Which is it?
If you choose "other," explain in comments.
What systems / methods do you use to distinguish two identicals?
Which is it?
If you choose "other," explain in comments.
Everything listed above, enhanced IEs and other typological and psychological categorizations.
I don't feel the need to classify every last aspect of a person. But, some categories I use to understand people are gender, culture, social extroversion, etc. The subtypes you mentioned seem like a vague heuristic but not very helpful for understanding people (as opposed to merely classifying them). Enneagram has some potential but it seems to need a lot more tweaking than socionics.
Generally, no "systems".
There is _a lot_ of different traits by which people differ, besides Jung types. Those ones which you've listed are rather hypothetical and have no good basis to use seriously.
When I notice too unusual behavior for a assured type, I think about possibility of other factors which may change it. For example, psyche disorders and meds may do, as ADHD may shift some behavior to P side.
Enneagram can be interesting. For example, 9 types are dreamy and may exist at S types, what shifts some of their behavior to more common for N types and mb I types too. But it's only a part of Enneagram theory, while I'm skeptical about it in other parts still.
"Subtypes" hypotheses at near-Socionics texts are useless and baseless fantasies of random people. There are no subtypes in Socionics, at all.
The only reasonable what relates to inner-types differences is different degree of functions' balance. But that balance is doubtful to be stable, there is no accurate enough methods to measure it and there is no theory for significant usefulness in that.
Types examples: video bloggers, actors
I use dcnh but even when main type and dcnh is the same people can be quite different. Typology can't grasp all differences although it can grasp alot.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I don't
Nothing is real
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote