• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Is the subtype system pointless?

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,039
MBTI Type
NiFe
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...

I think it is possible to pretty much prove it. There does seem to be a correct answer to the question of what type a person is (though I've found that there are some complications to the question), and if people can be validly typed, then it becomes possible to determine the nature of the social chemistry empirically, even by simply doing an observational study of who tends to hang out with who, but then preferably having a way to also determine which pairings are best energetically.

It's difficult to properly determine type, especially if you're not sure of your own type. I've had times when I thought that the socionics pairings were correct, but then I realised I had the typings wrong. I used to think I was an ISTJ, so when I noted that I knew quite a few ENFPs, I thought that that validated the socionics model, but after realising I was an INFJ instead, then the evidence for the model was reversed. Now I notice that I seem to hang out only with Feelers irl. INFJ, ENFP, ENFJ, ESFP. And I'm much better at typing people than I used to be. So I believe in the model of Feelers getting on best with other Feelers etc. rather than Fe getting on best with Ti. There seem to be communication issues with myself and INTPs, and I think it's the difference in prioritising of Thinking that is responsible for that. Of course my sample size is too small to really base conclusions on scientifically.
 

Pioneer

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
58
I think it is possible to pretty much prove it. There does seem to be a correct answer to the question of what type a person is (though I've found that there are some complications to the question), and if people can be validly typed, then it becomes possible to determine the nature of the social chemistry empirically, even by simply doing an observational study of who tends to hang out with who, but then preferably having a way to also determine which pairings are best energetically.

It's difficult to properly determine type, especially if you're not sure of your own type. I've had times when I thought that the socionics pairings were correct, but then I realised I had the typings wrong. I used to think I was an ISTJ, so when I noted that I knew quite a few ENFPs, I thought that that validated the socionics model, but after realising I was an INFJ instead, then the evidence for the model was reversed. Now I notice that I seem to hang out only with Feelers irl. INFJ, ENFP, ENFJ, ESFP. And I'm much better at typing people than I used to be. So I believe in the model of Feelers getting on best with other Feelers etc. rather than Fe getting on best with Ti. There seem to be communication issues with myself and INTPs, and I think it's the difference in prioritising of Thinking that is responsible for that. Of course my sample size is too small to really base conclusions on scientifically.

Isn't this logic you are using circular?

If you find out others' types through your own self-typing, but then change your self-typing because of your relations with others, which came first? The chicken or the egg? Your typing or others'?

For what it's worth, you do come across as an ILE to me. Intuition of possibilities backed up by a flexible theoretical logic. I know you weren't asking for it, but there you go. :)
 

Doctor Cringelord

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
20,567
MBTI Type
I
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
If you find out others' types through your own self-typing, but then change your self-typing because of your relations with others, which came first? The chicken or the egg? Your typing or others'?

Ah yes, you're referring to the eternal dilemma (or paradox?) in typology communities.

I see this a lot on socionics boards, people saying things like "this person is my dual because I like them" or "you can't be X type because it doesn't fit the intertype relations with Z type" or similar circular sort of statements justifying their typings of themselves and others based on supposed intertype relations.

Unless there were some way to prove ones' type beyond any doubt, I don't think this sort of reasoning will ever go away. It's all built on very shaky ground. Maybe I should just stick to Big 5 and alignments.
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,039
MBTI Type
NiFe
Isn't this logic you are using circular?

If you find out others' types through your own self-typing, but then change your self-typing because of your relations with others, which came first? The chicken or the egg? Your typing or others'?

For what it's worth, you do come across as an ILE to me. Intuition of possibilities backed up by a flexible theoretical logic. I know you weren't asking for it, but there you go. :)

No, the logic's not circular. I didn't say that I base others' typings on my own, or that I base my own typing on that of others. There's a bit of checking with the social dynamics of type to see if typings make sense, but that can only come from already having an idea of what those dynamics are.

No, I base my own typing from observing my thought processes in terms of cognitive functions, as well as applying methods I use for typing others, such as: identifying function order in forum posts, identifying vocal signals, overall personality assessments, vibes, reminders between people (the reminders between people indicate that two people are likely the same type, not what their type is, so it's not circular either). My self-typing is actually incredibly solid, not really up for debate.

