Determining my subtype

[FarDraft]

Deleted.

[Beautiful sky]

If it’s possible to have two subtypes based on your main two functions isn’t it possible to have a million or so based on your society upbringing parents schools personal experiences and personal impressions on your psyche?

[FarDraft]

If it’s possible to have two subtypes based on your main two functions isn’t it possible to have a million or so based on your society upbringing parents schools personal experiences and personal impressions on your psyche?

Perhaps, but that concept would be useless in practice since each factor of your past couldn't be catalogued into a logical theory. Socionics isn't meant to explain every aspect of your personality but the basic aspects of your cognition; subtypes based on functions are useful for specifying those mechanisms.

If it were the case, then we wouldn't have a theory, we would have a database since the purpose of a cognition theory is to synthesize the factors that lead to particular cognitive preferences. A subtype for each factor would be useless.

[Beautiful sky]

Perhaps, but that concept would be useless in practice since each factor of your past couldn't be catalogued into a logical theory. Socionics isn't meant to explain every aspect of your personality but the basic aspects of your cognition; subtypes based on functions are useful for specifying those mechanisms.

If it were the case, then we wouldn't have a theory, we would have a database since the purpose of a cognition theory is to synthesize the factors that lead to particular cognitive preferences. A subtype for each factor would be useless.

If we are then looking at practice uses of cognitive types it is best to stick with the first two functions rather than hashing out subtype and subtypes to subtypes. Also I see a lot of Te in you. What usefulness are are implying specifically?

[vesstheastralsilky]

Do you have an expressive pic?

[FarDraft]

If we are then looking at practice uses of cognitive types it is best to stick with the first two functions rather than hashing out subtype and subtypes to subtypes. Also I see a lot of Te in you. What usefulness are are implying specifically?

What I mean is that socionics is a theory built around determining one's cognitive preferences and abilities. We use functions to measure these. A two subtype system allows us to more precisely delineate the types without the difficulty of introducing too many variables; therefore, they should allow us to type people more accurately, which makes for a more useful system (up to a point). The line we draw in determining how many subtypes we have is arbitrary but should be based on how accurate they allow us to type others and how little they debilitate the system. In other words, having a million subtypes may be incredibly accurate but would also not be useful since we no longer have a theory but rather a sequence of data points we use to describe an individual.

[FarDraft]

Do you have an expressive pic?

I don't, and I'm skeptical of typing individuals based on out-of-context or candid photos. I'm willing to post a video or answer questions, though.

[vesstheastralsilky]

I don't, and I'm skeptical of typing individuals based on out-of-context or candid photos. I'm willing to post a video or answer questions, though.

A video could help. It doesn't have to be more than 5 minutes as long as you are feeling lively enough.

[FarDraft]

A video could help. It doesn't have to be more than 5 minutes as long as you are feeling lively enough.

I'm not sure I can be lively, lol. Why does it have to be lively?

[Chakram]

The way I view it, is that if you are (for example) an ILI-Te, then quite simply, your Te is going to be more pronounced and more equal to your base function, while suppressing your Fi and slightly enhancing your Se, almost like rearranging the elements without actually doing so. Is there an actual scientific way of demonstrating this? Maybe, if we had enough information and examples, but currently it's really just conjecture. As are IEs.

[vesstheastralsilky]

I'm not sure I can be lively, lol. Why does it have to be lively?

[vesstheastralsilky]

A Te subtype per my archetypes would make you the Natural Scientist/Philosopher subtype, kind of monk-like in speculations.

The Ni subtype is like a data or linguistic auditor who is always checking for what is present and what is missing ... Kind of like Pat Sajak from Wheel of Fortune.

The reason for this per my research is the Ni is more security oriented like Cancer archetype in search of what is pure and waxing and waning with realizations and recognitions like Cancer's ruler the Moon. The Te subtype is definitive with a more Libra archetype in that it seeks intimate understanding and intellectually equitable harmonies.

This post is wholly dependent on my own research findings rather than reciting subtype definitions others have devised. I don't know how well my thoughts align with what's out there, on that note.

