What do the subtypes mean?

[Smilephantomhive]

What do the subtypes mean? How important are they to the overall type?

Would an IEI-Fe act more extroverted than an IEI-Ni? What makes both of these types different?

 

[Yama]

From my understanding (I could be wrong), an IEI-Fe would be more "Fe-heavy" and an IEI-Ni would be more "Ni heavy."

Take me and [MENTION=24479]themightyfetus[/MENTION] for example. We are both SEI types, but I'm SEI-Si and she's SEI-Fe. fetus is much more visibly Fe than me, while I'm more passive and reliant on my Si then my Fe. Both types use both Fe and Si of course, but they are both more comfortable with one function over the other.

 

[Dr Mobius]

What do the subtypes mean?

It's a small distinction; it was the first instance of socionics admitting that people (And by that I mean almost everyone.) simply didn't fit the behavioural patterns set out. The distinction is Process (irrational focus) and Result (rational focus). For example a IEI Ni will have a slight preference for methodology over result, while an IEI Fe will will have a slight preference for finishing/end result. Think of it as the difference between someone using MBTI saying I'm 100% P versus someone saying they're 60% P.

How important are they to the overall type?

It has become at best gimmicky. Purists consider it a waste of time, the numerologists, the gulenko fanboys, the model b fanatics all have theories that propose significant deviation. It's popularity is more due to its buzzword/jargon nature.

Would an IEI-Fe act more extroverted than an IEI-Ni? What makes both of these types different?

It would be best to throw out the concept of extroversion/introversion; it has never worked particularly well with socionics. It is both too unspecific, and yet also when applied rains havoc within many socionic concepts. In theory the difference in demeanour would be small with the rational focus being a tiny bit more organised and productive.

 

[Kierva]

It's a small distinction; it was the first instance of socionics admitting that people (And by that I mean almost everyone.) simply didn't fit the behavioural patterns set out. The distinction is Process (irrational focus) and Result (rational focus). For example a IEI Ni will have a slight preference for methodology over result, while an IEI Fe will will have a slight preference for finishing/end result. Think of it as the difference between someone using MBTI saying I'm 100% P versus someone saying they're 60% P.



It has become at best gimmicky. Purists consider it a waste of time, the numerologists, the gulenko fanboys, the model b fanatics all have theories that propose significant deviation. It's popularity is more due to its buzzword/jargon nature.



It would be best to throw out the concept of extroversion/introversion; it has never worked particularly well with socionics. It is both too unspecific, and yet also when applied rains havoc within many socionic concepts. In theory the difference in demeanour would be small with the rational focus being a tiny bit more organised and productive.

I second this. It's a bit like enneagram with wings -- you fluctuate between wings but in the end your core type is the one that holds true.

Even Gulenko doesn't distinguish between subtypes in his cognitive theory, which can be read here: Socionics - the16types.info - Forms of Cognition by Victor Gulenko

Sorry if I'm clogging up the post; I'm on mobile.

 

[Thalassa]

As an See-Fi, I understand I may not immediately recognize self like See-Se, the well dressed, fashionable, charismatic natural politician. I may feel myself more sensitive, introverted, ethical, etc....I think SEE-Fi correlates a great deal with the Kersey ISFP...but the SEE may not immediately see in themselves a dominance in physical presence, an adventurous attitude, a sensuality that is naturally there even if they don't "fit the stereotype"...I actually kind of love that about Socionics...you don't fit the stereotype, but we know how other people see you! You're the Janis Joplin to their Katy Perry though you're both ESFP! That thought alone meets my personal needs.

 

[strychnine]

[MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION] - Once again, I relate to you all too much. I mistyped myself as ISFP in the MBTI for like 5 years. LOL. It was only after I got into Socionics and looked at subtypes that I realized I didn't have the rigidity of the Fi base types, nor was I quite as flexible with Fi as the SEE-Se.

I also looked at Accepting/Producing and Inert/Contact dichotomies. It was immediately clear that I had Accepting Se and Producing Fi.

