Variations within Types

[marmalade]

What variations do you notice in specific types? Socionics has sub-types for whether someone shows a stronger development of their dominant or their auxiliary. However, for this thread I'm not necessarily looking for sub-types in this sense. Type manifests differently in individuals, but there does seem to be patterns. Much of this probably has to do with functional development, but other theories could explain further differences. For instance, many people use the Enneagram to further distinguish within type. What are your personal observations? Or what theories on this have you come across?

[SolitaryWalker]

Originally Posted by marmalade

What variations do you notice in specific types? Socionics has sub-types for whether someone shows a stronger development of their dominant or their auxiliary. However, for this thread I'm not necessarily looking for sub-types in this sense. Type manifests differently in individuals, but there does seem to be patterns. Much of this probably has to do with functional development, but other theories could explain further differences. For instance, many people use the Enneagram to further distinguish within type. What are your personal observations? Or what theories on this have you come across?

In terms of how MBTI relates to Ennegram.

INTP:5-9
INTJ:1-5
INFP-4-9
ENFP-7-9
ENTP-7-9
INFJ-1-4

[nightning]

I don't know much about enneagrams to comment on that. What I do notice in various INTJs is the varying degrees of J vs P preference. A few of them are quite blunt and inflexible when it comes to doing things with other people... going with the flow. However there are others, while they have doubts about something, they are willing to try. I am unsure whether this relates to functional development or just more to do with gender.

As for INFJs, the people I know IRL that could possibly be INFJs are quite different from me in many ways... thus I'm not sure if I can sub-group them.

[rivercrow]

Spoto suggests a few different variants: simple, complex, and aberrant.

Yes, if you follow type development theory, then you will have different stages roughly corresponding to stage of life. This whole theory can be pitched, threatened, or augmented if you prefer temperament theories (not just Keirsey's, but all the pairings).

I'd not recommend using Enneagram to "tune" type. It's a different way of looking at the person, not at the MBTI type preference.

Rowan Bayne’s book _Ideas and Evidence_ collects some of the different theories (like Spoto's), but the book isn't near me at the moment. Maybe someone else will oblige with details.

Cheers! Welcome to the forum.

[marmalade]

Originally Posted by rivercrow

Spoto suggests a few different variants: simple, complex, and aberrant.

Yes, if you follow type development theory, then you will have different stages roughly corresponding to stage of life. This whole theory can be pitched, threatened, or augmented if you prefer temperament theories (not just Keirsey's, but all the pairings).

I'd not recommend using Enneagram to "tune" type. It's a different way of looking at the person, not at the MBTI type preference.

Rowan Bayne’s book _Ideas and Evidence_ collects some of the different theories (like Spoto's), but the book isn't near me at the moment. Maybe someone else will oblige with details.

Cheers! Welcome to the forum.

I have Bayne's book and Spoto's book, but I haven't looked at them recently. I remember Spoto's variants, but I don't remember what he said about them. I'll look them over again.

I'm not overly interested in Enneagram partly because I don't know it very well. I only mentioned it because its popular and many have looked at its connection with typology. I've heard someone say that MBTT is about fundamental personality and Enneagram is about motivations/coping strategies.

And, yeah, I'm interested in type development, but this is more variation in people at different times than variations between people. It could be variations between people the way that people don't all develop the same way or at the same speed.

I 've noticed many INTPs and INFJs on this forum. I'm familiar with differences between INFPs, but I'd like to hear others observations about other specific types. I'm less sure of INFJs, but there seems to be definite kinds of INTPs. INTJs I'm also less certain of. Any thoughts anyone?

[Littlelostnf]

Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker

In terms of how MBTI relates to Ennegram.

INTP:5-9
INTJ:1-5
INFP-4-9
ENFP-7-9
ENTP-7-9
INFJ-1-4

Ummm no ENFJ? What the heck ...do people always just conveniently forget we're N's...nevermind it's not like I don't know anyway.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by marmalade

What variations do you notice in specific types? Socionics has sub-types for whether someone shows a stronger development of their dominant or their auxiliary. However, for this thread I'm not necessarily looking for sub-types in this sense. Type manifests differently in individuals, but there does seem to be patterns. Much of this probably has to do with functional development, but other theories could explain further differences. For instance, many people use the Enneagram to further distinguish within type. What are your personal observations? Or what theories on this have you come across?

For myself, I have taken to heart the changes that MBTI are undergoing and researched quite a few other models. Of the ones I've looked at, I believe that the FFM model is the most complete model. As a result, I now use it as my baseline...

MBTI has recently adopted a similar view, going as far as adding the 5th trait for research (neuroticism/reactiveness/whateverispoliticallycorrect). It also has subdivided it's main traits, although I don't agree with the need to keep it so symmetrical, with 6 traits each.

I've come to realize that unlike the functional approach, people have four (five) independent dominant traits, made up of many sub-traits (4-6 in FFM, 6 in MBTI). This offers huge variation since the sub traits, while they tend to bunch together, are susceptible to environmental differences. A good example is how MBTI believes empathy and critical thought are mutually exclusive traits, whereas FFM has a blend of what would make up those two (it blends into 'need to express' and 'seeks engagement').

I don't know if that answers the question, but I don't see variants in type anymore, since that assumes type is accurate. I see variations in people, which requires a more robust model to measure and understand them.

[nightning]

Some random thoughts about "subtypes"... this kind of fits in to ptgatsby's idea of a spectrum model of temperaments...

Originally Posted by nightning

Idea on type modelling... what does subtypes mean in typology? Instead of trying to divide people up into subgroups per type... would it be more accurate to say depending on what point they're at in function development... they lean towards one ideal "type" more than another?

Think of the 16 types as being special points on a sphere... equidistance apart from one another. At different points in time, people can fall anywhere on that sphere based on their current function use. So overtime, you get an averaged "reading"... mean location of the sphere. Based on where that mean lies, you get your temperament "type". However, at any instance in time, a person can lean towards other types close to their focal temperament. E.g. INFJ... Ni Fe Ne Fi Ti Te Se Si... When they are young... developing Fe & Fi... they might have a tendency to lean towards ENFJ or INFP... when they are developing Ti, they can lean towards INTP or ENTP... and use of Ni Te would seem like INTJ.

Therefore MBTI would be merely a theory... we don't fit people to a temperament... we fit the average tendency of people to a temperament.

[SolitaryWalker]

Originally Posted by nightning

Some random thoughts about "subtypes"... this kind of fits in to ptgatsby's idea of a spectrum model of temperaments...

Temperament is insulated from scientific inquiry. At best we can test personality. We cant see temperament for itself because it is within our unconscious psyche. At best we could try and shed light onto it by observing the way it manifests itself through personality. We cant conclusively state that it does not exist because we are not in the position to be passing assessments something so far out of our reach.

[nightning]

Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker

Temperament is insulated from scientific inquiry. At best we can test personality. We cant see temperament for itself because it is within our unconscious psyche. At best we could try and shed light onto it by observing the way it manifests itself through personality. We cant conclusively state that it does not exist because we are not in the position to be passing assessments something so far out of our reach.

You're assuming such a thing as temperament has to exist! How do we know/provide evidence that we have that? The data in people so far suggests traits lies within a continuum. Unless you can prove people have discrete temperaments, such can only remain as a theory, not truth.