Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 15/11/2008, 10:05 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default Best Fit Duality

To begin with, let us look at the effects of sub type on the psychological type. In a Te ISTp, "T" goes up, gets stronger and "F" the opposing function goes down. As T is stronger with more emphasis, S goes down, and accordingly N goes up.

This produces a Te ISTp (which is still ISTp) but seems a little more like an INTp due to stronger Te, more emphasis on Te giving it some INTp characteristics.

What exactly makes the Te ISTp seem more like INTp? It is their interests, their hobbies. They focus less on S things and have a more natural interest in T type interests. In effect - how they are, their hobbies, their interests, their way of thought becomes a little less like ST club interests, and to look at, observed IRL they take on some NT club interests.

Essentially it is the *club* interests that result in the ISTp seeming a more like INTp. A sort of ST/NT hybrid with NT leanings.

Now, converse of this, is the the Ne ENFp dual, by having more of an emphasis on Ne, become slightly more ENTp. In that what you find is a tendency to move towards NT researcher club.

What does this mean for the Te ISTp - Ne ENFp? Essentially, you have a duality, but you have a duality with an emphasis both on NT researcher club. Essentially they are more in common.

----

It's an accepted fact among socionists that people tend to group together by club in the first instance, then move towards quadra.

One cannot ignore an observation of people and relationships that it is things in common which make friends, make relationships. One cannot ignore numerous research by various psychologists that it is things in common which hold a relationship together. It is through clubs that we share common interests and hobbies. And it is the duals leaning towards the similar club - NT in this example, which makes the Ne ENFp - Te ISTp compatible on a psychological and personal interest and hobbies such an excellent fit. It is true "duality."

A common complaint of duality is the distance in interests which makes it less likely to hold. With similar leanings of club interests (which we observe in people) and psychological functional support, that true duality arises.

The same holds true for Si ISTp - Fi ENFp, where they gravitate towards a leaning in SF club (who is a little more like ISFp - ESFp - they are duals, and they also share the common interests and binding of an SF club)


This holds true accoss the board..

---

ISFp Fe - ENTp Ne - INFp - ENFp -> leaning towards NF
ISFp Si - ENTp Ti - ISTp - ESTp -> ST
ESFj Fe - INTj Ne - ENFj - INFj -> NF
ESFj Si - INTj Ti - ESTj - ISTj -> ST

ESTp Ti - INFp Ni - ENTp - INTp -> NT
ESTp Se - INFp Fe - ESFp - ISFp -> SF
ENFj Ni - ISTj Ti - ENTj - INTj -> NT
ENFj Fe - ISTj Se - ESFj - ISFj -> SF

ENTj Te - ISFj Se - ESTj - ISTj -> ST
ENTj Ni - ISFj Fi - ENFj - INFp -> NF
ESFp Se - INTp Te - ESTp - ISTp -> ST
ESFp Fi - INTP Ni - ENFp - INFp -> NF

ESTj Te - INFj Ne - ENTj - INTj -> NT
ESTj Si - INFj Fi - ESFp - ISFj -> SF
ENFp Ne - ISTp Te - ENTp - INTp -> NT
ENFp Fi - ISTp Si - ESFp - ISFp -> SF

Last edited by Cyclops; 15/11/2008 at 10:12 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 16/11/2008, 04:33 PM
king king is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 336
Default

this is very interesting. thanks for posting it.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 17/11/2008, 01:27 AM
RSV3's Avatar
RSV3 RSV3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 557
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
To begin with, let us look at the effects of sub type on the psychological type. In a Te ISTp, "T" goes up, gets stronger and "F" the opposing function goes down. As T is stronger with more emphasis, S goes down, and accordingly N goes up.

This produces a Te ISTp (which is still ISTp) but seems a little more like an INTp due to stronger Te, more emphasis on Te giving it some INTp characteristics.

What exactly makes the Te ISTp seem more like INTp? It is their interests, their hobbies. They focus less on S things and have a more natural interest in T type interests. In effect - how they are, their hobbies, their interests, their way of thought becomes a little less like ST club interests, and to look at, observed IRL they take on some NT club interests.

