Subtypes

[mancroft]

According to:

http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=991

I am an INTp (N subtype).

What does N subtype mean?

Thanx.

[Creepy-]

dfds

[mancroft]

Thanks, very useful... and accurate.

[Cone]

I still think subtype theory is a load of crap. I mean, what makes someone "prefer" one function over another? And what's so great about Ni that isn't so great about Te? And when did we decide to start isolating the functions and ignoring their order?

[Creepy-]

sdfd

[Rocky]

I still think subtype theory is a load of crap. I mean, what makes someone "prefer" one function over another?

Who cares what the reason is? They just do, Cone.

Look, you might perfer Te over Ni, but that is only functionally. Your behavioural prefrences would still be introversion and perception, but you have to remember that those preferences are diffrent from your function (or logic/ethic, sensory/intuitive) preferences. I think that is one thing wrong with the MBTI; they treat all four as equals, and that leads to confusion.

In other words, you can be an irrationl introvert who has a preference for Te over Ni or you can be an irrational introvert with the prefernce for Ni over Te. This leads to 32 diffrent types, not 16.

[Cone]

Who cares what the reason is? They just do, Cone.

Now I have to deny your observations, because they have no correlations with what we already know. And what they are correlated to are certain dominant functions that supposedly encase a set of personality traits. So now we are defining personality, not psychological type. Why are we still believing that the functions are blocks of static information?

Here's another thing: I am supposedly an INTp, Intuitive subtype, thus I prefer Ni over Te. However, am I not attempting to discredit all forms of careless intuitive thoughts? I prefer to call myself an empiricist, so does that mean that I actually prefer Te? But I still fit the intuitive subtype much better than the thinking subtype.

I will not deny that there are certain divisions in the personalities of a psychological type, but I will deny that it has anything more to do with cognitive functions. An INTp still thinks like an INTp, different subtype or not.

[Slava]

What I've noticed about subtype is that one shows more tendency for a specific function than the other... for example here is my intuitive classification of some ENTp's

ENTP T-sub
Eric Cartman
Hanibal Lector

ENTP N-sub
Doc Brown
Kraimer (sp?) from Seinfeld

The trand is that the N subtypes are more spaced out and are less cold than the T subtypes who are extraverts but value their logic more. N subtypes seem to enjoy concepts more and T subtypes seem to enjoy logic more. T subtype ENTP's also seem to be more sociopathic and shorter and sometimes chubby, while N subtypes are taller and ectomorphic. Maybe T subtype ENTP is progression twards introversion without the function reversal. Introversion being due to lack of having hidden agenda met because of physical traits.

[Topaz]

Subtypes may exist but I have a hunch they are either circumstantial or conditioned responses. For example if Te is highly rewarded in your environment it may be favored over Ni which may not be. If a persons job requires a certain function a person may just be conditioned to using it more. You can apply that to family life where a person may spend his formative years being conditioned to use a certain function to cope until it becomes almost a reflex, even though it is not primary.
As an example my father is ESTx and my mother ISxJ. Neither could give me direction on my Ne function or even understand it. What I was rewarded for at home and in school was my use of Fi and Fe. As long as I made good judgment calls and was considerate they were happy. If one or both of my parents were intuitive I might have been influence much differently. Does that make sense?

topaz

[Rocky]

Topaz, you remind me of an Ethical-IEE friend of mine.

OK, I DON'T think the diffrence subclassifications within the type are circumstantial... I'm starting to think that they are inborn as well. Here is what I mean:

http://socionics.com/advan/isfpcelebs.html

I know two SEI girls whom I would consider diffrent subtypes. One of them, who I'd say is a sensory subtype, looks very much like Julie Delpy in the link above. The other one, the ethical subtype, looks very much like Emilie Dequenne. I'm talking BOTH in appearnce and facial expressions. I have also noticed that most people seem to fit (roughly) within two diffrent "looks" in each type. If these physical diffrences are subtype related, then it would make sense that you certianly DO have a specific subclassification within your type.

Here are some more physical seperations I can think of:

Logical-sensory Intratim (A)





Logical-sensory Intratim (B)





Whether this is related to subtype or not I'm not sure, but it would make a lot of sense considering the diffrences between the people in the same type.

(And I think Cartman is INTP and it's spelt "Kramer" :wink: )

[Topaz]

ADVISER

Intuitive subtype produces the impression of person, a little torn from the reality, internally concentrated and at the same time scattered. It is inclined to the unexpected contrasts of the behavior: shyness and apathy can be changed into by emotional lift, determination and activity, the melancholy expression of face - to voodushevlennoye or glad. Thoughtful and impulsive, optimistic and depressed, shy and energetic, it produces diverse impression. Internally contradictory, touchy and ranimyy, it hides its problems under the mask of lightheartedness. He tries to be affable with all, it attempts each to understand, to give presents by smile. It is attentive, soft and tactful, it locates to the confidence. Willingly it investigates the problems of others, he tries to find way out of the difficult situation, to give advice. It protects its views emotionally, it can show psychological pressure on the opponent. Motions are badly coordinated, impulsive, a little angular. Gait is rapid, somewhat clumsy. Chin is frequently sharpened, the view attentive, interrogative or astonished, penetrating.

IMPROVISATOR

The ethical subtype of artistichen, is impatient, a little extravagant. It is not predicted in its actions and statements. It loves to astonish or to entertain those surrounding, even insignificant events it can present as sensation. He frequently becomes the soul of the company: it is confident in itself, with a good feeling of humor, it is natural and it is very impulsive. It is characterized by sincerity and directness of child, who does not hide his feelings. It can create the almost domestic situation of contact even with the unfamiliar people. Willingly he speaks compliments, is enraptured by those surrounding. It is optimistic and friendly. Obayatelen is coquettish, but it is too straight-line and rash in statements and behavior. This produces the impression of the apparent accessibility or theatricality. At times it is energetic, by periods concentrated. It looks directly, attentively, without blinking. The motions are sharp, are decisive. The gait is swift, is confident, although it is a little angular. Frequently has rounded face, loves originally, also, with the taste to dress, to produce impression, to be pleased by that surrounding.

There are many different writings on subtypes. According to this I would probably identify more with the ethical subtype. However, before we run too far into the direction of saying subtype is connected with appearance we have to remember that there are many different looks for each type. I think you know this better than others due to your observational skills Rocky. I am refering to http://socionics.com/advan/vi/vi.htm
Therefore there may be more than two subtypes, perhaps even four. Socionics.com uses some very obvious examples to demonstrate a point but as you know there are many that are of those types that do not look like the celebrities shown here. Personally since I am not caucasian I only somewhat look like the celebs on the site.

topaz

[Rocky]

Yeah, I said that I wasn't sure if subtype was related to appearence. But, it is still clear that there are diffrent "looks" within the types (like the diffrent SEIs or LSIs as you can see), but it's possible that they are not related to your type. It was just a thought, because I saw two diffrent looks on two diffrent subtyped people. It is possible that the only purpose for these diffrent looks is to make VI slightley more complicated.

[aestrivex]

the idea of subtypes has always seemed to me to be rather strange. the problem with them is that there is no real explanation as to how they work.

assume for the sake of argument that model A is flawless in its entirety. given this assumption, the first and second functions have very specifically defined roles. specifically, the first function is an accepting function and has more use than the second function. the second function is a producing function, and is used less but expresses the will of the first function.

given all of this, how do subtypes factor in to the equation? the activities of the first two functions have already been meticulously defined, but now when the concept of subtypes is introduced it can be stated that either the first function is even stronger than described above in comparison to the second function or that the second function and first function are more equal and the second function is used for a wider variety of tasks. however, this sort of contradicts model A because model A has already defined the functions as having particular strengths and activities.

can anyone offer a suggestion as to the nature of subtypes compared to model A?

[Rocky]

the problem with them is that there is no real explanation as to how they work.

I would stay away from this line of thinking. Everything does not need a real explanation.

the second function is a producing function, and is used less but expresses the will of the first function.

