension but then even I couldn't fool myself to make it sound. There are projections from m to n for instance like in computer graphics but even those deal with integers. You can restrict the dimension in terms of access in R for instance... but it still remains an integer even if it is a point in its own dimension and nothing else. Please, do not use half dimension if you can not explain it.
    Fractional spatial dimensions seem to be possible, at least in theory. I don't understand the theory, though.

  15. #15

    Default

    SLI-Si is SLI-SEI aka Alpha subtype, and SLI-Te is SLI-ILI aka Gamma subtype.


  16. #16
    Akira's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    Га6eH
    Posts
    3,268
    Mentioned
    397 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chiquichiquaquiles View Post
    SLI-Si is SLI-SEI aka Alpha subtype, and SLI-Te is SLI-ILI aka Gamma subtype.
    SLI-Te would be more like LSE-Si than ILI. Si is stronger in LSE than ILI.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    816
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tommy View Post
    SLI-Te would be more like LSE-Si than ILI. Si is stronger in LSE than ILI.
    Depends on interpretation. Some interpret SLI-Te as akin to ILI-Te, while some see SLI-Te as almost LSE. Overall and with a big maybe (theory), I would say XLI-Te types are similar both to each other and to LXEs.

    Ofc if you don't go into newer Gulenko, other subtyping systems etc.

  18. #18
    Haikus silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,052
    Mentioned
    451 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Psych View Post
    If so, how? What does a ".5" or 1.5 and so on ... dimensionality mean?
    The points for subtypes has been invented by the guy who runs sociotype.com website. His denotations are not used anywhere else is socionics community. He's introduced them apparently to show the extent or likelihood of the person taking the test being of a particular subtype.

    Dimensionality is something that describes the functions of your model A and placement of IEs there. The functions and the placement of IEs are not affected by any kind of subtypes, so sociotype's ".5 1.5" etc. denotations have no effect on function D's.

  19. #19
    Haikus silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,052
    Mentioned
    451 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Psych View Post
    this is not from a socionist but it says the dimensions are affected due to subtypes:https://typevolution.com/2016/08/28/...hs-weaknesses/
    that's @Olimpia's blog, and yeah she's conflating the two whereas they are independent measures

  20. #20

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    11,424
    Mentioned
    336 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hmm. Something about the dimensionality of the functions is a bit 'too pretty' or neat. I think it's possible (for example) to maybe have a PoLR even weaker than a single dimension, receiving it you get extra irritable/emotional lol and break down and psychologically disintegrate even more so maybe it's like .6 dimensional, but then to compensate for this you could have a Role or HA function that's a bit better than normal, so it could be like 2.4 dimension to compensate. It might also explain the more interesting nuances of why you don't get along or get along with certain types 'you're not supposed' to as well. Also some types seem way better adjusted naturally , whereas others have much obvious greater weaknesses but also potential for greater gifts and some types are just really more average, rounded-out and Karen-y even within the same types. Also brings more individualism into socionics, because the idea that there's only '16 types of people' seems dumb.

  21. #21
    Akira's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    Га6eH
    Posts
    3,268
    Mentioned
    397 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I even think the guy from sociotype.com doesnt even use .5 on subtypes (at least I've never seen a result with .5). He just uses 0 (to indicate no subtype) or 1,2 and 3.

  22. #22
    ImOutThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    123
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't see the point in partial dimensions. The demensionality should stay the same within a type to retain the integrity of the system. Subtype is a better way to explain the difference in behavior and appearance than information metabolism.

Posting Permissions

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