[FarDraft]

The way I view it, is that if you are (for example) an ILI-Te, then quite simply, your Te is going to be more pronounced and more equal to your base function, while suppressing your Fi and slightly enhancing your Se, almost like rearranging the elements without actually doing so. Is there an actual scientific way of demonstrating this? Maybe, if we had enough information and examples, but currently it's really just conjecture. As are IEs.

Socionics can never be scientifically verified or falsified since it's not an empirical theory. It's all a conjecture, like you said. Whether subtypes are useful for expanding on its original ideas is therefore the more important question. By that definition, I think it's possible I have the Te subtype, but I'm not sure about suppression of Fi. I can be quite good at understanding close interpersonal relations and value acting on my proper understanding unless it isn't the priority. For example, I may understand the nuances of a person's feelings based on what they say or how they act and will act accordingly unless it's in a business situation or something like that where individual feelings matter less.

[vesstheastralsilky]

To be clear, it is not Ni that is Cancer but the introverted emphasis on an introvert that is Cancerian in nature.

[Beautiful sky]

What I mean is that socionics is a theory built around determining one's cognitive preferences and abilities. We use functions to measure these. A two subtype system allows us to more precisely delineate the types without the difficulty of introducing too many variables; therefore, they should allow us to type people more accurately, which makes for a more useful system (up to a point). The line we draw in determining how many subtypes we have is arbitrary but should be based on how accurate they allow us to type others and how little they debilitate the system. In other words, having a million subtypes may be incredibly accurate but would also not be useful since we no longer have a theory but rather a sequence of data points we use to describe an individual.

You should give yourself Te then because you use a lot of it.

[Beautiful sky]

Yes please tell us in what ways you’re a critic-the archetype of ILI

Also I would like to know how often you make plans and where do you typically direct your energy towards.

I don't, and I'm skeptical of typing individuals based on out-of-context or candid photos. I'm willing to post a video or answer questions, though.

[The Reality Denialist]

According to my understanding DCNH extrapolates the traits outside of group representation and generalizes them. I have problems of understanding exact formation process so I assume that so called group behavior was just an initial stage of theory forming.

Therefore there are supposedly going to be dominant normalizing subsubtypes who are going to take the role of dominant in N & N relations (which are supposedly to be very common) as there are going to be more submissive normalizing subsubtypes. It means power distribution is almost never going to be equal between individuals. The level where DCNH supposedly operates is difficult to say. I'd say look at the representation. If the person is idiosyncratic in terms thinking and in society in comparison to other type members then it is going to be C etc.

[FarDraft]

Yes please tell us in what ways years a critic-the archetype of ILI

Also I would like to know how often you make plans and where do you typically direct your energy towards.

While the critic is just a label, I would say it describes my mentality pretty well. Essentially, I won't believe someone unless they can convince me beyond a reasonable doubt with logic and evidence that something is true. For example, if someone is making an argument that some character acted in a certain way in a novel because of R reason, they must provide ample evidence E and precise explanations for how E leads to R. Moreover, they must explain why E doesn't lead to a different reason R2 or if it does then why R2 isn't correct. In other words, I expect very precise explanations and conclusions from people who claim something to be the truth in an academic setting. I'm more lax in casual settings since it's unwise to assume people have such preparation, but I have no problem continually poking logical or practical holes in another person's idea or plan. I have very high standards for determining truth.

I make plans quite often (many per day). I like an efficient use of time, so I think through what needs to be done and how long it should take. Moreover, I think through alternative and contingency plans should there be an unexpected event. I plan since it's usually more effective than improvising - I'm also better at planning than I am at improvising. This is the main reason why I concluded that I have Ne ignoring - I can use it in private but struggle to use it in public under pressure.

Most of my energy is directed inwards - I spend most of my time reading, thinking, planning, and writing. However, my goals are related to the outside world - I want to lead a corporation to make significant profits in the future. I study in the present to make sure I'm competent enough in the future (type 5 motivation). Overall, I'm a pretty passive person since most of the things I do are enclosed to myself. In the future, though, I know that I'll have to be more active in the outside world should my ambitions become a reality.

EDIT: I want to make clear that I'm definitely capable (and rather strong at) reading between the lines but that in some circumstances we need rigour, precision, and high standards in order to confirm truth. This can be logical or empirical depending on what is required. E.g. in math, logic is obviously the most important. In science and all other real world scenarios, logic is a tool used to connect pieces of evidence so empiricism is more important.