When looking through some of your posts, I got an impression of INFJ. I was seeing Ni-Fe and Ti-Se posts, the post quoted here being a Ti-Se post (logic followed by actuality).

asynartetic said:
Unless there were some way to prove ones' type beyond any doubt

I've pretty much accomplished this. It took me 7-8 years but I have basically become certain. There are the occassional doubts as to whether my reasoning was correct, but I'm able to check it again and those doubts subside.

(the main doubt I have is as follows: people aren't purely one type or another, but rather have a primary type, as well aspects of the other types, some more than others. It's also possible to activate the cognition of a secondary type temporarily, potentially even using it a lot. So the doubt is that maybe I've gotten it so deeply in my mind that I'm an INFJ, that I've ended up using INFJ cognition so frequently that I end up being indistinguishable from an INFJ, when I'm really some other type. I don't see that as a reasonable possibility though.)
 

Norrsken

self murderer
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Messages
3,633
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I don't know, but I like it, somehow.
I just don't like how hyped up the type descriptions sound.
 

Doctor Cringelord

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
20,567
MBTI Type
I
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
people aren't purely one type or another, but rather have a primary type, as well aspects of the other types, some more than others. It's also possible to activate the cognition of a secondary type temporarily, potentially even using it a lot.

I've speculated this might be the case, that type might be a lot more fluid and less static than is widely believed in the typology community.

Although on the other hand an argument could be made that we have one type and this supposed fluidity is just a result of personal growth as we age and mature into more rounded individuals.
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,039
MBTI Type
NiFe
I've speculated this might be the case, that type might be a lot more fluid and less static than is widely believed in the typology community.

Although on the other hand an argument could be made that we have one type and this supposed fluidity is just a result of personal growth as we age and mature into more rounded individuals.

Well yeah, even if we're all purely on type each, there's still fluidity, because everyone has all 8 functions to some degree, and could use more of any given one of them than usual at any time.

The difference is in function sequences. Can we change the order of functions, such that we start with something other than the dominant, yet such that it takes the role of the dominant? And so on.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
775
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
-
Psychology itself is a pseudoscience, for lack of a better term, much like history or economy.
I strongly disagree with this, judging it at least literally incorrect understanding.
The term psychology consists of two word, Psyche and greek "logos" . Psyche loosely defined as the soul, logos, a greek word for reason.

But I do think that some so called scientist wants to put it into scientific observations and claimed it to be their psychology which might make the subject has totally lose its meaning.
It may have been the scientist problem anyway that they wish to develop theoretical explanation observed empirically to psyche. It must have been the scientific method that scientist wants to follow that makes them not to be able to answer their problem. Therefore, The problem should be returned to the scientist.
They should realize that scientific method, even if followed, would not make the scientist able answer all questions. Scientist rely on getting to conclusion by observation, experimentation of observable by the five senses data, but I wonder whether they have raised the question whether the psyche is observable? hence they would be correct, when they decided to follow the scientific method to study the psyche.
They should raise the question if scientific method was followed, would they be able to answer psychological questions?. So, I question the reason behind following scientific method for studying the psyche. They should realize that it is human behavior that is observable, so they can follow their scientific method just to study human behavior. If they insisted, I would suggested to change the name of their science become a behavioral science; not to use the term psychology anymore so that they won't confuse themselves.
The foundation of socionics, as with any other system of Jungian typology, is the assumption that repression is real and that we are led by unconscious thoughts.
Is that a Freudian repression that you mean? If that is so, I comment AFAIK, although Jung once followed Freudian psychoanalysis, Jung was no longer in agreement with Freud eventually. Historically Jung left Freud to develop his own psychology. However, I don't really know which Freudian teaching that Jung completely abandon nor whether there are remaining freudian teaching that Jung still adopted. If we want to answer it, we should do some research.
Those are assumptions that may turn out to be wrong,.....
Unfortunately, you did not make clear which ones that you identify as assumptions and reason why they were wrong. I guess you may have only been getting suspicious.
 

raskol

New member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
220
I strongly disagree with this, judging it at least literally incorrect understanding.
The term psychology consists of two word, Psyche and greek "logos" . Psyche loosely defined as the soul, logos, a greek word for reason.
That line of reasoning constitutes an etymological fallacy, as psychology in its contemporary context has nothing to do with the original construction of the term. It is as pointless as claiming that Islamophobes suffer from a phobia or that botulism is a mere "ism."

