Four-type subtype theory

[Rebelondeck]

I'm quite sure that information processing is as varied as DNA. Many find it difficult enough to try to fit under one of 16 general categories let alone more. I think it would be quite an achievement to get accurate specifications for the 16 general types because, by definition, subcategories should all fit under the same general category; if not, the specification of the general category has to be wrong - one shouldn't be able get a building permit to add rooms to a house that's already on a shaky foundation....

a.k.a. I/O

[mclane]

I'm quite sure that information processing is as varied as DNA. Many find it difficult enough to try to fit under one of 16 general categories let alone more. I think it would be quite an achievement to get accurate specifications for the 16 general types because, by definition, subcategories should all fit under the same general category; if not, the specification of the general category has to be wrong - one shouldn't be able get a building permit to add rooms to a house that's already on a shaky foundation....

a.k.a. I/O

So far we have two-subtype and DCNH. There are so many factors that can add flavor to a type (not only socionics, but also enneagram-related) that the more that a person's type can be defined, the better. And still, like you say it is so varied since every person is different that you couldn't ever narrow it down 100% (but as an experiment, try to find two people that belong to the a same combined group from those I mentioned above, and you will find that they will be veeery similar).

This is a different (but complementary) theory all together. This theory attemps to merge the enneagram trifix (which is actually a quatrifix if the premise in this theory is true) theory with socionics.