EDIT 2: In retrospect, I don't think I plan so much as I look ahead. I'm constantly thinking about the order in which I should do things so as to minimize time as well as what's needed for each task. These are "plans" since I have to make some decisions beforehand, but they're mostly just "future-conjectures".

EDIT 3: I don't think my use of the word plan was correct. I'm not actually a very structured person even though, in retrospect, it feels like my wording indicates that I am. It's much more just seeing out which order I should do my work. Less strict planning or structuring at all.

[FarDraft]

You should give yourself Te then because you use a lot of it.

I know that but I'm not sure if I'm willing to accept the consequences of suppressed Fi HA and enhanced Si role. I'm also not sure if my more planned nature is related to enhanced Ni or enhanced rationality since those are both interpretations of where planning comes from. Many of my plans are long-term and perhaps somewhat idealistic, but I also like to make efficient use of time in the present, which is why I plan in the short-term as well.

[FarDraft]

According to my understanding DCNH extrapolates the traits outside of group representation and generalizes them. I have problems of understanding exact formation process so I assume that so called group behavior was just an initial stage of theory forming.

Therefore there are supposedly going to be dominant normalizing subsubtypes who are going to take the role of dominant in N & N relations (which are supposedly to be very common) as there are going to be more submissive normalizing subsubtypes. It means power distribution is almost never going to be equal between individuals. The level where DCNH supposedly operates is difficult to say. I'd say look at the representation. If the person is idiosyncratic in terms thinking and in society in comparison to other type members then it is going to be C etc.

Sorry to gloss over all you have written (I understand it, but it is mostly irrelevant to this thread), but basically looking at intertype relations is more useful for DCNH?

[myresearch]

ILI-Ni has stronger Ni,Ne,Fi,Fe, ILI-Te has stronger Te, Ti, Se, Si compared to ILI with no subtype. I think it is important to consider everything (functional strength, behavioral change, subtype description). I also think ILI-Te will appear less IPish. I think if you think that your type fits you like a glove than you may not have a subtype. Do you think ILI descriptions fit you perfectly? If not, in what aspects?

[Beautiful sky]

How far ahead do you usually plan?

While the critic is just a label, I would say it describes my mentality pretty well. Essentially, I won't believe someone unless they can convince me beyond a reasonable doubt with logic and evidence that something is true. For example, if someone is making an argument that some character acted in a certain way in a novel because of R reason, they must provide ample evidence E and precise explanations for how E leads to R. Moreover, they must explain why E doesn't lead to a different reason R2 or if it does then why R2 isn't correct. In other words, I expect very precise explanations and conclusions from people who claim something to be the truth in an academic setting. I'm more lax in casual settings since it's unwise to assume people have such preparation, but I have no problem continually poking logical or practical holes in another person's idea or plan. I have very high standards for determining truth.

I make plans quite often (many per day). I like an efficient use of time, so I think through what needs to be done and how long it should take. Moreover, I think through alternative and contingency plans should there be an unexpected event. I plan since it's usually more effective than improvising - I'm also better at planning than I am at improvising. This is the main reason why I concluded that I have Ne ignoring - I can use it in private but struggle to use it in public under pressure.

Most of my energy is directed inwards - I spend most of my time reading, thinking, planning, and writing. However, my goals are related to the outside world - I want to lead a corporation to make significant profits in the future. I study in the present to make sure I'm competent enough in the future (type 5 motivation). Overall, I'm a pretty passive person since most of the things I do are enclosed to myself. In the future, though, I know that I'll have to be more active in the outside world should my ambitions become a reality.

EDIT: I want to make clear that I'm definitely capable (and rather strong at) reading between the lines but that in some circumstances we need rigour, precision, and high standards in order to confirm truth. This can be logical or empirical depending on what is required. E.g. in math, logic is obviously the most important. In science and all other real world scenarios, logic is a tool used to connect pieces of evidence so empiricism is more important.