Essentially it is the *club* interests that result in the ISTp seeming a more like INTp. A sort of ST/NT hybrid with NT leanings.

Now, converse of this, is the the Ne ENFp dual, by having more of an emphasis on Ne, become slightly more ENTp. In that what you find is a tendency to move towards NT researcher club.

What does this mean for the Te ISTp - Ne ENFp? Essentially, you have a duality, but you have a duality with an emphasis both on NT researcher club. Essentially they are more in common.

----

It's an accepted fact among socionists that people tend to group together by club in the first instance, then move towards quadra.

One cannot ignore an observation of people and relationships that it is things in common which make friends, make relationships. One cannot ignore numerous research by various psychologists that it is things in common which hold a relationship together. It is through clubs that we share common interests and hobbies.
I generally agree with everything you say up until now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
And it is the duals leaning towards the similar club - NT in this example, which makes the Ne ENFp - Te ISTp compatible on a psychological and personal interest and hobbies such an excellent fit. It is true "duality."

A common complaint of duality is the distance in interests which makes it less likely to hold. With similar leanings of club interests (which we observe in people) and psychological functional support, that true duality arises.

The same holds true for Si ISTp - Fi ENFp, where they gravitate towards a leaning in SF club (who is a little more like ISFp - ESFp - they are duals, and they also share the common interests and binding of an SF club)


This holds true accoss the board..
However, I don't agree with this last part. Why not? Because I think having shared value functions is more important than sharing the same club. And in your last example of the Si ISTp - Fi ENFp resembling an ISFp and ESFp, I would point out that an ISFp and ESFp, while in the same club, are in a contrary intertype relationship; even though both an ISFp and ESFp may share similar interests because they are both SFs, they do not value the same functions and thus conflict will be inevitable. Another way of looking at it is that you're trying to match up people who are approaching cross quadra typs, which generally doesn't work well. This is just my opinion, and I may be wrong, but I think when it comes to relationships, same quadra (i.e., same valued functions) is more important than same club. Thus, I would conclude that an ISTp-Si would be ideally matched with an ENFp-Ne; this matchup keeps keeps both partners valuing the same functions.
__________________
Sociotype.com

Increased expression of one function (1) suppresses the opposing intradichotomy function and (2) suppresses the opposing intrablock function (and vise versa).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 17/11/2008, 01:43 AM
Sirena
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think the point is that an ENFp-Ne and ISTp-Te (or whatever other pair) are still duals. They are still ENFp and ISTp. They don't actually become ENTp and INTp and therefore will still value the same functions. The slight inclination towards ENTp and INTp is not enough to alter functional value. Rather, it seems to me more reasonable that it would affect common interests related to club instead, since as Cyclops said, this is the way in which subtype tends to influence the person.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 17/11/2008, 03:27 AM
RSV3's Avatar
RSV3 RSV3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 557
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirena View Post
I think the point is that an ENFp-Ne and ISTp-Te (or whatever other pair) are still duals. They are still ENFp and ISTp. They don't actually become ENTp and INTp and therefore will still value the same functions. The slight inclination towards ENTp and INTp is not enough to alter functional value. Rather, it seems to me more reasonable that it would affect common interests related to club instead, since as Cyclops said, this is the way in which subtype tends to influence the person.
The more extreme a subtype gets, the more that type begins to resemble the neighboring type. This has already been said by Cy and myself. E.g., an ISTp-Te will begin to resemble an INTp. The stronger the Te subtype is, the more he/she will resemble an INTp, but of course he/she will still be considered an ISTp. However, your analysis above fails because it doesn't see the whole picture: if an ISTp-Te takes on some characteristic NT traits because he is shifting towards an INTp, he takes on all aspects of an INTp, not just the club traits. What that means is that not only will he start placing more value on NT activities, he'll also start valuing Ni more (and become more Se valuing/seeking) and thus put more value on gamma traits. The ENFp-Ne will be the opposite--starting to value Ti more and thus putting more value on alpha traits. Thus leading to my conclusion that an ISTp-Te and ENFp-Ne's value functions will not line up as well as an ISTp-Te and an ENFp-Fi's would.