... I question the reason behind following scientific method for studying the psyche. They should realize that it is human behavior that is observable, so they can follow their scientific method just to study human behavior. If they insisted, I would suggested to change the name of their science become a behavioral science; not to use the term psychology anymore so that they won't confuse themselves.
Behaviorism was the attempt to churn out an empiricist and reductionist understanding of psychology, but it turned out to be even less scientific than its predecessor. Neuroscientists have been able to point out direct correlations between brain activity and mental states, from "flow" to "deep focus," which ultimately renders behaviorism rubbish.

Is that a Freudian repression that you mean? If that is so, I comment AFAIK, although Jung once followed Freudian psychoanalysis, Jung was no longer in agreement with Freud eventually. Historically Jung left Freud to develop his own psychology. However, I don't really know which Freudian teaching that Jung completely abandon nor whether there are remaining freudian teaching that Jung still adopted. If we want to answer it, we should do some research.
Anyone involved with socionics, or Berens's and Beebe's models for MBTI, relies on Freudian assumptions. As Viktor Gulenko put it in his elaboration on Model A, the "ego, superego, super-id and id ... are analogous to the components of the human psyche elaborated on by Sigmund Freud. The only difference is the fact that Sigmund Freud never examined the super-id block, which is the antipode of the superego."

Unfortunately, you did not make clear which ones that you identify as assumptions and reason why they were wrong. I guess you may have only been getting suspicious.
I was referring to every assumption, from repression in general to the unconscious and subconscious to mental states in the form of function blocks. I can't know whether they are actually there, but I can study the theoretical model that relies on them (Model A, B, G, or T) and consider the conclusions. And since socionics is highly predictive, I can pragmatically utilize the theory without necessarily accepting all of its underpinnings.

As for the subtype system, I don't see how it adds very much to either model, since there is already extensive wiggle room within the type itself.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
775
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
-
That line of reasoning constitutes an etymological fallacy,
it doesn't seems so.

as psychology in its contemporary context has nothing to do with the original construction of the term.
Which one are the "contemporary psychology" you refer to? what you refer to as a psychology may be not psychology at all. Who recognizes the your term "contemporary psychology that you mean" as a "true psychology" anyway? May be just you.

As long as don't refer to the meaning of the "psyche" and "logy", no true psychologist will recognize it as a psychology. As long as they fail to understand the psyche, it is not a true psychology. It can only be as I said "a behavioral science" that explains nothing more than a human behavior. In the end, behavioral scientist could only predict how human behave; but not the psyche.
I elaborate more about my points.
Psychologist examines psycho-phenomena like Jung's consciousness and unconsciousness, memory, Freud repressions, dreams. How do we say we are conscious of something? how do we say we are unconscious of something; that's their investigations. Memory, dreams , consciousness, repressions can't be observed using the five senses.
What problem that behavioral scientist wish to investigate? are they the same as a the psychologists?


It is as pointless as claiming that Islamophobes suffer from a phobia or that botulism is a mere "ism."
Nope. This sounds more like a false analogy fallacy.

I argued what you referred to as a psychology is not a recognized psychology since the method that they follow actually cannot be followed to learn about psyche.Scientist following Scientific method may only be able learn behavior; but not the psyche.

You should not confuse between science and Psychology. They are not the same.

Behaviorism was the attempt to churn out an empiricist and reductionist understanding of psychology, but it turned out to be even less scientific than its predecessor.
Then?
Neuroscientists have been able to point out direct correlations between brain activity and mental states, from "flow" to "deep focus," which ultimately renders behaviorism rubbish.
Then?

