Thread: TPE subtype theory. Associative Socionics.

1. TPE subtype theory. Associative Socionics.

Hi, everyone.
Here is my lecture about TPE subtype theory. I compare it with the DCNH subtype system. I hope you will understand a bit more of what is TPE subtype system and TPE model is about. If you have questions, please, ask.
The video is 47 minutes long. You can watch it either on youtube or on my website.

http://socionics4you.com/post-15963?lang=en

2. Dear all,
I have a book published in Russian, 4 years ago. I am still in need of help to proofread some parts of my book. If you have a spare time and wish to volunteer, this could speed up the whole process and the book appears rather earlier than later.
Everyone who helps me with the book will receive free typing! Just tired as it takes so long. Please, write to my email: olgatangemann@gmail.com

3. I watched the TPE subtype theory video and latched onto something you mentioned in this slide: that Aushra considered the third function to be vulnerable rather than the fourth.

To put that in perspective I made notes. I wanted to visualise how it forms a duality, or conflict, between types. (please let me know if I've misconstrued function strength)

LSI
Fe suggestive; as their vulnerable/blindspot is Fi (3rd fx)
Consciously(?) ignores Ne, and they are mobilised by Ni

LIE
Fi suggestive, blindspot Fe
Ignoring Si, mobilised by Se

SEE
Ni suggestive, Blindspot Ne
Ignoring Ti (LII conflict), mobilised by Te

SEI
Ne suggestive, Blindspot Ni
Ignoring Te, mobilised by Ti

SLE
Ni suggestive, Blindspot Ne
Ignoring Fi, mobilised by Fe

Our dual type has as their leading function either the Energy metabolism (EM) or the Information Metabolism (IM) we are "missing". That is, our blindspot/vulnerable function.
EM and IM exist as pairs; Fe and Fi, dynamic and static. It is better described in your model A article:

As I understand Aushra paired two different elements in the model also because it gives the person a better (more objective) understanding of the world around him (reality) as one element of IM is continuity of another.
She also refers to Jung by saying that one block (a pair of functions) in the model A starts with the body-tact and finishes with the field-tact. In this block extraverted information about the state/quality of object transfers into the information about relation of one object to another. That is what is inside the object is transferred into the external world – according to Jung “becomes extraverted.”

4. Hi, and thank you for watching! I am sorry, I guess a misunderstanding has happened in relation to what I meant by :that Aushra considered the third function to be vulnerable rather than the fourth.
It means only numbering and not the actual function. Before the model A appeared as we know it now the numbering was different. LSI always had vulnerable intuition Ne but it was not the 4th but third function in the model. The model itself looked different.

1 Basic <—> 8 Limiting.
2 Creative <—> 7 Background.
3 Painful <—> 6 Activation.
4 Role <—> 5 Suggestive.

This is explained in a different article by another author on my website. http://socionics4you.com/post-16086
Originally Posted by thistle
I watched the TPE subtype theory video and latched onto something you mentioned in this slide: that Aushra considered the third function to be vulnerable rather than the fourth.

5. I am not sure if "blind spot" is the right term for the vulnerable function. It was suggested by Sergey Ganin and it became popular in the west. In the Russian speaking socionics community we do not use it. Vulnerable function is conscious function. if this is linked to the weak function we may reject working on it because it is hard and we are not interested. If it linked to our strong function then we use it with a great effort. I have a small article about vulnerable function.
http://socionics4you.com/post-15616?lang=en
Originally Posted by thistle
That is, our blindspot/vulnerable function.

6. Originally Posted by Olga
Hi, and thank you for watching! I am sorry, I guess a misunderstanding has happened in relation to what I meant by :that Aushra considered the third function to be vulnerable rather than the fourth.
It means only numbering and not the actual function. Before the model A appeared as we know it now the numbering was different. LSI always had vulnerable intuition Ne but it was not the 4th but third function in the model. The model itself looked different.

1 Basic <—> 8 Limiting.
2 Creative <—> 7 Background.
3 Painful <—> 6 Activation.
4 Role <—> 5 Suggestive.

This is explained in a different article by another author on my website. http://socionics4you.com/post-16086
Hi Olga

This was completely an error in my interpretation - I took some creative licence, and ended up creating Socionics Model T

There is obviously more reading I need to do. I'd prefer to completely understand the material before attempting to proof read it. Thank you for including those articles to start with ...