I fully agree with Cy that an ISTp-Te will be more interested in traditional NT activities than an ISTp-Si would, and that sharing common activities is beneficial in a relationship. However I believe it's more important that quadra values (i.e., what 4 functions are valued) are shared between the two individuals.
__________________
Sociotype.com

Increased expression of one function (1) suppresses the opposing intradichotomy function and (2) suppresses the opposing intrablock function (and vise versa).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 17/11/2008, 04:27 AM
Sirena
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3 View Post
The more extreme a subtype gets, the more that type begins to resemble the neighboring type. This has already been said by Cy and myself. E.g., an ISTp-Te will begin to resemble an INTp. The stronger the Te subtype is, the more he/she will resemble an INTp, but of course he/she will still be considered an ISTp. However, your analysis above fails because it doesn't see the whole picture: if an ISTp-Te takes on some characteristic NT traits because he is shifting towards an INTp, he takes on all aspects of an INTp, not just the club traits. What that means is that not only will he start placing more value on NT activities, he'll also start valuing Ni more (and become more Se valuing/seeking) and thus put more value on gamma traits. The ENFp-Ne will be the opposite--starting to value Ti more and thus putting more value on alpha traits. Thus leading to my conclusion that an ISTp-Te and ENFp-Ne's value functions will not line up as well as an ISTp-Te and an ENFp-Fi's would.

I fully agree with Cy that an ISTp-Te will be more interested in traditional NT activities than an ISTp-Si would, and that sharing common activities is beneficial in a relationship. However I believe it's more important that quadra values (i.e., what 4 functions are valued) are shared between the two individuals.
Again, I think you're placing too much emphasis on the resemblance between ISTp-Te and INTp (for instance). I don't think the resemblance goes that far. "If it quacks like a duck, it's likely a duck." That is to say that I don't think it makes much practical sense to say that a type could resemblance another type *that* much. If an ISTp was *that* similar to an INTp, then he is more likely INTp. I do think that from a practical standpoint, it makes more sense that the affinity would only be carried so far...and IMO that so far extends to club interests.

Also, how about if we look at it this way? If I'm not mistaken, Meged has stated that a dominant subtype (i.e. ENFp-Ne) puts more emphasis on the 1st and 7th functions (Ne and Ni) and a creative subtype (i.e. ISTp-Te) would emphasize functions 2 and 8 (Te and Ti). Couldn't it then be said that since ENFp-Ne resembles ENTp and ISTp-Te resembles INTp, that the ISTp would be more attracted/have more in common with the ENFp-Ne subtype as a result of a stronger emphasis on Ni (and vice versa)?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 17/11/2008, 07:26 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Reading between the lines, RSV3 seems to think that a strong enough sub type will cause a type change, that the role function will become stronger than the dominant function. In effect producing an actual INTp not an ISTp and with everyones type changing we now have a contrary relationship.

The purpose of my article is not to address type change. It is to address how the influence of sub type has on behaviours and interests and relationships with others. A stronger sub type doesn't mean a type change, which is essentially what RS proposes, if he wishes to discuss type change, he should do so perhaps on a seperate thread, but sub type shouldn't be confused with *being* another type. We are still the same type with an emphasis on a particular ego function. Apparently it's important to remember that.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 17/11/2008, 07:45 AM
RSV3's Avatar
RSV3 RSV3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 557
Default

I never said that a type could change. I don't believe a person's type can change, although some people would debate this. My main argument has always been on point with this thread's topic: i.e., what is the optimal subtype pairing for dualization. I simply disagree with your conclusion.
__________________
Sociotype.com

Increased expression of one function (1) suppresses the opposing intradichotomy function and (2) suppresses the opposing intrablock function (and vise versa).
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 17/11/2008, 07:54 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3 View Post
I never said that a type could change. I don't believe a person's type can change, although some people would debate this. My main argument has always been on point with this thread's topic: i.e., what is the optimal subtype pairing for dualization. I simply disagree with your conclusion.
Sure, you have every right to dis-agree, and I accept constructive disagreement. However psychology and socionics has to be based on empirical observation, and a theory of ISTp Te - ENFp Ne being a contrary relation is just that - a theory. It goes against inter-type relations, and doesn't stand up to observations of real life. It may sound attractive, but in an extreme example it is like Gulenko, he builds many intrinsic theories, but they fall flat if they don't mean anything in real life. Mines does, and it works.