Anyone involved with socionics, or Berens's and Beebe's models for MBTI, relies on Freudian assumptions. As Viktor Gulenko put it in his elaboration on Model A, the "ego, superego, super-id and id ... are analogous to the components of the human psyche elaborated on by Sigmund Freud. The only difference is the fact that Sigmund Freud never examined the super-id block, which is the antipode of the superego."
I was referring to every assumption, from repression in general to the unconscious and subconscious to mental states in the form of function blocks. I can't know whether they are actually there, but I can study the theoretical model that relies on them (Model A, B, G, or T) and consider the conclusions. And since socionics is highly predictive, I can pragmatically utilize the theory without necessarily accepting all of its underpinnings.
I have no comment about socionics and enneagram, Beebe.
But for Isabel Briggs Myers MBTI, it was Jung Psychological types that Myers refer to and develop further the MBTI. I have never read Myers even mention Freud's name. Myers can't have referred to freud's teaching.
About the mental states with every functions, some hint that you should note that, When you are not aware of the states of mind, it signifies that you are not conscious of it. You should consider that the functions are useful for self identification.

But some comment of your own usage of theory. Is there anyone who force you to accept about all that you refer to as "assumption", and "underpinnings" anyway?
 
Last edited:

GavinElster

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2017
Messages
233
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Legion said:
The difference is in function sequences. Can we change the order of functions, such that we start with something other than the dominant, yet such that it takes the role of the dominant? And so on.

My own take has tended to be that I think one does functionally have the ability to change through life. It's kind of like an organism trying various strategies and finding the balance between what works against circumstances + is still consistent with oneself.

But, I tend to think if there is such a thing as a core identity to the organism, there's a 'genuine' type behind it all.

Overall, that's the same take you seem to find among the Jungian analysts. Daryl Sharp seemed to generally be of the view he's an introverted sensation type with auxiliary thinking. But he comments that there were various points in life when other functions functioned as dominant (including thinking at one point and introverted feeling at another).
Von Franz says similar things about people she experienced/how as new functions enter development, it is actually important they remain at the forefront for some time to undergo some differentiation.
And of course, Jung himself commented that the type is nothing static/changes through the course of life.

It's probably similar to the general answer one can give to 'is there continuity of identity' -- we can scarcely even make a claim without assuming some continuity, and yet there is a sense that it is a theoretical assumption at the end of the day.

I think with enneagram, I probably was pretty 1-ish at points, but I do think we settle into a 'deeper pattern' at some point, and my sense is mine is 6-ish...the deeper pattern is also a lot harder to get out of, because it is so well rationalized that it 'works' for us at some very core level.
 

Merced

Talk to me.
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
3,599
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
28?
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Socionics is janky and we as a society should do more to roast it.
 

raskol

New member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
220
it doesn't seems so. ... As long as don't refer to the meaning of the "psyche" and "logy", no true psychologist will recognize it as a psychology. ...
I am not expressing an opinion. What I am telling you is twofold, relating as much to the use of language as it does to the evolution of concepts through time. Whoever attempts to pick apart the meaning of a term by searching for its original meaning in its etymology is committing a logical fallacy.

Psychology means the science and study of behavior and mind. That's it. And since psychology doesn't rely on objectively measurable foundations, it can never attain the methodological rigor of any of the hard sciences. Beyond the rhetorical hyperbole, this is the distinction I am looking to underscore.

What problem that behavioral scientist wish to investigate? are they the same as a the psychologists?
The behaviorists created a branch of psychology that attempted to introduce the standards of the hard sciences into the sphere of the soft sciences--and failed miserably.

I have no comment about socionics and enneagram, Beebe.
But for Isabel Briggs Myers MBTI, it was Jung Psychological types that Myers refer to and develop further the MBTI. I have never read Myers even mention Freud's name. Myers can't have referred to freud's teaching.
This is the socionics subforum, so you ought to consider the Freudian context in socionics in order to be prepared for these interactions.

Is there anyone who force you to accept about all that you refer to as "assumption", and "underpinnings" anyway?
For a theory to be applicable in a given context, its underpinnings must be solid enough to pass scrutiny. In other words, every adherent of MBTI and socionics is either tacitly or explicitly embracing concepts such as the unconscious, repression, cognition through "functions," etc.