7. Originally Posted by Olga
I am not sure if "blind spot" is the right term for the vulnerable function. It was suggested by Sergey Ganin and it became popular in the west. In the Russian speaking socionics community we do not use it. Vulnerable function is conscious function. if this is linked to the weak function we may reject working on it because it is hard and we are not interested. If it linked to our strong function then we use it with a great effort. I have a small article about vulnerable function.
http://socionics4you.com/post-15616?lang=en
Vulnerable is the function to conceal from other's sight, so they can't sense the weakness. The "pretend it doesn't exist" function.

What makes it a blindspot, is that something that seems like "common knowledge" to others is a complicated endeavour for yourself.

Someone might ask "Why did you make something simple so complicated?" and my embarrassed answer is "I was blind to the glaringly obvious answer" !

8. I understand this interpretation. Being blind more suitable to vital weak functions which are in subconscious. Superego block model A function are the conscious once as block Superego in Freud's theory is conscious too. People can be very good at it and go an extra mile. As long as it is in the pair of the function which is not considered to be a weak one. Week functions like a role function can be trained to. There must be interest and motivation for us to work with our vulnerable function.

9. Originally Posted by Olga
Dear all,
I have a book published in Russian, 4 years ago. I am still in need of help to proofread some parts of my book. If you have a spare time and wish to volunteer, this could speed up the whole process and the book appears rather earlier than later.
Everyone who helps me with the book will receive free typing! Just tired as it takes so long. Please, write to my email: olgatangemann@gmail.com
Is it in English?? I have done a few book reviews in the past and I would love to help, and also I'm looking for a professional perspective on my type too.

I guess I would benefit doubly if I could help you, firstly because I would get interesting information from your book, and secondly I would get feedback on my type.

So I'm here if you still want some help

10. I have not yet watched the video, sorry:

How is TPE discerned from TIM? As I understand so far, Types(TIMs)/Subtypes(TPE/DCNH) are often confused for each other. An interview and/or process could tell if someone really does have Ti Polr and Se Role (meaning TIM of SEE), but the website TIMs&TPEs celebs. How do you know people you cannot ask particular things of?

I utilize an idiosyncratized variant largely based on Temperament DCNH. The mistype mixing mentioned above is grossly common in my view. Since my Subtyping scheme is Temperament-based, as is this, I see no reason to stop using "D C N H". Maybe it is more indicating to say Ego/Id/Superego/Superid though, I will read into Freud and consider this (the problem is D, C, N, H are commonly understood in Socionic communities already, so I don't have to tell people to go read Freud after I call them a Superego sub("N")). ???

11. Originally Posted by Megatrop
Is it in English?? I have done a few book reviews in the past and I would love to help, and also I'm looking for a professional perspective on my type too.

I guess I would benefit doubly if I could help you, firstly because I would get interesting information from your book, and secondly I would get feedback on my type.

So I'm here if you still want some help

12. Hi, what do you mean by "an idiosyncratized variant"?
If you learn to call the temperament groups by TPEs it will give you access to typing and subtyping not just types of people but also to analysing energy encripted in music, art etc, which is useful because we are moving to understand music, art and and other phenomena from the point of typology.
I do not use the dichotomies of Gulenko (and his model) because they are not necessary and only add to the confusion.
The subtypes are derived from the same dichotomies we use to identify the type. They are second in line (or third and forth in the profile).
It is good if you read more about psychoanalytic basis of the concept of associative socionics because you will understand how the type can be considered in terms of psychoanalytical theories. It is a bridge between the typology and psychotherapy which needs to be further explored. The concept lays the foundation for it.
I use many tools and have celebs picture gallery. We need to use all tools and our ability to recognise the typical qualities of people like we recognise objects. I am saying that pictures of celebs may contain the mistakes due to the fact that we cannot check them out otherwise but only by observation (interviews, photos). I collect the most typical images of the types. Like with the bell of normal distribution we have bright opponents of some qualities and balanced. So, the images represent some of the visual portraits that are typical.
http://socionics4you.com/post-410?lang=en

Originally Posted by amaciD
I have not yet watched the video, sorry:

How is TPE discerned from TIM? As I understand so far, Types(TIMs)/Subtypes(TPE/DCNH) are often confused for each other. An interview and/or process could tell if someone really does have Ti Polr and Se Role (meaning TIM of SEE), but the website TIMs&TPEs celebs. How do you know people you cannot ask particular things of?

I utilize an idiosyncratized variant largely based on Temperament DCNH. The mistype mixing mentioned above is grossly common in my view. Since my Subtyping scheme is Temperament-based, as is this, I see no reason to stop using "D C N H". Maybe it is more indicating to say Ego/Id/Superego/Superid though, I will read into Freud and consider this (the problem is D, C, N, H are commonly understood in Socionic communities already, so I don't have to tell people to go read Freud after I call them a Superego sub("N")). ???

Posting Permissions

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