 

[Typh0n]

It's a small distinction; it was the first instance of socionics admitting that people (And by that I mean almost everyone.) simply didn't fit the behavioural patterns set out. The distinction is Process (irrational focus) and Result (rational focus). For example a IEI Ni will have a slight preference for methodology over result, while an IEI Fe will will have a slight preference for finishing/end result. Think of it as the difference between someone using MBTI saying I'm 100% P versus someone saying they're 60% P.

While this is an interesting PoV regarding the subtypes, I'm not sure I agree. I don't see how methodology correlates to irratonal functions while end results correlate to rational ones; if anything focus "end result" seems like how appraoches ideas while focus on "methods" is more like . Introverted thinking will look at something and think "this is what the conclusions are, this is what is being said" whereas extroverted thinking will look at it and say something like"this is how they arrived at these conslusions", focused just as much (if not more) on the means than the end. Another reason I disagree is because the words "process/result" refer to a Reinin dichotomy.

But this is getting off-topic which is the subtypes, I feel that if we are talking two subtypes theory, and we take an IEI, which is defined by two functions conservative and creative. The dominant function is a pool of information that I call "conservative" because it has its opinion on this apsect of reality which rarely ever changes. The creative function is constantly modifying its opinion about this aspect of reality, seeing it not as an objective reality, but something to modify and amend as a personal skill. So an IEI can prefer either the concervative process which holds to its values, or the creative process which values change and diversity in this aspect. I think the subtype which prefers the dominant/conservative function appears more infexible, whears the other subtype appears more open-minded. The first conservative subtype is thus a more "classic/stereotypical" model of their type in terms of what they value, an IEI-Ni will value imagination and stick with the fantasies of their childhood till the end(the stereotypical IEI) , whears the creative subtype, while it will have some of that stubborness in their fantasies, is more focused on being unpredicteable in how they interact with people and the social image they give off.

Of course, its not all black and white and some people have no subtype preference, some people have a slight prefernce and others a clear-cut one.

 

[Punderstorm]

The subtypes are simply what functions the types prefer in its function stack. They can help distinguish two individuals of the same type even further and can add insight to the functions a person prefers. Producing subtypes place emphasis on all producing functions while resulting subtypes do the opposite. That's why we can have subtypes that could actually be good at their PoLR, because they have emphasis on the same function orientation. The IEI-Fe is going to seem more extroverted and more sensorish because it would place emphasis on Fe,Se,Fi and Si, whereas the IEI-Ni is going to have much less Fe warmth and more Ni-Ti planning.

 

[Typh0n]

The first step in disagreeing with me would be to not write out a long and unnecessarily convoluted mimicry of my statement.

It looks like you took my statements about disagreeing with you personally when they were not meant to be. It also looks like you didn't understand what I wrote, or you wouldn't be saying it is a mimicry or what you wrote, which it wasn't.

Both of your examples are end results. Ti needing to filter into its system, and Te conclusions. Or as you call it flexible/conservative.

No.

My example was about Te intersted in the process/method, whereas Ti about the end result. Which you appearantly understand, but play dumb like you don't. Also, flexible/conservative isn't the same thing as method/end result, nor do I see how it could be.

Also, it needs to be said : when you use words that are accepted by the socionics community to mean one thing, then use them to mean something else in another context, its not helpful, its confusing. If you feel Reinin is a moron, feel free, but at least take into account the understanding most people have of these terms.

 

[five sounds]

Like others have said, it's like enneagram wing in that it's a 'coloring' of your type. My preference for Ne means I'm a little less staunch in conclusions or convictions in life situations, erring on the side of entertaining multiple thoughts, feelings, possibilities. I've seen other ENFPs bring the hammer down way before I would feel ready to.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Socionics Subtypes

 

[erg]

It's a small distinction; it was the first instance of socionics admitting that people (And by that I mean almost everyone.) simply didn't fit the behavioural patterns set out. The distinction is Process (irrational focus) and Result (rational focus). For example a IEI Ni will have a slight preference for methodology over result, while an IEI Fe will will have a slight preference for finishing/end result. Think of it as the difference between someone using MBTI saying I'm 100% P versus someone saying they're 60% P.

