# Thread: Do subtypes affect dimensionality?

1. ## Do subtypes affect dimensionality?

.

2. no dimensions and no subtypes in Socionics

3. Originally Posted by Sol
no dimensions and no subtypes in Socionics
Explain no dimensions.

4. 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. Originally Posted by Psych
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

6. Originally Posted by Psych
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?

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.

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

7. Originally Posted by Psych
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. 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.

9. I've wondered the same

Originally Posted by Tommy
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. Originally Posted by chocolatte
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. Originally Posted by fireee
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.

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. Originally Posted by Cybel
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. Originally Posted by CoViD Spurdo 007
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. SLI-Si is SLI-SEI aka Alpha subtype, and SLI-Te is SLI-ILI aka Gamma subtype.

16. Originally Posted by Chiquichiquaquiles
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. Originally Posted by Psych
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.

18. Originally Posted by Psych
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

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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
•