[Beautiful sky]

I know that but I'm not sure if I'm willing to accept the consequences of suppressed Fi HA and enhanced Si role. I'm also not sure if my more planned nature is related to enhanced Ni or enhanced rationality since those are both interpretations of where planning comes from. Many of my plans are long-term and perhaps somewhat idealistic, but I also like to make efficient use of time in the present, which is why I plan in the short-term as well.

You seem to consider the whole picture am I correct?

[FarDraft]

You seem to consider the whole picture am I correct?

That's difficult to say. I definitely zoom out and consider the evolution of the whole picture, but I think that to fully understand a system it requires zooming in and examining all of its moving parts, deriving the big picture from the details. A top-down approach works to answer some questions and a bottom-up approach works to answer others. That being said, I do frequently consider the whole picture.

[Beautiful sky]

Sorry to gloss over all you have written (I understand it, but it is mostly irrelevant to this thread), but basically looking at intertype relations is more useful for DCNH?

Do you work somewhere now currently? I would like you to criticize or find examples of criticism that you have come up with for people in your work

[Beautiful sky]

That's difficult to say. I definitely zoom out and consider the evolution of the whole picture, but I think that to fully understand a system it requires zooming in and examining all of its moving parts, deriving the big picture from the details. A top-down approach works to answer some questions and a bottom-up approach works to answer others. That being said, I do frequently consider the whole picture.

Does this apply to you? "Sometimes you pay so much attention to certain jobs that this waste of time and energy can lead you to become fatigued and even to lose interest in the work. "

[Beautiful sky]

My conclusions: you are definitely not without erudition

[Chakram]

Socionics can never be scientifically verified or falsified since it's not an empirical theory. It's all a conjecture, like you said. Whether subtypes are useful for expanding on its original ideas is therefore the more important question. By that definition, I think it's possible I have the Te subtype, but I'm not sure about suppression of Fi. I can be quite good at understanding close interpersonal relations and value acting on my proper understanding unless it isn't the priority. For example, I may understand the nuances of a person's feelings based on what they say or how they act and will act accordingly unless it's in a business situation or something like that where individual feelings matter less.

Te subtype would be unlikely if your Fi is better than the average ILI. If you think your preferences are towards sensing over intuition, you should reconsider your typing obviously. An ILI-Te would simply be a more LIE-ish ILI, with weaker Fi.

[FarDraft]

Te subtype would be unlikely if your Fi is better than the average ILI. If you think your preferences are towards sensing over intuition, you should reconsider your typing obviously. An ILI-Te would simply be a more LIE-ish ILI, with weaker Fi.

I'm definitely certain of being an intuitive type. The only sensing type I would consider is LSI, and I don't think it's likely since I have an LSI friend who is very different than me in terms of cognition and behaviour. I'm thinking about Ni subtype because of the stronger Fi, but I would still need to contemplate more before deciding.

[FarDraft]

Does this apply to you? "Sometimes you pay so much attention to certain jobs that this waste of time and energy can lead you to become fatigued and even to lose interest in the work. "

I guess it applies in the sense that the more I pay attention to things, the more futile I see them to be. Thus, it feels like I waste effort whenever engaging in a project I think too much about. I'm a pretty negative person (part of the reason I rejected the excessively positive LIE), so when I spend too much time thinking and not enough time doing, I see the negative in any action I could be taking; essentially, the opportunity cost always seems so high when considering the big picture. So, I find it difficult to take action. Being impulsive in this sense matters since otherwise I wouldn't ever get anything done.

[Beautiful sky]

I guess it applies in the sense that the more I pay attention to things, the more futile I see them to be. Thus, it feels like I waste effort whenever engaging in a project I think too much about. I'm a pretty negative person (part of the reason I rejected the excessively positive LIE), so when I spend too much time thinking and not enough time doing, I see the negative in any action I could be taking; essentially, the opportunity cost always seems so high when considering the big picture. So, I find it difficult to take action. Being impulsive in this sense matters since otherwise I wouldn't ever get anything done.

I have no doubt you are a negativist type. It certainly comes through in your skepticism

[Chakram]

I'm definitely certain of being an intuitive type. The only sensing type I would consider is LSI, and I don't think it's likely since I have an LSI friend who is very different than me in terms of cognition and behaviour. I'm thinking about Ni subtype because of the stronger Fi, but I would still need to contemplate more before deciding.

