Extreme subtype types

[krieger]

- are some people more subtype that others?

- do extreme borderline subtypes exist?

- how does subtype work?

- has ANYONE found any theory on subtypes yet?

[Gilly]

This is kindof trivial. Don't think of subtypes as set categories; think of it as a continuum.

[krieger]

Then do you believe there exists something like an INTj-ISTj border-type?

[aestrivex]

Then do you believe there exists something like an INTj-ISTj border-type?

yes.

[krieger]

[aestrivex]

Good sir niffweed, are you not the math genius of our clique? Surely you would not assert any form of conviction without some method of proof to back it up with. Show us some numbers, show us incontestible truth!

despite your overwhelming candor, i don't have any proof nor any observations of people that appear to be of a pure subtype. it just comes as a personal belief, that the idea of, say, a pure Ti type with equal Se and Ne makes perfect sense to me.

Anyway, despite my light hearted attitude I am serious about this. Socionics of today is a mess that begs to be cleaned up. Let's all start with subtypes.

this, i think, is a completely wrong approach. subtypes, in the grand scheme of socionics, are largely worthless. there remains question as to whether subtypes even exist, and the effect of subtype on intertype relations is unknown, if there is any. much more important than figuring out what subtypes actually are is figuring out the general tendencies of functions and how those are applied to the general tendencies of types; this will lead to actual understanding and might be well applied.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Exodus]

I've never found subtypes to be especially useful in typing. I found out about them after typing myself.

I suppose I would be Ne subtype. Extreme: no.

The continuum thing probably works best. Though surely it should be possible to conceive a discrete subtype system? I think it would be more useful, anyhow. Refining the theory and all that. Rick mentioned an alternate one on his site; I'd like to know more about it.

I personally know of no borderline-type persons. I am not entirely sure that the concept has meaning. On the abstract side, a type is merely a set of people, not an area people fall within. Thus a point on the borderline of two areas is an inaccurate metaphor.

[krieger]

[Exodus]

I can't resist a good rant...

*thread abuse and rant warning*

The question here is not wether there is sufficient diversity amongst members of one type to account for subtypes. We know there is diversity. The question is wether subtype theory is an adequate paradigm with which to explain the variety within type bounds. In light of how subtype theory is completely devoid of any formal backing, the answer to this question, in my view, can only be 'no'. We point at the same shades we saw before we had knowledge of the paradigm, only now having the satisfaction of calling two of it's extremes by name. We are no closer to an understanding. We have prescribed, not described.

So let's face the truth. There is not a person on earth who can tell any of us what makes a 'creative subtype' different from an 'accepting subtype'. The two concepts don't formally exist. This message stands here as a challenge to anyone who believes differently.

As for whether someone can give a good explanation of the differences--I don't know. But "formal backing"? What the hell is that?

- are some people more subtype that others?

- do extreme borderline subtypes exist?

These two questions are valid. But what do you mean by "how does subtype work"?

As for whether *this* subtype theory explains intratype variation, I say yes, nominally in the sense that you described, but no, in the sense that the effect of subtype on intertype relationships is unknown--and that is really the essential piece.

[UDP]

I think what it really is is the more you grow the more your leading function incorperates both your secondary and polr.
Remember that your polr is in fact the secondary function of the type that shares your leading function

LSI & LII both have Ti leading, example.


What that means in terms of subtypes, I'm not sure

INTj --> ISTj --> (Ti subtype??) Ti favoritism
(but what would the other paths be?

?INTj --> ENTp--> (Ne subtype?) Ne favoritism


That seems kind of lopsided or unbalanced, though. Not sure what to make of it.


There is a very clear dichotomy between certain LIIs, though, IME.
Perhaps what I stated above would make sense, as an Ne INTj would be much more 'typical alpha' (happiness, merryness), as opposed to an Ti INTj, who is more infused with beta, and more IJ serious. That is something I am not at all sure about --- what do you think?

[UDP]

INTj --> ISTj --> (Ti subtype??) Ti favoritism (from a Ti perspective/base)
(but what would the other paths be?

?INTj --> ENTp--> (Ne subtype?) Ne favoritism (from a Ti perspective/base)


ENTp --> INTj --> (Ti subtype) Ti favoritism (from an Ne perspective/base)
ENTp --> ENFp --> (Ne subtype) Ne favoritism (from an Ne perspective/base)


Hmm.... I don't know if that makes sense or not, though. On a grand scale?
What do you think?


(It seems like the Ti INTj and the Ne ENTp would be more "pure-breeds", where as the other subtypes would be more cross/hybrids ?)

[CuriousSoul]

There was This Thread that I bookmarked ages ago. Subtypes may or may not exist - depending on what you mean with them and whom you ask. In my opinion subtypes can be a useful concept to explain some issues.

[Ave]

This is kindof trivial. Don't think of subtypes as set categories; think of it as a continuum.

