Sociotype and development in time

[Lesri]

Is there a theory of the "development" in time (age) of the individual related to the socionic type?

This exists both for mbti and enneagram, but I never read something related to socionics.

I wondered how I should consider some individuals who, up to a certain age, were substantially different from their 20s for example.

This is also related to myself, because I was typed INFj by a lot of people (from my brother to other friends and even my ex GF).
Someone thinks growing up some function (like the auxiliar function) will be more important. For exemples the EII will start being more open to "things", accepting more his Ne. Still if it is true, how much more he will give importance to it?
I find hard to understand boundaries between "development" and "being" a different type.

[Ave]

I like Gulenko's theory of DCNH subtype, which can change with time.

For example, as a child, I was more a harmonizing subtype (sensitive to conflict and disharmony, imaginative, reculsive, shy), but as a teenager became more of a creative subtype (rebellious, assertive, bold with the opposite sex, but also less reliable and stable). Since your DCNH subtype is best understood as the role you play in society, often we take on a subtype that fits with our current circumstances, for example becoming more rebellious and assertively nonconforming as a teenager is a cliche social role for that age group in this society, but also fits the creative subtype, so I think the creative subtype is often something teenagers grow into (and often out of).

There is also functional accentuation, but if I understand correctly, not everyone has an accentuation, but it's worth mentioning since it is also something that can change with time and adds an additonal layer to the type.

[Lesri]

I like Gulenko's theory of DCNH subtype, which can change with time.

For example, as a child, I was more a harmonizing subtype (sensitive to conflict and disharmony, imaginative, reculsive, shy), but as a teenager became more of a creative subtype (rebellious, assertive, bold with the opposite sex, but also less reliable and stable). Since your DCNH subtype is best understood as the role you play in society, often we take on a subtype that fits with our current circumstances, for example becoming more rebellious and assertively nonconforming as a teenager is a cliche social role for that age group in this society, but also fits the creative subtype, so I think the creative subtype is often something teenagers grow into (and often out of).

There is also functional accentuation, but if I understand correctly, not everyone has an accentuation, but it's worth mentioning since it is also something that can change with time and adds an additonal layer to the type.

Exactly! Accentuation appear kinda rare (in my experience).

Thanks for your answer. Maybe what makes, for exemple, EII and IEE similiar when kids is them being more prone to being harmonizing "types"? I must read something about DCNH

[adage]

I think this aspect is rather lacking in socionics, even more so considering Jung's individuation process.
We tend to talk about healthy vs unhealthy around here but it isn't defined, it's closer to an opinion on others' behavior and maybe even a justification to talk about the worst sides of a function without sounding too mean.

Aushra, being an extrovert who looked at "what is" seems to me as having mostly described the visible part of the iceberg, while all the introverted stuff, the less visible part of the iceberg, was left out. Growth is one of this less visible aspect of people, it isn't always noticeable.

As for DCNH, it's supposed to be the most superficial aspect of personality according to G, closer to a mask that can change than actual inner changes. The type is supposed to be somewhere hidden under all the more superficial aspects that's put on to adapt to life. So I guess it does fit what you're looking for.
I think it goes type > subtype > accentuation > DCNH iirc.
It doesn't necessarily has anything to do with development or growth tho.

I have been typed most IN types depending on how I act, but some of those behavioral ways are clearly learnt, I can tell because I know my life and am staring to get aware of where I put on a "show" and where I just existed freely.
So I guess there's that, effortless existing vs adaptable efforts.
Guess effortless existance is a thing I should define properly but really don't want to rn.

[Ave]

Exactly! Accentuation appear kinda rare (in my experience).

Thanks for your answer. Maybe what makes, for exemple, EII and IEE similiar when kids is them being more prone to being harmonizing "types"? I must read something about DCNH

You're welcome. I hadn't thought about people being more prone to being harmonizing subtypes when kids - but it is possible.

[Ave]

As for DCNH, it's supposed to be the most superficial aspect of personality according to G, closer to a mask that can change than actual inner changes. The type is supposed to be somewhere hidden under all the more superficial aspects that's put on to adapt to life. So I guess it does fit what you're looking for.
I think it goes type > subtype > accentuation > DCNH iirc.

It's actually type>DCNH subtype>accentuation

The psyche in humanitarian socionics is considered as a three-dimensional system of layers stratified on each other: the deep core - the middle layers - the surface. The quality and stability of these layers naturally change from the deep core to the outer shell. The closer to the outer border, the more flexible the psyche is and the less energy is required to apply it in order to transform it.


The type itself is in the deep core. His device during the life of the means of the psyche itself does not change (maximum rigidity and stability). The term of its existence is equal to the time of existence of the mental system itself. Thus, the socionic type is an invariant of the psyche. In order to directly detect and "open" it, you need to attach a maximum load to the psyche.


Further, over the core lies the middle layer, which possesses not absolute, but only relative stability. It is called a type option, or a subtype. Relative stability means that the subtype can change, although this happens rarely and only under the influence of severe life shocks in those moments when the psyche is in a transitional state (for example, adolescence, midlife crisis, etc.). In the case of the individual psyche, we are talking about a period of tens of years. Type option is manifested primarily as a person's tendency to perform a certain role in the primary group.


