Is the subtype system pointless?

[Legion]

I see, so could an ENFJ 3 look like an ENTJ?

I don't know, but an ENFJ could look like an ENTJ if they used a lot of Thinking, e.g. subduing emotional expression a lot with Ti.

[Peter Deadpan]

Ultimately, it's probably all pointless.

[GavinElster]

convince me socionics is not just pseudo science dressed up with a lot of nice graphs and charts to make it appear more science-y than MBTI or other typological systems.

I don't call it pseudoscience, but I call it philosophical, rather than scientific, at a certain point, and I tend to think psychology is necessarily this way at a certain point, because we don't yet (if we ever will) have a purely physical explanation for what's going on in the mind.

I think some aspects of typology do their share to be more data-driven, and hence at least strive to fall under the category of soft science, but a lot of Jungian-based stuff isn't data-driven, and I sincerely doubt almost any model that is nice, symmetric, and uses the 8 function-attitudes or a similar idea is truly even soft scientific.

But I do find it has some power to describe things if one doesn't take the experts too seriously and is somewhat organic. After all, the very words in the dictionary that are fed into the lexical analysis of the Big 5 are human-invented, not exactly based on data-driven statistics, but rather probably more organically on usefulness in conveying an idea. I'd view some of the typological frameworks in terms of such conceptual usefulness -- and take a lot of the more specific claims made with a grain of salt.



As for your question on subtypes, I see no reason to stop with the 16 types -- there is no question in my mind that some people of say a NT type seem more intuition driven and others more logic driven. Intuition is a relatively preconscious process, more associative and less structured. The idea was present already in Jung to think in degrees, and e.g. Jolande Jacobi, a Jungian analyst, remarked that where Kant is a more 'pure' thinking type, Schopenhauer is a more intuitive thinking type. From my point of view, this idea is just too natural to disregard.

The idea is also present in most of the genuinely soft scientific systems in the sense of there being degrees of strength of preference. If anything, I think stopping at some number of types is what pays too much deference to a particular brand of system.

On the other hand, if you mean the more specific claims made about socionists about how, e.g., the Ne subtype of LII involves all these other intricate claims about other functions ('IE') and so on, yeah I think that gets too restrictive/arbitrary.
My test is always if the idea is well-motivated. I don't accept many 'brute facts' in typology, because it just ain't a hard science like biology. It had better make some conceptual sense (vs I'm willing to accept certain physical facts are just facts without necessarily thinking there's a deeper answer as to why).

[Legion]

One problem with the term "sub-type", is that sub-types aren't types. By type I mean that a person is either one type, or another type, not somewhere in between. So, there is no "spectrum" of ambiversion between INFJ and ENFJ for instance. You're either an INFJ, an ENFJ, or some other type. The reason that type works like that is because it is based on largely discrete processes (the cognitive functions) which each play a specific role, and have a sequential manifestation. So, going back to INFJ and ENFJ, you either use Ni then Fe and so on, or you use Fe then Ni and so on. There's not really an in between zone to that*.

With sub-type however, it seems more like a spectrum. A particular INFJ might use a standard amount of Ti, a bit more than standard, a lot more, a bit less, or a lot less. There's no non-arbitrary cut-off point for where one becomes the other, except possibly for an equilibrium point that defines standard usage (so "more than standard" versus "less than standard" might work, but it's still not as strong a distinguishment as INFJ versus ENFJ etc.). So it's more of a trait-system for each type, rather than actual types.


* though you can probably talk about in between zones by considering the person as a superposition of each of the 16 types, maybe some quantum uncertainty, and probably other "advanced" theoretical ideas

[Pioneer]

I don't know, but an ENFJ could look like an ENTJ if they used a lot of Thinking, e.g. subduing emotional expression a lot with Ti.

I doubt it.

Ti and Te are very different, and so are Fi and Fe, in socionics. This isn't MBTI, where F/T preferences matter more than quadra values.

EIE and LIE bith have creative in model A however, so that could cause a resemblence.

[Legion]

I doubt it.

Ti and Te are very different, and so are Fi and Fe, in socionics. This isn't MBTI, where F/T preferences matter more than quadra values.

EIE and LIE bith have creative in model A however, so that could cause a resemblence.

Ti and Te are very different. You don't need to specify which system you're using.*

However, when trying to type someone, you might pick up on dichotomies rather than functions. ENFJ with heavy Ti may appear like a Thinker, so could have an E+N+T+J appearance. It's less common with ENFJ, but there are many INFJs who think they're INTJs or get typed as such by others, and the same could happen with ENFJ and ENTJ being confused for each other.


* actually, ENFJ and ENTJ are more similar according to the function order that socionics proposes, because ENFJ has conscious Te according to that model, as opposed to Ti, so the difference is predicted to be greater in the MBTI-esque approach than the socionics one.

[Pioneer]

@asynartetic. You should explain more what do you mean by subtypes

AFAIK there isn't a wealth of great information on the subject of subtypes, but you could start here if you want to learn more : Subtype - Wikisocion.

[Pioneer]

Ti and Te are very different. You don't need to specify which system you're using.

However, when trying to type someone, you might pick up on dichotomies rather than functions. ENFJ with heavy Ti may appear like a Thinker, so could have an E+N+T+J appearance. It's less common with ENFJ, but there are many INFJs who think they're INTJs or get typed as such by others, and the same could happen with ENFJ and ENTJ being confused for each other.

Ok yeah, I suppose that's true, I'm just saying it's better to look at functions in these types of cases to solve the confusion.

I myself used to think I was EIE/ENFJ for a while until it became clear to me I valued and not even if I still use alot of F.

I would also like to add that an LIE/ENTJ who is an subtype will be more in touch with their and thus may be more likely to be mistaken for an EIE/ENFJ due to more developped F (if people are looking at dichotomies and not functions). An ENTJ who is a subtype will be more in touch with their and will more likely resemble LSE/ESTJ, with weaker F and stronger S (again if you're looking just at dichotomies).

Several people have typed me as ENFJ for example, but I think only once did I get ESTJ. On the 16t forums, the user Sol types me as ENFJ because I use alot of F (he types based on dichotomies).

[Legion]

I myself used to think I was EIE/ENFJ for a while until it became clear to me I valued and not

Since it's basically on-topic, what's your reasoning for supposing that people value either Te and Fi, or Fe and Ti? I know "it's what socionics says", but are you able to confirm that the hypothesis is true?

From my experience, the idea that people are energised by both Fe and Fi, or both Ti and Te, seems to hold more weight.

[Pioneer]

Since it's basically on-topic, what's your reasoning for supposing that people value either Te and Fi, or Fe and Ti? I know "it's what socionics says", but are you able to confirm that the hypothesis is true?

From my experience, the idea that people are energised by both Fe and Fi, or both Ti and Te, seems to hold more weight.

Well, it's just based on experience and observation. (which seems to be your experience as well)

Like I said in one of my above posts, I don't think a "hyposthesis" in psychology can be proven because it's a "human" science and thus not subject to experimentation. So observation along the course of life is the closest we get to testing a hypothesis in psychology, since reproducing the same conditions in order to test a hypothesis would be problematic...