It's simply a stone waller if we are going to discuss theories with no real life observations of myself, others and competent socionists such as Meged, and Ganin (who Ganin has also stated that ISTP Te and ENFp Ne have more to talk about) My theory holds true as a system, and importantly, it works IRL. Not sure why you can reject it in all honesty. But i'd still be willing to listen, but no point in debating subjective systems unless they mean something to real people IRL.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 17/11/2008, 08:09 AM
RSV3's Avatar
RSV3 RSV3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 557
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Sure, you have every right to dis-agree, and I accept constructive disagreement. However psychology and socionics has to be based on empirical observation, and a theory of ISTp Te - ENFp Ne being a contrary relation is just that - a theory. It goes against inter-type relations, and doesn't stand up to observations of real life. It may sound attractive, but in an extreme example it is like Gulenko, he builds many intrinsic theories, but they fall flat if they don't mean anything in real life. Mines does, and it works.

It's simply a stone waller if we are going to discuss theories with no real life observations of myself, others and competent socionists such as Meged, and Ganin (who Ganin has also stated that ISTP Te and ENFp Ne have more to talk about) My theory holds true as a system, and importantly, it works IRL. Not sure why you can reject it in all honesty. But i'd still be willing to listen, but no point in debating subjective systems unless they mean something to real people IRL.
I'll agree to disagree on this. I do know that SG agrees with you, so I may be wrong. However, I don't have enough IRL/empirical evidence to personally weigh which subtype pairings have faired better, so I'm relying on my theoretical understanding to reach my conclusion. Another observation I should make regarding this is that you are Te so you prefer the empirical where as I'm Ti so I put more weight on the theoretical. Again, my conclusion is what I'm intuitively comfortable with (and this conclusion corresponds with my conception of socionics theory), so that is what I will continue to believe; however, I am always open to the possibility that I may be wrong.
__________________
Sociotype.com

Increased expression of one function (1) suppresses the opposing intradichotomy function and (2) suppresses the opposing intrablock function (and vise versa).
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 17/11/2008, 08:17 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3 View Post
I'll agree to disagree on this. I do know that SG agrees with you, so I may be wrong. However, I don't have enough IRL/empirical evidence to personally weigh which subtype pairings have faired better, so I'm relying on my theoretical understanding to reach my conclusion. Another observation I should make regarding this is that you are Te so you prefer the empirical where as I'm Ti so I put more weight on the theoretical. Again, my conclusion is what I'm intuitively comfortable with (and this conclusion corresponds with my conception of socionics theory), so that is what I will continue to believe; however, I am always open to the possibility that I may be wrong.
I appreciate that. What is important though is i've worked from the top down so to speak, as Te tends to do. In essence i've explained various empirical observations and taken them and explained them in a way which makes sense theoretically. I would ask you to consider (and please feel free to take your time if you wish) that what you have here is a system making sense from a Ti point of view, it fits in and is logically coherent critique of socionics, and also works out in real life. Surely that is best of both worlds?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 17/11/2008, 08:33 AM
RSV3's Avatar
RSV3 RSV3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 557
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
I appreciate that. What is important though is i've worked from the top down so to speak, as Te tends to do. In essence i've explained various empirical observations and taken them and explained them in a way which makes sense theoretically. I would ask you to consider (and please feel free to take your time if you wish) that what you have here is a system making sense from a Ti point of view, it fits in and is logically coherent critique of socionics, and also works out in real life. Surely that is best of both worlds?
Cyclops, your theory conflicts with my understandings of socionics theory. My own personal belief on optimal subtype pairings is here: http://www.socionics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=940. I see the following subtype (and function) pairings as optimal:
Ti with Fe
Te with Fi
Si with Ne
Se with Ni

Anyway, it's definitely an interesting topic, which is why I had to put my two cents in (whether it is right or wrong).
__________________
Sociotype.com