And, finally, the most “soft” and mobile mental layer is formed outside - a functional profile, which is often the imprint of the current habitat of the wearer of the type. It exists for as long as the type carrier resides in it. The normal life of a profile is about several years. In this case, also talk about the stereotypes of behavior. For example, the military environment makes a person rougher, female education contributes to the formation of a profile with emotionality, etc.

http://varlawend.blogspot.com/2019/0...sociotype.html

[The Reality Denialist]

As per socionics is concerned the emphasis on the outer aspects. These are culture, family, environment etc. These aspects have countless configurations.

It seems to be the most reasonable approach.

[Aster]

It's actually type>DCNH subtype>accentuation




http://varlawend.blogspot.com/2019/0...sociotype.html

This oddly reminds me of astrology with the sun and moon signs being more the core and the ascendant being the externally obvious or DCNH, although the latter can change while the former doesn’t

strange, or am I totally off the mark here?

my astrology knowledge is pretty rusty

[Ave]

This oddly reminds me of astrology with the sun and moon signs being more the core and the ascendant being the externally obvious or DCNH, although the latter can change while the former doesn’t

strange, or am I totally off the mark here?

my astrology knowledge is pretty rusty

No, I see what you mean, with the ascendant having more influence as you get older (If I recall correctly). Also, Varlawend talks about how DCNH subtype exists in a certain order (we all have the four subtypes) and the last subtype is unlikely to ever become the first.

I remember G mentioned that it seemed Peteronfiree (in his report) was "naturally creative, but became normalizing because of a strict education" (not sure of the exact words). So I would speculate that there is some consideration within the SHS that while DCNH subtype can change, some people might have a more natural tendency towards this or that subtype.

[Kurt Gabin]

There are at least two things in socionics that can be associated with personality development.

The first one is blocks in the model A. You may have heard phrases like "Child block". So this is it. It is assumed that in childhood a person works out weak functions from the Child block, that is, self-esteem function and suggestive function. Then, in his youth, he develops a Super Ego block. And finally, in adulthood, he finds himself real and begins to live on the Ego block. Thus, until approximately 12-16 years old, EII will look like little SLI, until 25-30 years old he may act like LSI, and only in adulthood will his personality traits be finally formed. For the IEE, these will be LSE, SLE and IEE, respectively. However, many people get stuck in the Super Ego block or even in the Child block and never realize themselves in life.

The second thing is values. It is usually accepted that we all learn Alpha values in childhood, Beta values in adolescence, Gamma values in adulthood, and finally embrace Delta values in old age.

So, you can try to start searching in this direction.

[Hope]

I'd love to see types getting better at their weak elements but honestly I've never seen anyone who for example gets better at using polr. In My own experience, I still being intolerant to Fe environments/activities and feel awful when forced to sociallize or do small talk and else. I've observed the same un older ppl. Still, I think younger types are more prone to be flexible in the use of ie (they keep growing, learning and experiencing) than the old ones. It doesnt mean either that You can't learn some things or that ppl don't change, strictly speaking about type configuration I think for example You just grow to be more aware of who You are and what You like/dislike etc.

[Lesri]

I begin to think that there are some individuals with a certain general "awareness". People who over the years become aware of the mistakes made or the appropriate corrections to be made in relation to (I think) variables, including external ones. They strike a balance between their own world and the external one in this adaptation.
Unfortunately I have known a few, as many prefer to live in their convinctions. These few are precisely the people that I find it hard to type.


This is like an ability to "abstract" from one's own needs or personal visions not out of "fear", but simply to better understand things, I have seen it in disparate types, not just extroverts. It had almost seemed to me for a moment that the broader this consideration of reality was, the more there was almost an absence of type. In reality it is simply the ability to learn, I think. Even starting from the same type, two individuals can have different "awareness". Still, it is hard

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Idk, when I was younger I was more into science and logical things- well I had a LII dad and he kinda influenced that. I always enjoyed magical fantasy adventure crap like a stereotypical IEI though. And RPGs lol. Somebody said here once that a lot of RPG battle mechanics are kind of like a LIE supervising IEI but with MAGIC, so they are a fun challenge for IEIs and I think I knew what they were saying. A lot of fights, especially nowdays- do have a lot of Te in them to take into account but back in the past they were a lot more static and Ti.

[The Reality Denialist]

So model G proposes that Ignoring/control and PoLR are the places where we waste our energy if we focus on it.

BUT I guess you can end up becoming a joke in that area.

[Lesri]

So model G proposes that Ignoring/control and PoLR are the places where we waste our energy if we focus on it.

BUT I guess you can end up becoming a joke in that area.

It's interesting. But how is "waste" intended?
Can you make an exemple with IEE/EII? (If you want to)

[The Reality Denialist]

It's interesting. But how is "waste" intended?
Can you make an exemple with IEE/EII? (If you want to)

IEE + Ti:
Mechanistic reviews over trivial matters, I'd say.


It is like you can do better than PoLR + ignoring.


However here lies a point of conflict for contrary types (so you might need to use it here).