You could also just be regular ILI, no subtype. There's bound to be fluctuations in strengths of IEs for people of the same type, even if very slight.

[Sol]

> Let's assume that I'm an ILI

let's assume that Socionics works and ILI should not be attracted to base Fe types, unlike LII and you
even your avatar is not what ILI would prefer

subtypes theory is not developed enough for practical use
the only "subtypes" which fit to normal theory are the degrees of functional balances and differences in functional strenghtes. the other is baseless bs

damn. it's base T type who behaves unreasonably. *sigh* what the mess can to be at other types...

[Tallmo]

If i remember correctly you seemed like Creative subtype in your video.

[The Reality Denialist]

I think Gulenko wrote that harmonizing and normalizing subtypes tend to keep very large interpersonal distances between each other.

If most people are like alien does it make one H subtype? Since most people are N types.

[FarDraft]

If i remember correctly you seemed like Creative subtype in your video.

Do you mean C subtype in DCNH or creative function (Te) subtype?

[Tallmo]

Do you mean C subtype in DCNH or creative function (Te) subtype?

DCNH

[FarDraft]

> Let's assume that I'm an ILI

let's assume that Socionics works and ILI should not be attracted to base Fe types, unlike LII and you
even your avatar is not what ILI would prefer

subtypes theory is not developed enough for practical use
the only "subtypes" which fit to normal theory are the degrees of functional balances and differences in functional strenghtes. the other is baseless bs

damn. it's base T type who behaves unreasonably. *sigh* what the mess can to be at other types...

Sol, I'm not going to let you determine my type. Your continually repeating the same (fallacious) arguments won't convince me otherwise. Also, none of the reasons I've given to denounce your typing have been unreasonable. I value using logic and facts to make my arguments, and I've poked holes into every theory you've provided me. Never have I used emotional manipulation or arguments from sentimentality.

However, I feel the need to respond although I understand that I'll never be able to reason with you. I've never completely denounced the possibility of LII. I even said that some think I'm Ti but I'm ignoring that possibility for the sake of simplicity in this thread. I also understand that I have many traits that are stereotypically LII; that doesn't make me an LII, though, since that would ignore my obvious ILI traits and it would also assume that socionics types could be determined by traits, which they reliably can't.

The fact is that I personally value Ni Te Fi Se more than Ti Ne Si Fe. Unless you provide reason or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to show otherwise, I will not take your judgment as valid. You seem to be making socionics less about the functions and more about random patterns you've observed to which you've given arbitrarily decided and unprecedented amounts of significance. I would be fine with this if we weren't dealing with a system based upon axioms that needs to be consistent and reliable in order to be useful. For example, typing someone by their avatar is ridiculous since there's no reason to assign such significance to such a minor decision and then overlook the major pieces of evidence in support of something else. That's being confirmationally biased and it makes your argument wrong. I'm not trusting this reasoning. I like the game of go, so I've set it as my avatar. I'll give an example of when it's ok to use high level patterns to your advantage later.


Your IR test has a number of holes which is why I can't trust it. Firstly, how do you know that each person is actually their own type? Secondly, a self-reported standard of "attractiveness" has inherent human biases e.g. physical attraction vs "psychological" attraction. I can't say I actually "like" someone until I know them personally since different functions can have the same behavioural manifestations. Thirdly, people in these videos need not actually be themselves. Thus, using the types we associate to them for typing is unreliable - we can only use them for fun or general interest. Fourthly, in real life, I have met many people who are obviously Fe base. I find them overwhelming and unattractive due to them trying so hard to get other people to like them. If I'm honest, I don't find Se base very attractive either since it's too impulsive and controlling. This is completely fine because duality is not about attraction, it's about individuals who value the same functions in a different order, meaning that one individual can help the other in the areas they are weak. It is not the end-all-be-all of romantic or psychological relations nor should it be idealized to that standard. It's just another intertype relation.

