Is the subtype system pointless?

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

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 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. Not to say MBTI people don't do this too. 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. Yet people will cite Gulenko or Augusta or someone else's theory (and it's really more of an informal theory a theory in the sense of formal scientific theory that's already been run through the rigorous scientific method from the starting point of a hypothesis) to prove socionics is the real deal.

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.

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

 

[raskol]

Does there exist any strong case for the subtypes?

I don't find it to be particularly useful, but I assume it could match some personality traits better.

... 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.

Psychology itself is a pseudoscience, for lack of a better term, much like history or economy. They all rely on narrative and brittle consensus constructions. 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. Those are assumptions that may turn out to be wrong, but we can at least consider the empirical underpinnings that turn out to be predictive, behaviorally speaking.

What we are granted with socionics, moreover, is a narrative that allows us to discuss serious topics while circumventing PC culture. The current debate climate forces us to speak in code, and socionics remains a useful tool in the sense that it allows us to speak clearly without damning ourselves in the process.

 

[Pioneer]

Psychology itself is a pseudoscience, for lack of a better term, much like history or economy.

It is less reliable than physics or chemistry, but not necessarily less useful.

They all rely on narrative and brittle consensus constructions.

The result of human sciences is that they break up consensus constructs. For example, economic theories are based on observation (of human behaviors) but these observations lead people to become aware of their own behaviors and potentially alter them. An example of this would be Karl Marx's theories which described capitalists' behaviors forgetting people these same capitalists could just read his writings and alter said behaviors.* This is different from natural sciences since for example water will always boil at the same temperature, due to the nature of matter. A regularity in the world of matter will always repeat itself under the same conditions, which is why natural sciences are more reliable. The human (conscious) dimension is subject to change itself when aware of itself. If I know I'm thinking and behaving in a certain way because this is pointed out to me by an outside observation, I can begin to question my cognitive and behavioral process, and maybe alter them.

But you are right that psychology in general is not subject to the scientific process of testing hypothesis, socionics is no exception.

*Really, Marx made a big mistake when asserting humans are fully determined by historical forces like "class struggle". Of course, humans can become aware of where they are going once their course of action has been pointed out. Marx may have done just that - and negated his theories in the process.

 

[miss deceit]

It is less reliable than physics or chemistry, but not necessarily less useful.

Raskol said it WAS useful tho

 

[Pionart]

My understanding of type is that people can use more or less of any given function, compared to what is expected from their stack. Some of this is due to environment-induced imbalances, but some is likely an inherited characteristic.

 

[Pioneer]

Raskol said it WAS useful tho

I never said he didn't.

I'm simply pointing out it is as useful as natural science for reasons he didn't list. He said it was useful for circumventing pc culture, which is different than what I said.

 

[typologyenthusiast]

[MENTION=19700]asynartetic[/MENTION]. You should explain more what do you mean by subtypes

 

[miss deceit]

My understanding of type is that people can use more or less of any given function, compared to what is expected from their stack. Some of this is due to environment-induced imbalances, but some is likely an inherited characteristic.

Is that why I use so much Fe?

 

[Pionart]

Is that why I use so much Fe?

I don't know what type you are, or why it would be that you use a lot of both Te and Fe if you really do.

One thing I'll mention is that enneagram type 3 sounds to me like a mix between Fe and Te.

 

[miss deceit]

I don't know what type you are, or why it would be that you use a lot of both Te and Fe if you really do.

One thing I'll mention is that enneagram type 3 sounds to me like a mix between Fe and Te.

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

 

[Pionart]

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).

 

[Pionart]

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.

 

[Pionart]

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]

[MENTION=19700]asynartetic[/MENTION]. 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).

 

[Pionart]

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...