I'm just posting this here. I think it's too short for an article and doesn't actually fully relate to my other articles, so I'm just posting it her so it doesn't get fully lost.
Types, subtypes, functions.
First of all, model A doesn't work, but you ought to know that by now, just restating the obvious. I've never really created another model to supplant it and I'm unlikely to ever do so. But there are some observations I've made.
The major thing is about concrete, abstract functions and primary functions.
1. It's very common that people find one function and temperament that fit them well, but have difficulty finding the other function (either accepting or producing).
2. From that position, the concrete function is one with which they have more certainty and there's a tendency to choose that one irrespective of how the person actually operates or what they value.
3. After a change in life people tend to vocally devalue and oppose their past functions. In some cases they claim that they've "ascended" them and are just building on them, while in fact having the other functions in complete (or close enough) disuse.
4. There tends to be idolization of the abstract function which one hasn't quite yet perfected and this seems to be a major part of dual (and other) attraction in some cases.
The end result of the above is that it's quite common to find people who display activity of e.g. ESTp type, and just keep claiming they're ENTp, because they feel they're "weak" at Se no matter how much they use it. Also they claim they're "strong" in Ne while mostly paying it lipservice.
As of yet there's no names for this phenomenon or the functions relating to it. One reason not to give names would be because the group of people that fit the above phenomenon remains a minority, though quite significant.
In most typings the above doesn't really matter. I don't give a fig whether someone is ISFp or INFp, Ip-Fe or Ip-Ni. I'm going to avoid them anyway. But when one gets close to someone or plans on getting close to someone, these small differences become important. Also, they become very important with identicals.
...
To me personally, the importance is as follows. I'm EJ-Te. I spend most of the hours in my day acting ESTj, but when I relax I go ENTj. What remains is consistent Te and I try to maximize my environment in the support of things Te related. I do quite fine with anyone who is very highly Fi. But there's people who are very highly Se who claim to have excellent people skills despite that they mostly resemble rumbling brutish thugs, and there's people who are very high on Ne and claim they have very good Fi/people skills, when they mostly seem abusive and whiny. The former group claims to care very highly about friends, just not when it's in any way in conflict with their Se. The latter group claims to just have really good skills in Fi, while it's more of a remnant, a dead shell and a habit, with no real substance behind it.
Now here's a problem I have. While I don't pay any attention in general to alphas or betas, when I meet people who are Ne or Se and claim to be Fi, it's more disappointing. I actually feel hurt more by superficial agreement than complete disagreeing. Basically, the difference between people who are high Fi and the people who are high Se is one quadra. It's the same as if I was strongly delta instead of just a bit, and someone came and claimed to be delta, while they were blatantly obviously alpha. It's annoying. And it's a problem in the model-A flavoured speech that it doesn't allow for discussing this effect.
With identicals there are different issues. The most major being the division of labour. While it's easy to divide tasks and information between two identicals when there's a significant subtype difference, and these relations can be very beneficial, there's more strain when you're very closely identical. There's more sympathy too, but sympathy can easily be overridden by rivalry.
...
Another issue, with just a bit of relation to this. I wrote a biography thread a while ago. If I remember correctly, I claimed that ESTj was my "earliest" type. Since then I've remembered some earlier things and there was a time that I was ENTj before that. That extends to my first memories, when I was 2 or 3. Now if this was my "natural birth type" and my "real socionics type" as claimed by some people... it would seem somehow odd that I have actually been primarily ENTj less than 1/3 of my life. Even more importantly, during my formative years in the early teenage when my identity was more or less created, I was ESTj and created an ESTj identity for myself.
OTOH having spent years in between acting like ESFj or ENFj, it does feel familiar and happy to return to my ESTj position. I continue to agree that there appears to be a significant "pull" towards a continuous personality state. It's just that when you meet someone, you won't know if they're in the identity they were a) born in, b) grew up to love c) are in the middle of a 20 year experiment from which they will one day revert to a or b.
That's it for today.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
- but - living in a nice big cosy house, it looks pretty good from the inside through the window...
