# Socionics functional sub-types



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

I was looking at socionic's sub-types information and realized that instead it would make a lot more sense to have 4 subtypes for each individual type. Which would be Logic Intuitive Ethical and Sensory. For my type it would be something like this:
*Intuitive ILI*
This is the classic sub-type of ILI predominantly interested in ideas for their sake....
*Logical ILI*
This sub-type is obsessed with tying the lose ends in their knowledge quest, so are prone to mistype as LIE...
*Sensory ILI*
The most realistic and pragmatic sub-type focused on archiving their abstract vision...
*Ethical ILI*
The sub type least affected by the PoLR due to the heavy emotive influence, their ego block essentially serves the needs of their emotive function....

Its an interesting theory to aid in explaining type diversity so what do you guys think?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

The issue with this is that the intuitive subtype will always also be ethical, and the logical will always be sensory.

If you magnify introverted intuition in an ILI, it weakens the extroverted logical function due to magnifying introversion. Once extraverted logic is weakened, that will magnify the introverted ethics. Thus Ni-ILIs are both intuitive and ethical having magnified Ni and Fi. Te-ILIs are both logical and sensing.

All the functions in model A are joined together by dichotomies. When you magnify one of them, all others are affected on a chain. If you trace the chain it works out that there is no more than 2 subtypes. This is a major problem with the DCNH subtyping theory in socionics.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> The issue with this is that the intuitive subtype will always also be ethical, and the logical will always be sensory.
> 
> If you magnify introverted intuition in an ILI, it weakens the extroverted logical function due to magnifying introversion. Once extraverted logic is weakened, that will magnify the introverted ethics. Thus Ni-ILIs are both intuitive and ethical having magnified Ni and Fi. Te-ILIs are both logical and sensing.
> 
> All the functions in model A are joined together by dichotomies. When you magnify one of them, all others are affected on a chain. If you trace the chain it works out that there is no more than 2 subtypes. This is a major problem with the DCNH subtyping theory in socionics.


I thought about that but instead I see it as stylistic preferences instead of truly emphasizing the type's other functions. The subtype system won't alter the core function preference of the type. For example the *ethical* subtype won't bypass the ego processes preferences, NiTe, its just that the ego would be used to fulfil the desires of the ethical motives; pretty much the ethical sub-type would suit best, Enneagrams type 2s and type 4s. 


Extract of MBTI type diversity in Enneagram said:


> Type 2
> Extroverted twos are talkative, dramatic and energetic. They reach out to people and like receiving attention.
> Introverted twos are more reversed and quietly helpful.
> 
> ...





Extract of MBTI type diversity in Enneagram said:


> Type 4
> Extroverted fours are sociable and expressive, tends to be flamboyant.
> Introverted fours are more serious, reserved and withdrawn
> 
> ...


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

it's better do not deal with subtypes


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Sol_ said:


> it's better do not deal with subtypes


It makes sense when you realize the range of differences in the people who supposedly share your type, the simple conclusion is to think they are mistypes, which is a flawed conclusion.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Boolean11 said:


> I thought about that but instead I see it as stylistic preferences instead of truly emphasizing the type's other functions.


Those "stylistic" preferences then don't have to do anything with Socionics types and Model A in this case. They destroy basic functional dichotomies otherwise, which lie at the very heart of Socionics, as I've explained above. I think they are better explained by applying asymmetric typological systems like enneagram and instinct variants, example:

ILI 5w4: an researcher ILI with an idiosyncratic, individualistic slant
ILI 1w9 and 9w1: a mystic type ILI with interests in philosophy and religion, a reserved manager and organizer
ILI sp/so: a pragmatic sociable ILI often with developed interests in cultural, social, and political matters

etc.



> The subtype system won't alter the core function preference of the type. For example the *ethical* subtype won't bypass the ego processes preferences, NiTe, its just that the ego would be used to fulfil the desires of the ethical motives; pretty much the ethical sub-type would suit best, Enneagrams type 2s and type 4s.


I've never said that it's going to alter the core function preferences.

I've pointed out that functions are all connected to each other i.e. the ego, id, superid, and superego are all linked to each other in Model A (see the arrows). Subtypes are formed by magnifying one of the functions. However, magnifying one function is going to affect _*all*_ the functions in the model via those arrows. If you trace the arrows in model A you'll see that magnifying intuition in ILI also magnifies ethics. There is no way it couldn't. Thus there don't exist separate intuitive and ethical subtypes for ILIs. The intuitive ILI is also the ethical one.



> ...pretty much the ethical sub-type would suit best, Enneagrams type 2s and type 4s.