I'm starting to realize that this is probably not true, inasmuch as everyone spends equal amounts of time in both their judging and perceiving sides.

can anyone offer a suggestion as to the nature of subtypes compared to model A?

No, but it's difficult to explain the problems with a system from within that same system. Subtypes assume that there is something wrong with models (which there is, always, with all models).

[MysticSonic]

"I would stay away from this line of thinking. Everything does not need a real explanation. "

Explanations are definitely nice.

[Creepy-]

the second function is a producing function, and is used less but expresses the will of the first function.

I'm starting to realize that this is probably not true, inasmuch as everyone spends equal amounts of time in both their judging and perceiving sides.

I've begun to agree a little more when it comes to things like that.

There is rationality and irrationality, in both j and p types. Yin-Yang, if you will.

[Rocky]

"I would stay away from this line of thinking. Everything does not need a real explanation. "

Explanations are definitely nice.

Except when you are talking about things that cannot be currently explained with the context available, like societial interactions, or in this case, subtypes. Subtypes are merely an "Oops... our model isn't perfect so we should warn you about it!" type thing, so obviously looking to the model can't explain the inconsistancies.

[betterthan]

Ok, lame question but...

What are subtypes?

Thanks.

[Phaedrus]

Ok, lame question but...

What are subtypes?

Thanks.

Something we should not bother too much about. They are rather irrelevant. Better to ignore them.

[Logos]

Something we should not bother too much about. They are rather irrelevant. Better to ignore them.

I happen to agree. They seem to exist merely to try and explain variations within a type, but they just add a somewhat needless additional dichotomy. Type descriptions should be broad enough to include "both" aspects.

[Creepy-]

I happen to agree. They seem to exist merely to try and explain variations within a type, but they just add a somewhat needless additional dichotomy. Type descriptions should be broad enough to include "both" aspects.

I sort of agree, but I think that having subtypes is helpful because it gives us the language to describe some of the differences between people of the same type.

[BLauritson]

I used to believe quite strongly in subtypes, although I'm less certain nowadays. I think they probably exist, but I think the importance is exaggerated. Sometimes I've seen debates about the types of two people and someone might say "Perhaps Person A is X subtype and Person B is Y subtype". I dunno, I'm not explaining it well, but I think if subtype is being used to explain anything more than a subtle difference between two people of a given type, then perhaps it's actually a difference in entire type (e.g. mirrors) rather than subtype. I dunno, my thinking on this varies a lot.

[Ms. Kensington]

I used to believe quite strongly in subtypes, although I'm less certain nowadays. I think they probably exist, but I think the importance is exaggerated. Sometimes I've seen debates about the types of two people and someone might say "Perhaps Person A is X subtype and Person B is Y subtype". I dunno, I'm not explaining it well, but I think if subtype is being used to explain anything more than a subtle difference between two people of a given type, then perhaps it's actually a difference in entire type (e.g. mirrors) rather than subtype. I dunno, my thinking on this varies a lot.

did you believe strongly due to personal experience?

Logos, i think if there is enough repetition of two distinct types within an overall type I dont think it has to be needless.

[BLauritson]

Sort of, yeah...it's like.. how to explain this. I think I used to believe strongly in the whole.. for example, Ni-ILI is closer to Beta, Te-ILI is closer to Delta, that sort of theory. And I think it arised out of a misunderstanding of what Fe really was. It's hard to explain.. I can think of examples of when I thought this but I'm kinda embarrassed about posting them because they're rather silly. And I also believed in myself being Ni-subtype purely because I noticed this was more predominant within me compared to Te. But then of course it is; I'm Ni-leading not Ni-creative. It's only fairly recently I've started coming to this sort of conclusion about it. But then...I don't know really. I mean, I don't think subtypes are completely non-existant, but I just think they're a lot more subtle than they're sometimes made out to be. Like I said earlier, what some people might attribute to a difference in subtype, I'm nowadays more likely to attribute to a difference in type. Like a girl I used to know who I thought was maybe ILI-Te. Yet having thought about it more recently, granted though that I didn't know her hugely well, but I think LIE would be more likely than just "ILI-Te". I know I'm not exactly making a solid case for it here, but I'm just becoming increasingly wary of over-emphasising subtypes. If they do exist, I would still claim that I'm Ni-subtype, but I still think that Socionics type should be more noticeable than subtype, not the other way around.