What I have pointed out is that I am ready to suspend skepticism as regards the veracity of either of these terms as applied in socionics, as I am primarily embracing its practical application. But if I am forced to solely consider the theory's explanatory power, I will have to admit that it regards the kind of soft science that wouldn't stand the test of methodological rigor.
 

Drunkstein

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Messages
37
Enneagram
5
Does there exist any strong case for the subtypes? I like the idea but I haven't seen any compelling arguments in favor of them. I am referring to the 2 subtype system, not the DCNH subtypes.

I don't understand what you are saying by 2 subtype systems and not dcnh, I thought they were the same. Anyway, subtype system is pointless. Are you an ESTJ who likes Si better or are you an ISTJ who likes Te better... come on

Actually this is a criticism I have of socionics in general. I've noticed that a lot of the hard core proponents use a kind of circular logic in their justification of socionics as more scientific than MBTI--when you ask someone to prove their assertions, they revert to theory to prove their theory.

I don't think hardcore proponers take the subtype system too seriously and I don't think socionics is more scientific, I just think it's closer to jung and jung is more respectable 'cause he was a professional and myers was just an enthusiast. When Jung typed people, it was based off over 20 years of observation and working with real patients. Furthermore myers briggs descriptions over the internet got overshadowed by stereotyped description made by even more amateur people who sort of pull it out of their imaginations. example: ESTPs are jocks, ENFPs are gay, INTJs are psychopaths, ISTJ are working drones, ESFJ is your mom, ESTJ is your boss..I mean, come on

I don't really care what Gulenko or some other "expert" says, since they're really just presenting a model based on their very subjective understanding.

1st: Gulenko is the most mbtier of all socionist, his model very much differs from augusta who has dropped socionics some time ago. 2nd: everyone have their own subjective understanding of things, so I don't know what was your point there exactly. Are you saying someone like Dario Nardi has a less subjective understanding of typology? cause if you are I'm gonna start laughing.

So convince me the subtypes are real, and while you're at it, 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.

Ok, so here is the thing: 1st subtypes are BS, when Jung typed people, say a Ti dom. Let's say a Ti dom with a mild preference for Ne as auxiliary (INTP). Then mbtiers/socionists go and say "ah that's very similar to an ENTP" cause of Ne dom and Ti aux. Well, no it's not. An introverted rational type is very much different from an extraverted irrational, at least in this sense socionics go "oh let's call this one INTj then, makes more sense" and it does. Jung believed your main type is the very first function, mbti and modern socionics kinda give too much importance to the 2nd function.

So you take some of the original descriptions and compare:

Jung Si: subjective perception through sensing (artists: Si-Fe, weird people Si-Te)
socionics Si: bodily sensations, homeostasis, etc (ISFp, ISTp)
mbti Si: doing things by the book(???), being conservative (???), having nostalgia about the past (???)...ISFJ, ISTJ

jung Te: objective reasoning, science, conclusion
socionics Te: objective logic, pragmatism, efficiency, mcgyverism
mbti Te: efficiency, leadership qualities (???), achievement orientation(???)

jung Ni: prophetic vision, surreal inclination, sixth sense (mystic artist:Ni-Fe, mystic thinker: Ni-Te)
socionics Ni: intuition of time(?), perception of development of things over time, dynamic perception
mbti Ni: daydreaming(??? wait, didn't mbtiers say that was Fi also?), evil look (???), conquering the world(???)

So you see, I'm sure both systems ended up going their own ways, I prefer socioncis for reasons of making more sense and the only times it doesn't is when enthusiasts (as in mbti) start to make stuff up. Reinin for instance is a guy who made a lot of stuff up with those asking vs declaring, strategizing vs making tactics, etc. Whenever I see things go off, I go back to the roots and try to get what was the main principle, 'what was actually observed that we can say it is a difference in personality and it is related to that specific function or psyche state?'