Enneagram works on completely different model than Socionics. Socionics base 2 model A is a different and distinct model from Enneagram base 3 model. They can be overlayed and applied in conjunction to each other, but blending them together and then drawing correlations such as "the ethical subtype is likely to be image triad in enneagram" creates a gigantic mess where you're trying to conjoin a base3 system with base2 system.


----------



## Sleepy (Jan 18, 2009)

DCNH works too well to be ignored. The phenomenon is there so it's better to face it. DCNH is actually a pretty big deal in understanding people, even culture. I think people often don't see how important it is, for example to understand compatibility better.


----------



## Shadowlight (Dec 12, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> ILI 5w4: an researcher ILI with an idiosyncratic, individualistic slant


AKA Reserved Iconoclast when healthy and researching thoroughly, or vocal Conspiracy Theorist when glossing over important facts. 

If one line descriptions were to fit someone, than I have to say that the above fits ... though I would like to suggest you change the idiosyncratic to eccentric


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

I've mentioned my thoughts on subtypes previously; I like them as long as they aren't taken too far (past 4-sub DCNH). I think the issue is how precisely we expect the theory to explain us. There will be variation within a given type because Socionics is based on mental processes and not directly behavior; we will have commonalities among the group, but there will also be differences. If we recognize the theory as just that - sorting people into somewhat defined boxes that do not aim to say everything about the individual within - we don't need a ton of subtypes to pander to snowflake types.

This is another reason I enjoy using multiple systems side by side. Two EIIs, LIIs, etc can have differing JCF and enneagram types which will also help to show differences between the two.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Sleepy said:


> DCNH works too well to be ignored. The phenomenon is there so it's better to face it. DCNH is actually a pretty big deal in understanding people, even culture. I think people often don't see how important it is, for example to understand compatibility better.


Care to elaborate what you are talking about?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I second Kanerou and cyamitide here. Using asymmetrical systems easily suffices to me in order to explain why two people of the same type can appear as very different to one another. I do not for example identify much with the EII descriptions but whenever I read an Fi description I do realize that a large part of my thinking _is_ governed this way, and it's also natural to me. If it wasn't due to say, super-ego influence, it would probably more result in a feeling of "I don't know what came over me, that seems so unlike me". 

So being an MBTI INTP and enneagram 5w4 type, I'm more of the logically bent EII but at face value one could perhaps attest this to Te in super-id. I'm certainly unlikely to be reminiscient of an EII 2w1 INFJ for example. Chances are we are going to be extremely different to one another even though we may think the same way, but where our values lie and what we desire are all different. 

Yet I constantly find myself secretely admiring LSEs (and to an extent, ESTJs and LIEs but I find LIEs to be a bit too cold) from afar, perhaps even envying them, seeing the traits that I desire in them but I do not possess or possess well. And this tendency existed way before I learned about the enneagram, MBTI and socionics, but I just recently understood why I react this way as I have now identified several people I did secretely admire this way who were most likely either MBTI ESTJs or socionics LSEs. 

I am not sure if I am going to attribute it all to duality but it's a peculiar observaton, nevertheless.


----------



## Sleepy (Jan 18, 2009)

DCNH is more than just differentiating between people of the same type. It's also all the sweet coherence that comes with it. It teaches us so many interesting things about people that we "already know". Like the energisations between FeTe, NeSe etc. How social life tends to be divided into the DN and the HC dyads that correspond to the DCNH compatibility. How DCNH identifies cultural myths like the creative person being a very unpredictable "crazy" person. Normalizer as the common man. How SiNi energisation can be seen in religious life. How dominance unites emotional influence and executive initiative. Here everything is shown. To understand how peoples awareness differ. Or as a typing tool: I wonder how many times an Ni-harmonizer extravert has been confused for an introvert. For match-making in real life DCNH is also pretty much a must. Then there is the whole thing about subtype change.

If someone has some formal issues with DCNH they can try to ask Gulenko himself. Maybe he'll answer. He has his blog and I think he is the one who writes posts at the facebook page of School of humanitarian socionics.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Sleepy said:


> DCNH works too well to be ignored. The phenomenon is there so it's better to face it. DCNH is actually a pretty big deal in understanding people, even culture. I think people often don't see how important it is, for example to understand compatibility better.


DCNH can be boiled down to enneagram once again: Normalizing subtype would be types like 1 & 6, Creative subtype types like 4 & 7, Dominant subtype types like 3 & 8, Harmonizing subtype types like 2 & 9. The phenomenon of normalizing, creative, dominant, and harmonizing personalities is best described by enneagram. DCNH is a crude approximation.


----------