[Elro]

Subtypes may or may not exist, but that doesn't really mean much if you don't know what they are in the first place.

This has already been answered by Carla, but I wanted to try too because I thought she could have worded it in a less complicated manner. There are 16 types total, but the theory behind subtypes is that people vary enough within a given type that splitting the type into further categories can be useful.

For instance, of all ILEs, some will focus more on Ne, some will focus more on Ti, and some will focus fairly evenly on Ne and Ti. Then there will be three subtypes of ILE: ILE Ne subtype (ILE-Ne), ILE Ti subtype (ILE-Ti), and just plain ILE. Depending on how you interpret this, you can make other conclusions as well. An Ne ILE, for instance, might have a less prominent Fi PoLR, since he's closer to being an IEE (creative Fi) than an SLE (Fi PoLR). A Ti ILE, on the other hand, would have a particularly bad Fi PoLR for similar reasons (closer to SLE, which has a Fi PoLR, than IEE with creative Fi).

Using subtypes you can have a more continuous way of describing types. I really liked the way of illustrating this that ifmd95 used a while ago. Say, for EPs, there could be a loop like this:

EP-Ne (halfway between ILE and IEE)
ILE-Ne (slightly more ILE than IEE)
ILE
ILE-Ti (slightly more ILE than SLE)
EP-Ti (halfway between ILE and SLE)
SLE-Ti (slightly more SLE than ILE)
SLE
SLE-Se (slightly more SLE than SEE)
EP-Se (halfway between SLE and SEE)
SEE-Se (slightly more SEE than SLE)
SEE
SEE-Fi (slightly more SEE than IEE)
EP-Fi (halfway between SEE and IEE)
IEE-Fi (slightly more IEE than SEE)
IEE
IEE-Ne (slightly more IEE than ILE)
(repeats around to the beginning)

Similar loops could be made for IJs, IPs, and EJs.

The problem with subtypes (as people are probably mentioning above - I only skimmed) is that sometimes people will use them to fudge a type. Someone that self-typed initially as IEE and is really SEE might be typed as IEE-Fi so as not to have to retype that person completely. Also, I think niffweed once pointed out that subtype-lovers like to put, say, all ILEs in either Ne or Ti subtypes, when some are just purely ILE. ("ILE" is sometimes called ILE no subtype, but it actually is a subtype in the way I'm describing it here. There's just no unusual emphasis on either ego IM element.)

[Ms. Kensington]

see thats what i was confused about in the past. I don't think that an Ne ENTp is halfway between ENFp and ENTp. I think it's still in the type of ENTp. I think the way it was worded can be confusing precisely because it's easy to confuse the types as continuums. If the subtypes are more static, there is less confusion.

[Jarno]

see thats what i was confused about in the past. I don't think that an Ne ENTp is halfway between ENFp and ENTp. I think it's still in the type of ENTp. I think the way it was worded can be confusing precisely because it's easy to confuse the types as continuums. If the subtypes are more static, there is less confusion.

exactly.

subtypes aren't continuums, they are static, therefor I do think they are important. Although their impact on types behaviour and relationships is clearly smaller then main types themselves have.

[reyn_til_runa]

exactly.

subtypes aren't continuums, they are static, therefor I do think they are important. Although their impact on types behaviour and relationships is clearly smaller then main types themselves have.

but nothing is a continuum in itself. a continuum is what can be perceived as a result of something being placed in a context which necessitates this "thing" interacting with other "things" in the proximity. for example, if you are asked to rate your happiness on a scale of 1 to 10, is 1 a frown and 2 a pout? of course that is not the intention. things, when viewed in relationship with other things, seem to become part of continuous change.

[FDG]

I don't think that an Ne ENTp is halfway between ENFp and ENTp. I think it's still in the type of ENTp.

The two concepts are completely compatible.