Attitudinal Psyche type system

[RBRS]

Yes it's the EJish subtype, but it's not an either/or kind of thing. There are 3 elements involved in each subtype, not just the two and they work together. Se is the 3rd one for dominant. So, it's not like he's saying that it's just one of the 3 that he's seeing, it's Te, Se, and Fe - all three of them. It's the same result whether using element accentuations or going from the dichotomy side, but you're not calling out an individual element. In other words, whether he's seeing more Se, or more Te or even more Fe can't be determined strictly from the given subtype. All that can be said is that he saw contact (going towards challenges) and terminal (finishing what you start) - with the description sounding quite similar in my opinion to psychosopy will: LINK



Yeah, I get that, and I see where he was able to see what he defines as Te. I agree that what he defines as Te is definitely present in what I said. There are other ways to define Te and Ti however. For example, using the element definitions both Te and Ti are external elements, meaning that both operate objectively, using real-world measures. Both are concrete, neither are abstract. Te is object focused, and Ti is field focused, Te is dynamic and Ti is static but both are external elements.

I noticed that Timur does use the static/dynamic dichotomy in his definition, but not the external/internal distinction, and instead takes a more Reinin-like or Kalinauskas steering wheel approach to them with subjective/objective instead. I'm not going to argue with his definitions, because they're the ones he wants to use, and there's a logic to it. But it means that it's not going to translate perfectly when someone uses a different way of defining them. Or if they use a different kind of system.

I would like to know where does have Gulenko said that Se is a defining factor (Let's edit for accuracy; Gulenko never proposes that Se alone can be responsible for D sub, which is how I erroneously interpreted what you've said) for dominant subtype, both in his book and average DCNH descriptions Te/Fe corresponds to Dominant, Se/Ne corresponds to creative, Ti/Fi to normalizing and Si/Ni to harmonizing. Regarding your link, there's what we are interested in (and it's pretty much confirmatory of all I've already said)

"The second way to define a subtype is through a stable triplet of functions. It is important here that two conditions are met:
1) these functions would be strongly expressed from the outside and 2) would work in a coordinated manner.
Further, in this triple of functions, we will single out the two, which should come first. And the third function in the formula is additional. This is a 2 + 1 formula."

Basically, you necessarily have a strengthened Te, Se & Fe, either having Te+Se>Fe, Te+Fe>Se or Se+Fe>Te in Gulenko's model, seeing how Timur sees Te+Se and the fact that you are typed as a logical type with clasically 1D suggestive Fe, then it should be evident that you have strengthened Te & strengthened Se > weaker but still strengthened Fe for an LSI. Thus if we discard DCNH it makes a lot of sense to type you LxE or SLE specially through semantics or IMs expressed. Both are seeing through and getting to conclusions on the same phenomena from different perspectives.

Timur offers those definitions as simplifications or that is what I am perceiving, as in his debate with Jack Oliver Aaron he readily explains that in his methodology the levels of subjective thought are not related to Te/Ti but the placement of logic in PY. External VS Internal would mean that logical and sensory functions deal with data & conclusions derivated from themselves and not impressions, feeling the development of processes, or subjective perception of energetic states as it would be the case with intuition & ethics. I don't see much contradiction more than that definitions are written fast as a simplified "overview" and key to understanding IMs if you already don't know it, sent for everybody in case someone lacking that knowledge receives the diagnostic and doesn't know how to make sense of it. What I am perceiving with Archetype Center's model is that it is classical socionics - excessive behavioralisms + Quadra dichotomies + psychosophy as a behavioral subtyping system

[squark]

I would like to know where does have Gulenko said that Se is a defining factor for dominant subtype, both in his book and average DCNH descriptions Te/Fe corresponds to Dominant, Se/Ne corresponds to creative, Ti/Fi to normalizing and Si/Ni to harmonizing.

I gave you the link on it being the 3rd factor. Each one has 3 factors, not 2. As he puts it, it's a (2 +1 formula) As for in his book, it's the same description as the link I gave you, page 431 if you have the book (although the link has more info on determining the type than that single page does.) Here's the link again if you missed it in my other post: LINK

Here's also a quote talking about Te+Se with additional Fe (rather than Te+Fe with additional Se) In other words, they can interact in different "amounts" so to speak

If we see that extraverted managerial functions Te and Se are expressed in the functional profile of a person, then we have the right to assume that he has a dominant subtype. As an additional function, Fe acts - the ethics of emotions, which gives the ability to speak and a tinge of hysteria.

