There are no subtypes, there are four more functions

[Alyx]

.

[Metamorph]

I wouldn't exactly call lucid dreaming a dream of disappointment. Gulenko already tried including romance styles as well, soft dom and bratty sub is just caretaker and infantile while hard dom and sub is just aggressor and victim.

[Squirrel]

Adding new functions will require restructuring of all types, because these functions mustn't be limited to those who own them in Ego Block

[anotherperson]

i feel like putting it in Ego/SuperEgo is not right. i think maybe what if you made it only ONE function you get in like. superid maybe (so 3 in one level of conscoious). I think making it work the same way as every other function is not right. it has such special properties than the other functions, although the eaxct properties i cant fathom yet. it seems to almost assume every function under it and shape it. but this theory is **really** interesting. please share more if you have any-else.

[CR400AF]

Any theory has its own scope of application. The purpose of Jungian typological theory is to divide people into sets that do not intersect with each other based on their introverted and extroverted attitudes and their preferences for cognitive functions. I think it is inappropriate to add cognitive functions arbitrarily.

[lavos]

What you're calling "new functions", are already covered in the existing ones. The dream part is interesting (the idea seems likely that each type has dreams depending on their type).

[Alyx]

.

[Sol]

You've forgoten to give the main - definitions for 2 new traits. Only described their variants in E/I attitudes.

Jung's function is 4 _independent_ kinds of info.

So what is your "R".
Ri-egos seem to have what we'd call "stress dreams".
Re-egos seem to have dreams of paranoia.
It's about having dreams. Dreams relate to N. Hence your R trait is not a new "function" in Jung's sense.

> what mbti calls "turbulence and assertiveness"

MBTI is a test. It's about 4 dichotomies only.
I doubt that in official MBTI manual exist special definitions for "turbulence" and "assertiveness".

"Gulenko's subtypes" is his own typology which he used with Jung's types. Those new traits should be supposed as very independent to Jung types traits. While, in example of "dreaming" - that behavior strongly relates to N types.

[Alyx]

.

[Kurt Gabin]

The problem is that Model A is closed and no new functions can be added to it. Look, we have four cubes and four holes in which they all need to be stuffed:



If we add new cubes, then we need to add new holes into which any cube can be stuffed. But from practice we know that we have always seen four old cubes only in old holes. This means that there are no other holes into which nature would stuff cubes.

By the way, this is the typing process in the GIF, the boy really wants to be SLI.

[Alyx]

.

[Alyx]

.

[godslave]

I posted it before and deleted it but I feel like it is relevant. I don't mean to sound rude so read this with a funny voice in your head if possible.

As a reminder there are several approaches to subtypes in socionics. I'll take Dr.G's system as an illustration.

Gulenko's DCNH Subtype system is based on dichotomies (contact/distant - Terminating/Initiating - Connecting/ignoring ) each determined by a set of behaviors, tendency and inclinations (role) of a subject within a group. The subtype is determined via formula and/or accentuated functions.
As a reminder Socionics IE and functions (positions in Model A) can be categorized (structured) via dichotomies.

Your " Four additional functions" are just descriptives , not functional therefore we can't call them "functions". They seem to depict personality traits (almost archetypal). What metrics would you use to measure and attribute to a subject those additional traits ? Do you Have some kind of method ? Furthermore how would you integrate those in the socionics model ? What makes your idea a better alternative than a Subtype system like DCNH for instance ? In my humble opinion one must justify any addition to socionics with socionics if that makes sense i.e. in context because of the systemic nature of the theory.

Anyways, that sounds like a good tool for character writing for a start (just like socionics). It's cool though !

I really encourage you to do what seems right to you however when you come in a Socionics forum with such a claim you'll unavoidably be exposed to critics.