I think everything, including types, is a continuum, that doesnt mean we cant isolate any clear cut tendencies.

I personally think they can be very clear cut in some, split in others, but in those who its clear cut they can be considered very different from each other.

I think subtypes are basically a difference in terms of the relation one has to the creative function; for one subtype, its an auxillary to his first function, to the other subtype, its more of a way of life.

I hope Im making sense. :wink:

[Ave]

There was This Thread that I bookmarked ages ago. Subtypes may or may not exist - depending on what you mean with them and whom you ask. In my opinion subtypes can be a useful concept to explain some issues.

Hey whos the guy who wrote that! He seems awfully familiar!

[anndelise]

Seeing as how Socionics is a classification theory, adding in a "subtype" classification would serve to differentiate between those who have a higher preference for their base accepting function, fairly equal preference for both base accepting/creating, or for higher preference for their base creative function. A continuum..as others have suggested here.

Subtype classifications can be used, for example, to distinguish between members of a type who have an easier time using their role function from those who find it more difficult due to a higher preference for their base function (base and role functions inhibit each other).

[pezzonovante]

I would consider myself an extreme intuitive subtype as my and are almost equal in strength while my is very strong. I'll analyze a situation with my and figure out what to do and use either or to get it done. I also feel that it leads to internal conflict when making decisions, such as efficiency of an action vs how the action will be perceived by others. I haven't figured out the effect on the rest of my functions except that my hidden agenda also seems to be excessively strong.

[misutii]

im definitely Ni subtype........ sometimes i wonder if it's only because it's more "socially acceptable" for males... like when i was a kid my role in the family was the "smart" one and i could use Ni to perpetuate that........ of course now that I think of it neither Ni nor Fe are very manly in the modern age of working class masculinity, lol, and ive definitely been focusing more on Fe lately for some reason

[UDP]

INTj --> ISTj --> (Ti subtype??) Ti favoritism (from a Ti perspective/base)
(but what would the other paths be?

?INTj --> ENTp--> (Ne subtype?) Ne favoritism (from a Ti perspective/base)


ENTp --> INTj --> (Ti subtype) Ti favoritism (from an Ne perspective/base)
ENTp --> ENFp --> (Ne subtype) Ne favoritism (from an Ne perspective/base)


Hmm.... I don't know if that makes sense or not, though. On a grand scale?
What do you think?


(It seems like the Ti INTj and the Ne ENTp would be more "pure-breeds", where as the other subtypes would be more cross/hybrids ?)

Comments anyone?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

INTj --> ISTj --> (Ti subtype??) Ti favoritism (from a Ti perspective/base)
(but what would the other paths be?

?INTj --> ENTp--> (Ne subtype?) Ne favoritism (from a Ti perspective/base)


ENTp --> INTj --> (Ti subtype) Ti favoritism (from an Ne perspective/base)
ENTp --> ENFp --> (Ne subtype) Ne favoritism (from an Ne perspective/base)


Hmm.... I don't know if that makes sense or not, though. On a grand scale?
What do you think?


(It seems like the Ti INTj and the Ne ENTp would be more "pure-breeds", where as the other subtypes would be more cross/hybrids ?)

Comments anyone?

I agree with this, but the Ti subtype of INTj seems to have a greater similarity to the Ti subtype of ENTp, rather than the Ne subtype and vice versa - if there's a scale, it should be:
INTj (T) -> INTj (N) -> ENTp (T) -> ENTp (N), but by ordering the similarity of subtypes IMO it's more like:

INTj (T) -> INTj (N) -> ENTp (N) -> ENTp (T) -> INTj (T)

(It hurts my head to think how I might move along each of those lines and which is more valid - e.g. if I consider that I'm using my Ti function, do I associate closest with the ENTp T subtype the most, or the N subtype one - it doesn't help that I don't know my subtype to begin with ).

[UDP]

I meant to post this sooner.......


___A__|___B__|___C___|___D__|
| | |
| | |

I agree with this, but the Ti subtype of INTj seems to have a greater similarity to the Ti subtype of ENTp, rather than the Ne subtype and vice versa - if there's a scale, it should be:

Your correlation is not what I'm getting at:
(perhaps because I addressed it incorrectly)

Ne is an alpha/delta function
Ti is an alpha/beta function.


If an LII focused more on , he would be more ENTp, and more towards Delta. Also, more towards Si and Ne, and futher away from Se
If an LII focused more on , he would be more ISTj, and more towards Beta. Also, more towards Se and Ni, and further away from Si.


(those 'also's are only secondary ideas.)

[Jonathan]

One possible ramification of all this is that a person's needs may be different based on subtype; for example, an extreme ESI Fi sutype may (in being sometimes a little like EII) have a greater need for Si from others.