[RBRS]

I gave you the link on it being the 3rd factor. Each one has 3 factors, not 2. As he puts it, it's a (2 +1 formula) As for in his book, it's the same description as the link I gave you, page 431 if you have the book (although the link has more info on determining the type than that single page does.) Here's the link again if you missed it in my other post: LINK

Here's also a quote talking about Te+Se with additional Fe (rather than Te+Fe with additional Se) In other words, they can interact in different "amounts" so to speak

You are the one who has missed my response (maybe due to not reading the entire post or me editing to add it up a moment later) so I will copy & paste from the post you are referencing:

Regarding your link, there's what we are interested in (and it's pretty much confirmatory of all I've already said)

"The second way to define a subtype is through a stable triplet of functions. It is important here that two conditions are met:
1) these functions would be strongly expressed from the outside and 2) would work in a coordinated manner.
Further, in this triple of functions, we will single out the two, which should come first. And the third function in the formula is additional. This is a 2 + 1 formula."

Basically, you necessarily have a strengthened Te, Se & Fe, either having Te+Se>Fe, Te+Fe>Se or Se+Fe>Te in Gulenko's model, seeing how Timur sees Te+Se and the fact that you are typed as a logical type with clasically 1D suggestive Fe, then it should be evident that you have strengthened Te & strengthened Se > weaker but still strengthened Fe for an LSI. Thus if we discard DCNH it makes a lot of sense to type you LxE or SLE specially through semantics or IMs expressed. Both are seeing through and getting to conclusions on the same phenomena from different perspectives.

I'll add that if Timur types you Logical INTUITIVE Extravert is probably because you probably show semantics of both valued and strong Ni and valued extraverted sensing.

[squark]

You are the one who has missed my response (maybe due to not reading the entire post or me editing to add it up a moment later) so I will copy & paste from the post you are referencing:

Regarding your link, there's what we are interested in (and it's pretty much confirmatory of all I've already said)

"The second way to define a subtype is through a stable triplet of functions. It is important here that two conditions are met:
1) these functions would be strongly expressed from the outside and 2) would work in a coordinated manner.
Further, in this triple of functions, we will single out the two, which should come first. And the third function in the formula is additional. This is a 2 + 1 formula."

Basically, you necessarily have a strengthened Te, Se & Fe, either having Te+Se>Fe, Te+Fe>Se or Se+Fe>Te in Gulenko's model, seeing how Timur sees Te+Se and the fact that you are typed as a logical type with clasically 1D suggestive Fe, then it should be evident that you have strengthened Te & strengthened Se > weaker but still strengthened Fe for an LSI. Thus if we discard DCNH it makes a lot of sense to type you LxE or SLE specially through semantics or IMs expressed. Both are seeing through and getting to conclusions on the same phenomena from different perspectives.

I didn't see your edit, no. The problem I see with this, is that DCNH is a subtype in addition to the main type. G typed me with dichotomies first, and then discussed subtype. He saw introversion, sensing, logic and rationality. So, if we throw out DCNH, he still saw introversion, logic, sensing and rationality. That part didn't change. And it still makes sense if 1Will and D subtype are describing something similar.

If you want to only use what IMs people saw . . . well, that's going to be tough, because neither of them mentioned much. They mentioned (or implied via subtype) between them Te, Se, Fe, and Ni, and then that's where you have to decide something else to throw out. You can throw out Timur's NT club suggestion, and go with beta ST. You can throw out that suggestion and also throw out that both of them put me in a central quadra and go with LSE, or you can throw out G's dichotomy typings of both introversion and sensing and go with LIE. It's a matter of deciding what to keep and what to toss to force them to meet in the middle somewhere. Or a different option, that I think works better, is that they're typing different ways, and those don't come up with the same core type for me.

Common ground seems to be central quadra, logic, rationality, Te, Se and they both gave me the asshole subtype (kidding, but man reading 1Will descriptions and the way D is sometimes described does not sound good, I thought I was much nicer than that heh)

[RBRS]

I didn't see your edit, no. The problem I see with this, is that DCNH is a subtype in addition to the main type. G typed me with dichotomies first, and then discussed subtype. He saw introversion, sensing, logic and rationality. So, if we throw out DCNH, he still saw introversion, logic, sensing and rationality. That part didn't change. And it still makes sense if 1Will and D subtype are describing something similar.

If you want to only use what IMs people saw . . . well, that's going to be tough, because neither of them mentioned much. They mentioned (or implied via subtype) between them Te, Se, Fe, and Ni, and then that's where you have to decide something else to throw out. You can throw out Timur's NT club suggestion, and go with beta ST. You can throw out that suggestion and also throw out that both of them put me in a central quadra and go with LSE, or you can throw out G's dichotomy typings of both introversion and sensing and go with LIE. It's a matter of deciding what to keep and what to toss to force them to meet in the middle somewhere. Or a different option, that I think works better, is that they're typing different ways, and those don't come up with the same core type for me.

Common ground seems to be central quadra, logic, rationality, Te, Se and they both gave me the asshole subtype (kidding, but man reading 1Will descriptions and the way D is sometimes described does not sound good, I thought I was much nicer than that heh)

If G typed you by dichotomies alone or above IMs then my fault, for projecting my belief that base typings always need to be constructed around IMs and dichotomies should only be used as a little help when there's non-conclusive data if they are to be used at all, I sometimes forget about other conceptions on this and float around in my own context. On the rest of your comment I agree completely with you