So how scientific are these systems overrall? Taking the example of Ti again. So imagine you're Jung back then trying to figure out what is wrong these crazy bastards then you start to find a pattern. He sees that whenever the person was using too much of this function (Ti), the psyche sort of compensated by extraverted feeling in an archaic manner, that grabs the user somewhat subconsciously (meaning, he/she don't realize they are doing it), then this person who is usually very calm and collected and introverted starts to throw a child tantrum, which he called "inferior function", in this case inferior Fe. And he figure that by "balancing" the person out, instead of overly using that onesided Ti, balancing their perspective by making them consciously experience feeling judgment makes them go back to normal. But since there is an hierarchy in the psyche of each particular type, he had to go through the steps (make the person aware of (overly)thinking, then intuition then sensing and only then feeling, if he jumps immediately to feeling it's too hard on the person's psyche, they feel uneasy because it's unusual territory in a way.

Jung believed, in fact he told a story where opposite types naturally attract, about the Se guy who was fishing and his Ni girlfriend who was a noob ended up fishing better than him, anyway it's on one of his interviews you can find on youtube. In this sense socionics and their intertype relations are also close to Jung, the concept of duality etc. Mbti on the other hand either don't use it or it does in that other weird system where all the supposed unconscious functions are your "go to" type, for ex: INFP and ENFJ. Or the even stranger keirsey method INTJ-ENFP (socionics types these as supervision relations and I agree because I can observe the same, the ENFP (usually female) is on a disadvantageous psychological position compared with her INTJ partner and it doesn't seem like an ideal realation.

But at the end of the day, Jung said type wasn't static, it can change over time and later on he even came up with the "transcendent function" with the idea of breaking out of your type, similar to what Ichazo was originally doing with enneagram, trying to break the fixation. Of course nobody followed that and instead preffered to take pride on their type but whatever...

Anyway going back to the scientific aspect, they say the only scientific system accepted by the "scientific community" is the big five. They pick random characteristics (some of them even overlap with mbti) and go with it. My main problem is with the "neurotic" aspect. They figured in today society this is kinda of a personality trait, while Jung perceived neuroticism as what I told you above the inbalance between antagonistic functions (Ti-Fe, Si-Ne, etc). And if big five is going to include neuroticism, why not narcissism?, psychoticism? This trait seems to be a bit random IMO but I guess they were trying to fix the problem with the over generalization between T and F that mbti had, for instance thinkers who are sensitive and feelers who are more thick-skinned, so they came up with neuroticism, and having high levels of it means you are thin-skinned and low levels means you are more chill.

Not to sound condescending, I just have yet to see a good explanation. Every "expert" seems to have a drastically different explanation of socionics.

This is a problem with every system, mbti, enneagram, etc. Enthusiast who haven't gone deep start pulling things out of their a%¨¨ and making strange stereotypes and assessments. So, not trying to appeal to authority, in fact I love when people have their own thoughts and opinions but at least try to understand it more deeply before deciding. I recommend Bukalov, if you can find some interviews, he worked with Augusta and as far as he explained the theory on quadras was actually put to test many times between groups and is not just random theory. Gulenko is the most popular but I think he's gone a bit far off, like I said before I think he is the most mbtier of the known socionists. Oh and definitely stay away from World Socionics Society, they don't know what they're doing, the guy even reads off from wikisocion while making videos, pretending he is an expert. At least change one or two lines to make it more believable, Jeez! Hey I'm an expert in dinosaurs, wanna see?

Dinosaurs are a diverse group of reptiles[note 1] of the clade Dinosauria. They first appeared during the Triassic period, between 243 and 233.23 million years ago, although the exact origin and timing of the evolution of dinosaurs is the subject of active research. They became the dominant terrestrial vertebrates after the Triassic–Jurassic extinction event 201 million years ago; their dominance continued through the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods. Source: Me, I swear
 

GavinElster

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2017
Messages
233
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Ok, so here is the thing: 1st subtypes are BS, when Jung typed people, say a Ti dom. Let's say a Ti dom with a mild preference for Ne as auxiliary (INTP). Then mbtiers/socionists go and say "ah that's very similar to an ENTP" cause of Ne dom and Ti aux. Well, no it's not. An introverted rational type is very much different from an extraverted irrational, at least in this sense socionics go "oh let's call this one INTj then, makes more sense" and it does. Jung believed your main type is the very first function, mbti and modern socionics kinda give too much importance to the 2nd function.