[Exodus]

If an LII focused more on , he would be more ENTp, and more towards Delta. Also, more towards Si and Ne, and futher away from Se
If an LII focused more on , he would be more ISTj, and more towards Beta. [size=10]Also, more towards Se and Ni, and further away from Si.

UDP, wouldn't this be more symmetrical:

INTj-Ti is like ISTj.
INTj-Ne is like INFj.

That's the standard way of looking at it, anyway, I think.

[UDP]

Maybe... but do intuitive LIIs relate to that?

When I was having my more intuitive phases, I was definitely not any closer to EII... if anything, I feel closer to it now, as I've gone further into subtype-ism.

[Exodus]

Maybe... but do intuitive LIIs relate to that?

Not really.

That's a good point.

Maybe this all goes to show just how screwed-up subtypes really are.

[UDP]

It makes sense "to me", but I have a lot of other understandings that go along with it so I don't know where to begin explaining it.

[Expat]

I'm most likely on the far end of Fi subtype, lingering near the border between INFj and ISFj.

May I use you as an example?

Let us look at evanesce (still getting used to this nick) -- from VI, behavior and self-perception, she and most others thought that she was INFj, until some (including myself) thought she was more likely ISFj, and she herself also thought that the Stratiyevskaya ISFj profile described her much better than the INFj one.

So, the most likely explanation is that she's ISFj -- and even if she were INFj, she's anyway more likely to be seen as ISFj than other INFjs here. So one way of putting it is that she's a Fi IJ subtype; another one is that she's close to concrete Fi along the IJ temperament.

One definition then would be this -- "an ISFj-Fi is an ISFj more likely to be typed as INFj than an ISFj-Se, even as the ISFj-Fi and ISFj-Se remain the same type".

This "phenomenon" - if it can be called that - was spotted by Socionists, and that is why the subtype descriptions are helpful.

[Jarno]

I'm busy building a database of subtypes of the people I know.
So what I tell next is just my own experience.

I found the two distinctive subtypes to be most clear in ESFJ's

Subtype 1: 90% Fe and 10% Si
very submissive, a bit shy, more passive

Subtype 2: 60% Fe and 40% Si
little submissive, not shy and very vocal, more active

[Jarno]

This is kindof trivial. Don't think of subtypes as set categories; think of it as a continuum.

Well I have assumed that also a long time, but the more I notice, the more I get convinced that there are 2 distinctive subtypes.

[Exodus]

I'm busy building a database of subtypes of the people I know.
So what I tell next is just my own experience.

I found the two distinctive subtypes to be most clear in ESFJ's

Subtype 1: 90% Fe and 10% Si
very submissive, a bit shy, more passive

Subtype 2: 60% Fe and 40% Si
little submissive, not shy and very vocal, more active

Those descriptions should be switched. Why would more Fe result in less activity and more shyness?

[Jarno]

Those descriptions should be switched. Why would more Fe result in less activity and more shyness?

Yes you could be right.

By the way, do you recognize the differences that I described? What's your experience?

I've also noticed some differences in morality. The shy type being more often a liar. But i'm not really certain of it...

[Exodus]

I have noticed distinct subtypes of ESFj. I'm still trying to figure out which is which (!). I assume the more active, overtly emotional ("bubbly") ones are Fe subtype, and the quieter, calmer ones are Si subtype.

[FDG]

I have noticed distinct subtypes of ESFj. I'm still trying to figure out which is which (!). I assume the more active, overtly emotional ("bubbly") ones are Fe subtype, and the quieter, calmer ones are Si subtype.

reversed

[Exodus]

I have noticed distinct subtypes of ESFj. I'm still trying to figure out which is which (!). I assume the more active, overtly emotional ("bubbly") ones are Fe subtype, and the quieter, calmer ones are Si subtype.

reversed

That's why I'm confused. So you're saying the more "irrational"-seeming ones are Si-subtype? In that case, I get along better with Si-subtype ESFjs.

[UDP]

So you're saying the more "irrational"-seeming ones are Si-subtype? In that case, I get along better with Si-subtype ESFjs.

Wouldn't that make sense?

[Exodus]

So you're saying the more "irrational"-seeming ones are Si-subtype? In that case, I get along better with Si-subtype ESFjs.

Wouldn't that make sense?

Well, since Fe is associated with emotional expressiveness, I assumed that the more expressive ones were Fe-subtype.

[UDP]

I have noticed distinct subtypes of ESFj. I'm still trying to figure out which is which (!). I assume the more active, overtly emotional ("bubbly") ones are Fe subtype, and the quieter, calmer ones are Si subtype.

What would be more Si and irrational --

being emotionally all over the place, hugging, touchy feely, more sexually aggressive, more inclined to flirting
Or being restrained and proper, saying things in a very formal way, being very traditional in approach to most everything.

[Exodus]

I know very little about subtypes. I have only recently reached a point where I would consider them useful. That said, I will have to do more reading on the subject.