Subtype

From Wikisocion

A subtype system is a way of distinguishing between the personalities of people who are of the same (socionic) type. Many socionists use some kind of subtype system to help describe intratype differences (variations in personality, behavior, and/or appearance among people of the same socionic type). A number of such systems exist, and a collection of machine translated descriptions are available here.

Years of experience studying intratype differences (in order to refine their idea of what is and is not related to socionic type) lead many socionists to create subtype systems that attempt to describe or explain these differences in some way. Some socionists ignore intratype differences completely, considering them to be outside the realm of socionics, while others try to augment socionics to describe as much of personality as possible, in the process developing complex subtype systems.

[edit] Accepting/producing subtypes

This is the subtype system most often used in the West, especially due to the ease of access in internet resources of the subtype descriptions by Viktor Gulenko and those by Meged and Ovcharov.

This subtype theory is based on the premise that, within the same type, some individuals will be more inclined to focus on their leading function (which is accepting), and others, on their creative function (which is producing), and thus be more similar to an "adjacent" type of the same temperament. They are called, respectively, the accepting or producing subtype of that type (because of a greater emphasis on all accepting or producing functions, not only in the ego) or, most commonly, they will be referred to according to the specific functions involved. For instance, the ethical or sensory subtype of ESE; intuitive or logical subtype of ILI, etc. In a variant of the theory, yet other individuals may not be clearly of either subtype, and hence of no subtype or a "split" subtype.

Those original sets of subtype descriptions seem to have been based on those authors' personal observations of individuals of each type, and Gulenko's descriptions are not totally consistent with Meged and Ovcharov's. That is one possible reason why the very concept of subtypes is not universally accepted by socionists, since many possible different descriptions and concepts for subtypes can be designed in a seemingly arbitrary way.

Nevertheless, the concept of subtypes is useful in practice to explain some intratype differences, as well as intertype similarities. For example, individual ESIs are more like LSIs than others (who themselves are more like EIIs). This is then explained by the former being sensory subtype ESIs, and the latter, ethical subtype ESIs. Accordingly, one sensory subtype LSI and one sensory subtype ESI can often seem to be the same type at first, until further observation, especially of their interaction with other individuals, reveals that they are actually of different types, despite many similarities in behavior.

Moreover, the concept of subtypes can be useful to describe very precisely the behavior of a third person between individuals used to the same subtype system. In such situations, to refer to a third person as "a SLE logical subtype" conveys a more precise image of a person than simply "SLE". This is probably one of the main reasons for referring to subtypes during discussion on socionics.

[edit] Notation

Like types, subtypes have several different naming variants (though most are fairly similar). These variants do not have formal names, and an example of equivalent forms in each one will suffice:

• SLE sensory subtype
• or SLE accepting subtype
• or sensory subtype SLE
• or SLE sensory
• or SLE-Se
• or Se-SLE

In any of these cases, ESTp may be substituted for SLE, or sensing for sensory.

[edit] Implications

These are some of the possible implications of accepting/producing subtypes:

• that the subtype may influence the whole functional preference of the individual, as in his use of the role function, the vulnerable function, etc.
• that subtypes may account for the often uncertain boundaries in the Reinin dichotomies when applied in practice.
• that different subtypes will thus reinforce or dilute the basic intertype relationships.
• that it is often even pointless to refer to a type, it is possible to be precisely between two types.

Smilexian socionics develops the latter three points to a great extent.

[edit] Other Subtypes

A third socionist, Ekaterina Filatova postulates that there are many other subtypes besides the ones with just one of the Ego functions enhanced. Filatova claims that there can exist whole types as subtypes. For instance, an ILI Critic, who also exhibits qualities of an IEI Lyricist or an LSE Director. In the first instance, the ILI is extremely introverted; with an LSE subtype, the ILI treads the boundary between extroversion and introversion. Thereby, Filatova claims that there are four common subtypes:

• one that has an enhanced leading function
• one that had an enhanced creative function
• one that has an enhanced left vertical pathway of his mental functions
• one that has an enhanced right vertical pathway of his mental functions

Filatova also states that an enhanced leading or creative function simply stimulates the pathway in favor of that function. Thus, an ESE with his leading     enhanced would be an extreme ESE (outgoing and emotive), while an ESE with his creative     enhanced would have some characteristics of an SEI, being more willing to talk about sensual experiences than an ordinary ESE.

[edit] Criticism

In practice the diagnosis of subtypes draws attention away from the more central task of diagnosing type - even if it's not true for an experienced socionist, it can be true for beginners, who don't yet know how to correctly determine what kinds of information are important to the typing process. Subtypes can be used as a "cop-out" to avoid taking a stance on a person's type, or for explaining traits and behavior that contradict the basic type the socionist has diagnosed. In many cases it is possible that the basic type has been incorrectly diagnosed, and that the addition of a "subtype" simply masks the contradiction.

Like Reinin dichotomies, subtypes are best used to retroactively explain/describe behavior of a person whose type is already known.