So this issue is pretty complicated (despite there being a tremendous truth to the idea that Jung emphasized the dominant very strongly) and I wanted to say a bunch to make it clear for those unfamiliar with the issues -- that is, the issue of how much Jung really thought of the auxiliary as a kind of distant second to the dominant, versus essentially seeing you in terms of your top two functions. I'd say the presentation of the main portraits in Ch. X of Psychological Type as well as some of his remarks in Ch. X were very consistent with that; for instance, he often referred in his portraits to the 3 functions besides the dominant being corrupted by the unconscious (as in, say, the intuition, sensation and feeling of an introverted thinking dominant type).

I'd say the best interpretation I come away with is that this is true in principle, but that in practice, he seemed to very much think 2 functions end up conscious and differentiated in a relevant sense. And his star pupil von Franz makes similar remarks to the effect that it can be so tough to tell the difference between a thinking>intuitive and intuitive>thinking type that one might just have to look to the inferior to decide.

Jung said:
The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first.


So there, it's clear he's going with the 'one function only is conscious' and emphasizing the dom>>>>all perspective. However, Jung was not the most consistent writer, and you often have to read him cautiously in many places to find his meaning. For example, after swearing to only one function being conscious, he clearly writes otherwise:

Jung said:
A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect, whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition.

in his discussion of the realistic practical cases involving a developed auxiliary. Note the plural of functionS.
And note the mention of conscious 'practical intellect' or ST. This is clearly a stark difference in attitude to what he displays when discussing, say, a Ti-dom, where he considers the functions besides thinking (that is, besides the dominant) to be of an extraverted character, due to the extraverted character of the unconscious

Jung said:
The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed.

Note that it is FAR from the case that Jung necessarily thought that the functions besides the dominant take on the attitude of the unconscious. Rather, in the case of Nietzsche, who is typed as an introverted intuitive dom in Ch. III, he is clear both in Ch. III as to his 'introverted intellectual' (how Jung writes Ti) side as well as in Ch. X, reiterates the strongly introverted character of his auxiliary thinking:

Jung said:
Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counterexample of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper.

Further, one should note the frequent willingness to reference an instance of auxiliary function X as a type X (e.g. a thinking auxiliary as a thinking type), something he is only willing to do frequently for the first 2 functions.

So all said, I'd certainly say it's not anti-Jungian to worry that it's hard to distinguish, say, a N-dom from a T-dom if the 2 functions are well-developed.
 

Lavos

New member
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
17
MBTI Type
ENTP
(the main doubt I have is as follows: people aren't purely one type or another, but rather have a primary type, as well aspects of the other types, some more than others. It's also possible to activate the cognition of a secondary type temporarily, potentially even using it a lot. So the doubt is that maybe I've gotten it so deeply in my mind that I'm an INFJ, that I've ended up using INFJ cognition so frequently that I end up being indistinguishable from an INFJ, when I'm really some other type. I don't see that as a reasonable possibility though.)

How did you come up with this idea? Have you observed this?
 

???

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
107
MBTI Type
?
Enneagram
954
Does there exist any strong case for the subtypes? I like the idea but I haven't seen any compelling arguments in favor of them. I am referring to the 2 subtype system, not the DCNH subtypes.
...

Actually there is. It's taken from Jung and his 8 types of one-sidedness in Psychological Types. So the first type is usually associated with neurosis as a strong focus on introversion or extroversion. While the second type is more balanced.
 

???

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
107
MBTI Type
?
Enneagram
954
And I know it's not what you asked about, but just as a reference, DCNH I think is an attempt by Gulenko to further explain more situational behavior of types. That might not seem very useful, but it's just a question of whether a certain type focuses on Ti/Fi (subjective/introverted rationale), Ne/Se (objective/extroverted irrational perceiving), Fe/Te (objective/extroverted rationale), or Ni/Si (subjective/introverted perceiving) separate from type.

And since it's obviously too easy to miscontrue someone's type based off of a given DCNH typing, it's more of a cursory subtyping system and it surprises me to see Gulenko for example typing Elon Musk as LSI with a DCNH focus on Ne when LSI are Ne polr. That subtype system can contradict typing in general and seems more than a bit suspect in its abstract usefulness.
 
Top