Increased expression of one function (1) suppresses the opposing intradichotomy function and (2) suppresses the opposing intrablock function (and vise versa).
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 17/11/2008, 08:48 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3 View Post
Cyclops, your theory conflicts with my understandings of socionics theory. My own personal belief on optimal subtype pairings is here: http://www.socionics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=940. I see the following subtype (and function) pairings as optimal:
Ti with Fe
Te with Fi
Si with Ne
Se with Ni

Anyway, it's definitely an interesting topic, which is why I had to put my two cents in (whether it is right or wrong).
Hey mate. I'm aware of your theory, and nice of you to put it in with my thread haha.

I don't want to discuss your theory here, but seeing as it is here, let me explain why it goes wrong. Sub types alter strengths of functions (and we are both focusing on two sub types model which is good) but wither one is stronger than the other, it's position does not change in the psyche. That is an accepting function is always an accepting function, and it operates always as different from a producing function. This is why no matter what the strength of the sub type is, it won't produce a contrary type of relation, because how these two functions work remains the same.

What I am doing is explaining how some dual relationships are 'excellent' and others are sort of a mutual appreciation from afar. As S does down, T goes up, N goes up which results in a leaning from ST club to NT club. The position of functionals in the psyche remains the same. And something else to add, an ENFp with strong Ne actually has more to benefit from an ISTp with strong Te, because they are more equipped with T to work through the ENFp's ideas.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 17/11/2008, 03:18 PM
Sirena
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Interesting discussion guys! Thanks to both of you for your input.

I continue to agree with Cy's theory and he almost took the words right out of my mouth. I was also going to say that Ryan's duality theory, as well as other similar ones, seem to be missing how this all works out IRL. It may make sense theoretically, but if you think about how it works with actual people, it doesn't hold up.

Honestly, I think it's a little ludicrous to suggest that subtype could have that much influence on a person's functional preference. I was looking for a way to explain this theoretically, but I think Cyclops' explanation makes a lot of sense. Functional placement doesn't change, this person continues to be their type, regardless of subtype.

For instance, I don't see how it makes any sense to say that an ENFp-Ne will ever value or be strong in Ti to the point where this will conflict with an ISTp-Te. Ti will always be an ENFp's PoLR, regardless of how strong the subtype and to suggest that this would cause some kind of clash between the two is a little strange. More than likely, the ISTp will still be better at Ti than a very strong ENFp-Ne sub. This just doesn't add up in a real life sense! Which is why it makes perfect sense to me that the emphasis on one function over the other (subtype) would only go as far as influencing club-related interests.

I do respect your right to have a different perspective though, Ryan and I appreciate the discussion. Fun!

I didn't realize SG agreed with the pairings proposed here. I wonder if he has something else to add. Would be helpful to hear his perspective.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 17/11/2008, 09:14 PM
RSV3's Avatar
RSV3 RSV3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 557
Default

I'll try to explain my position graphically. I view Ne as directly complimenting Si, Ni directly complimenting Se, etc. So imagine every person falls somewhere along the circle's circumference. Using my crudely created circle, I posit that the closer two people are on the circumference, the better the relationship will be. The farther apart they are, the greater the difference in values (i.e., the value they place on certain functions or as I like to say, "shared value functions") and the more conflict and misunderstanding will occur.

__________________
Sociotype.com

Increased expression of one function (1) suppresses the opposing intradichotomy function and (2) suppresses the opposing intrablock function (and vise versa).
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 17/11/2008, 09:59 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3 View Post
I'll try to explain my position graphically. I view Ne as directly complimenting Si, Ni directly complimenting Se, etc. So imagine every person falls somewhere along the circle's circumference. Using my crudely created circle, I posit that the closer two people are on the circumference, the better the relationship will be. The farther apart they are, the greater the difference in values (i.e., the value they place on certain functions or as I like to say, "shared value functions") and the more conflict and misunderstanding will occur.