It is much more than that, and for the record, from what I've observed there is no correlation between subtype and MBTI J/P.

It has become at best gimmicky. Purists consider it a waste of time, the numerologists, the gulenko fanboys, the model b fanatics all have theories that propose significant deviation. It's popularity is more due to its buzzword/jargon nature.

Err... I'm not sure how to respond to this blatantly ignorant statements. I am by no means a "fanboy", but I have studied in depth both Gulenko's theories and Model B, and l'd say that both have a lot of truth in them. In fact, subtypes are readily observable in VI (they have different morphology).

It would be best to throw out the concept of extroversion/introversion; it has never worked particularly well with socionics. It is both too unspecific, and yet also when applied rains havoc within many socionic concepts. In theory the difference in demeanour would be small with the rational focus being a tiny bit more organised and productive.

Except that in socionics, extroversion is not like in MBTI. In MBTI, extroversion usually means being an outgoing, sociable person; while in socionics the definition is "initiator of contacts". But I agree with you that it usually does more harm than good.



-------------

accepting subtype: emphazised base, dismissal of role, free use of HA, semi-valued demonstrative, which is selectively used. Engages in PoLR sometimes (and may be somewhat proficient with it). Creative may be undeveloped. Greater need of DS. Proficient at ignoring.

producing subtype: emphasized role and HA, selective use of HA, permanent use of demonstrative, which is not valued. Total dismissal of PoLR. Creative is important. May be somewhat proficient at DS. Ignoring may be like a second PoLR.

 

[Typh0n]

accepting subtype: emphazised base, dismissal of role, free use of HA, semi-valued demonstrative, which is selectively used. Engages in PoLR sometimes (and may be somewhat proficient with it). Creative may be undeveloped. Greater need of DS. Proficient at ignoring.

producing subtype: emphasized role and HA, selective use of HA, permanent use of demonstrative, which is not valued. Total dismissal of PoLR. Creative is important. May be somewhat proficient at DS. Ignoring may be like a second PoLR.

With this theory I'm not sure if I'm an Ni or Te subtype.

My creative (Ni) pretty important to me, and my dominant (Te) is fairly important too, but I 'live' more in my Ni.

I dismiss my role Fe more than my POLR Si though, I'm good at both but really prefer using Si. There is zero Fe in me. I really love Fi.

My ignoring Ti seems bad, but demonstrative Ne only partly used.

I love Fi but probably use Se more freely.

That leaves me confused.

 

[erg]

That's okay . I'm pretty much still testing my observations. But one thing; what Si are you proficient in, -Si or +Si (I doubt it's the latter--More like an SLI or an SEI?). Same with Fi, you are proficient more at +Fi or -Fi (check if you want my post here).

 

[Typh0n]

My Si looks more like SEI and my Fi looks more like ESI(by your description). Which makes sense, whether or not you take into account the +/- elements or not, since I have sensing blocked with feeling.

 

[erg]

My Si looks more like SEI and my Fi looks more like ESI(by your description). Which makes sense, whether or not you take into account the +/- elements or not, since I have sensing blocked with feeling.

We could be onto something. I need more info. Do you know your DCHN subtype? Mine is Creative, that's why I come across as an ENTP and get along abnormally well with Alpha types IRL.

 

[Typh0n]

We could be onto something. I need more info. Do you know your DCHN subtype? Mine is Creative, that's why I come across as an ENTP and get along abnormally well with Alpha types IRL.

Mine is probably harmonizing, which is why I behave alot like an introverted irrational.

 

[erg]

Mine is probably harmonizing, which is why I behave alot like an introverted irrational.

Harmonizing seems ok for you. I haven't quite figured out yet how DCHN affects the two subtype system. I need to give this some thought.