Have you actually every played go? If so, then you'd know that even though the rules are simple (like mathematics), the game is not about logical consistency or precise logical conclusions (Ti). The board is way too big to allow for that. Instead, the game is about patterns observed over time and making efficient decisions. Talk to any go player and they will agree with you in this regard. Chess, I will agree, is almost the quintessential Ti game since there are strict rules and the board is small enough to essentially calculate what exactly would happen in the future. This isn't Ni since Ni isn't about calculation but rather intuition - seeing patterns and then applying them in correct ways to get a general idea of what will occur in the future. Go is NiTe; chess is Ti. By the way, the example I was mentioning earlier is Go.

Also, I want to hear a response from you in this thread. I don't think you've done that before, meaning that you've never actually supported your arguments. You can see this as an official challenge.

EDIT: I know I said I wouldn't edit this, but I should add this. There are some very precise elements to go like the tactics involved. In this sense, the linearity and precision of Ni come in handy. However, for high-level strategy, the intuition and linearized leaps are entirely Ni.

I've also slightly changed my perspective on Ni and Ti, which leads me to think that chess is more NiTe than Ti, like go. There's quite a bit of linear projection and detail orientation which are things that Ti types may not enjoy in general.

[Beautiful sky]

Sol, I'm not going to let you determine my type. Your continually repeating the same (fallacious) arguments won't convince me otherwise. Also, none of the reasons I've given to denounce your typing have been unreasonable. I value using logic and facts to make my arguments, and I've poked holes into every theory you've provided me. Never have I used emotional manipulation or arguments from sentimentality.

However, I feel the need to respond although I understand that I'll never be able to reason with you. I've never completely denounced the possibility of LII. I even said that some think I'm Ti but I'm ignoring that possibility for the sake of simplicity in this thread. I also understand that I have many traits that are stereotypically LII; that doesn't make me an LII, though, since that would ignore my obvious ILI traits and it would also assume that socionics types could be determined by traits, which they reliably can't.

The fact is that I personally value Ni Te Fi Se more than Ti Ne Si Fe. Unless you provide reason or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to show otherwise, I will not take your judgment as valid. You seem to be making socionics less about the functions and more about random patterns you've observed to which you've given arbitrarily decided and unprecedented amounts of significance. I would be fine with this if we weren't dealing with a system based upon axioms that needs to be consistent and reliable in order to be useful. For example, typing someone by their avatar is ridiculous since there's no reason to assign such significance to such a minor decision and then overlook the major pieces of evidence in support of something else. That's being confirmationally biased and it makes your argument wrong. I'm not trusting this reasoning. I like the game of go, so I've set it as my avatar. I'll give an example of when it's ok to use high level patterns to your advantage later.


Your IR test has a number of holes which is why I can't trust it. Firstly, how do you know that each person is actually their own type? Secondly, a self-reported standard of "attractiveness" has inherent human biases e.g. physical attraction vs "psychological" attraction. I can't say I actually "like" someone until I know them personally since different functions can have the same behavioural manifestations. Thirdly, people in these videos need not actually be themselves. Thus, using the types we associate to them for typing is unreliable - we can only use them for fun or general interest. Fourthly, in real life, I have met many people who are obviously Fe base. I find them overwhelming and unattractive due to them trying so hard to get other people to like them. If I'm honest, I don't find Se base very attractive either since it's too impulsive and controlling. This is completely fine because duality is not about attraction, it's about individuals who value the same functions in a different order, meaning that one individual can help the other in the areas they are weak. It is not the end-all-be-all of romantic or psychological relations nor should it be idealized to that standard. It's just another intertype relation.

Have you actually every played go? If so, then you'd know that even though the rules are simple (like mathematics), the game is not about logical consistency or precise logical conclusions (Ti). The board is way too big to allow for that. Instead, the game is about patterns observed over time and making efficient decisions. Talk to any go player and they will agree with you in this regard. Chess, I will agree, is almost the quintessential Ti game since there are strict rules and the board is small enough to essentially calculate what exactly would happen in the future. This isn't Ni since Ni isn't about calculation but rather intuition - seeing patterns and then applying them in correct ways to get a general idea of what will occur in the future. Go is NiTe; chess is Ti.

@Sol is TeSi so he often values behavior in others but I have also tried to communicate to you sol that one must not type by behavior. Behavior of people changes by many circumstances. Type is based on functions. Please observe functions.

[Beautiful sky]

Please excuse him he types on behavior and idealistic expectations