I'm not an INTp, I am an ISTp, and I do not have contrary relations with my dual. I believe in intertype relations, as does socionics. Sorry but I'm not having a contrary relation with my dual, and neither should you or any other dual.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 17/11/2008, 10:17 PM
RSV3's Avatar
RSV3 RSV3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 557
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
I'm not an INTp.
Did I say you were?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
I do not have contrary relations with my dual.
Did I say you did?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Sorry but I'm not having a contrary relation with my dual, and neither should you or any other dual.
Did I say you were?

I apologize if this was not directed at me, but if it was, I'm not sure where you came to these conclusions regarding what I'm trying to assert. All I want to do is discuss the substantive aspects of these conflicting theories, so that we may both come out with a better understanding of socionics.
__________________
Sociotype.com

Increased expression of one function (1) suppresses the opposing intradichotomy function and (2) suppresses the opposing intrablock function (and vise versa).
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 17/11/2008, 10:47 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3 View Post
Did I say you were?

Did I say you did?

Did I say you were?

I apologize if this was not directed at me, but if it was, I'm not sure where you came to these conclusions regarding what I'm trying to assert. All I want to do is discuss the substantive aspects of these conflicting theories, so that we may both come out with a better understanding of socionics.
I apologise if I am coming off as direct.. Seems to have been one of those days. What I am saying, and I have said on number of occasions, is that I don't have a contrary relation with ENFp Ne, take for instance Sirena who seems to get on with me, on chat box format anyway. So i'm saying that your idea (and other similar ideas) of a contrary relation in such a circumstance, doesn't really play out, which unfortunately disagrees with te istp - ne enfp being more like a contrary, and disagrees with socionics intertype relations, and how the functions work as per their placing in the psyche. Sorry if not too clear
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 17/11/2008, 11:05 PM
RSV3's Avatar
RSV3 RSV3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 557
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
I apologise if I am coming off as direct.. Seems to have been one of those days. What I am saying, and I have said on number of occasions, is that I don't have a contrary relation with ENFp Ne, take for instance Sirena who seems to get on with me, on chat box format anyway. So i'm saying that your idea (and other similar ideas) of a contrary relation in such a circumstance, doesn't really play out, which unfortunately disagrees with te istp - ne enfp being more like a contrary, and disagrees with socionics intertype relations, and how the functions work as per their placing in the psyche. Sorry if not too clear
Okay, I understand what you were trying to say now.
__________________
Sociotype.com

Increased expression of one function (1) suppresses the opposing intradichotomy function and (2) suppresses the opposing intrablock function (and vise versa).
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 24/11/2008, 01:01 AM
isabel_'s Avatar
isabel_ isabel_ is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 19
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirena View Post
I think the point is that an ENFp-Ne and ISTp-Te (or whatever other pair) are still duals. They are still ENFp and ISTp. They don't actually become ENTp and INTp and therefore will still value the same functions. The slight inclination towards ENTp and INTp is not enough to alter functional value. Rather, it seems to me more reasonable that it would affect common interests related to club instead, since as Cyclops said, this is the way in which subtype tends to influence the person.
Hmmm... this is all extremely interesting because I just started dating an ISTP and I'm ENFP. All though, when he took a test online, he got ESFP, but i really don't think he is one. And he's not as intrigued by the whole idea of personality types anyway, so he probably took the test absent-mindedly. I on the other hand, would consider myself definitely possibly obsessed with it, and I get the impression that he is an ISTP.

Anyway, sometimes we're in the best of harmony and we were both mutually drawn to eachother. But other times, he just frustrates me with his lack of understanding and virtually lack of effort to understand my complicated feelings. But then again, that could be just the fact that he's a male, and I'm a female. And we're both rather young.

Also there's the factor which makes it less likely that we fit together well; the fact that I'm very adaptable and am just a people person in general, constantly noticing the beauty of others.

And he could possibly be an ISFP, because sometimes he sends me messages of things which are unbelievably sweet, but he'd be less likely to tell me verbally or in person.
Does anyone know an ISTP personally whom can identify with me and confirm what they would be like, esp. if in a dual relationship? Perhaps someone who actually IS an ISTP? That would be wonderful.

I feel I may have said nothing but trivial thoughts,-- rambling thoughts even, and have been off topic, but thanks for reading!?

peace.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 SOCIONICS.COM