Review and Response: ILI Social Mission and Subtype Variants by Radigand
There is a lot in this post that I agree with and support, and a lot that I disagree with. The TLDR is that I like your suggestions for developing a subtype in oneself which is undeveloped, and agree with many of the disconnected comments about Critics, but I think there are a fair few errors in how the subtypes are defined and especially in how you conceive of the SHS subtype system.
I mostly agree with your first paragraph, with the exception that ILI’s are particularly unthreatening to large organizations. It’s probably difficult for single people of most types to threaten large organizations, but Critics are one of the most revolutionary types from the perspective of SHS Socionics, so I would say they can threaten them more than most types. Creative Critics can use their convincing sense of irony and cynicism to disenchant people from such organizations, and Dominant Critics can create competing large organizations that present a great deal of threat to others (the history of technology is full of this). Overall though, I think your first paragraph characterizes Critics well.
The paragraph on dominant Critics has a few more problems. For some reason you seem to regard the dominant subtype as fundamentally more capable than the other subtypes, so you gave them 4 characteristic functions as opposed to the 3 you gave to the other subtypes. Creative is its own subtype which focuses on opportunity intuition, yet you laud the dominant subtype as creative and focused on opportunity intuition, in addition to everything else they have. I’d have to disagree because the dominant subtype has a functional profile of P, F and sometimes E, and due to its terminality and inflexibility, it is not particularly focused on opportunity intuition and not distinguished by creative approaches (if anything it tends to be overly direct). I still agree with most of the paragraph though.
The Creative Critic profile has more problems with it and seems a bit one-dimensional at times. It’s true that Creative Critics are known for their ironic sense of humor, which can hurt people’s feelings or be quite subtle, but overall I think Creative Critics can be focused on a lot more than that. For example, would be it be fair to characterize a Creative Critic like Albert Einstein as primarily a “biting satirist”? It seems to me that he was more focused on science and that he was generally more good natured than that. So I think such a biting satirist is one way a Creative Critic might manifest, just not the only way. Also, I’m not sure it’s fair to say that Creative Critics aren’t aware of the effects of their humor; they may choose to hurt people’s feelings in spite of being quite aware that they are likely to do so. Though some might be unaware of it in some cases. You do describe them with more nuance in the later part of the paragraph though, which I appreciate.
I would say the Harmonizing or Normalizing Critics can play the role of a knowledge aggregator, and I don’t think it’s fair to give that title to the Normalizing Critic. For example, I’m a Harmonizing-Creative Critic, and I have always resonated with and been considered as a major Knowledge Aggregator. In fact, since the Harmonizing Critic is more initial, they are likely to show even more curiosity in this regard than a Normalizing Critic. I think what really distinguishes a Normalizing Critic from Harmonizing is their focus on knowledge that is more technical, specific and specialized, their organization of that knowledge (Harmonizers of course aren’t as focused on organizing), and their engagement in a more narrow range of tasks that they actually bring to completion (as opposed to a Harmonizer who engages in a broader range of tasks but goes from one thing to another without completion).
A specific subtype, which you have, that tends to especially play the role of a Knowledge Aggregator is the HN subtype, more than the N or H subtype alone. This is why I think it is misleading to describe the Normalizing subtype as THE knowledge aggregator, and I think it’s misleading why you relate to the Normalizing subtype as your true self as opposed to the HN subtype where H is really the more basic and truer variant. The HN subtype is, after all, called the Expert Consultant, which I think is really what you relate to more, but I could be wrong (so yes this HN subtype organizes information a lot at close distance but it’s actually their primary Harmonizing that causes them to collect so much knowledge in the first place, after all, being attuned to the environment allows you to collect more knowledge, not less, but may also make you more distracted and less organized). I think the reason Victor typed you as an H variant, if I recall correctly, is not just your T accentuation, since that would be a mistake (subtype and accentuation are different parallel levels). The reason was more that you had a delicate balance of T and S, which is more characteristic of the Harmonizing subtype, not Normalizing (but you may recall additional details about this that I don’t).
I would say both the Normalizing and Harmonizing Critics have good attention to detail in different ways. For Normalizers it is more in a constructive sense, in the sense that they are better at staying on point and implementing some task consistently according to plans without error compared to Harmonizing. But in this they are inferior to Inspector, since Inspector is more consistent and has better singular concentration. However, Harmonizing Critics have better attention to detail when it comes to noticing the internal (in)consistency of knowledge in addition to any contradictions or shortcomings, and in this they are quite a bit superior to the Inspector. So the Normalizing Critic has more suitable attention to detail for implementation of tasks, but Harmonizing has more suitable attention to detail as an editor or corrector (e.g. feedback role, and because Harmonizing thinking is more situational and flexible).
Because both of these subtypes of N and H have good attention to detail in various ways, and both have good ability to collect knowledge, it might make sense to include some of that in the name of the Harmonizing Critic. A name Victor uses for H Critic is the “Sage” Critic; this also suggests someone wise and with a lot of knowledge, but maybe more broad-minded and philosophical than a “collector” while also being more distracted and removed from the concrete world. Predicting is a more narrow and inherently uncertain task that not as many people are likely to relate to, even if they are Harmonizing Critics.
My greatest disagreement with you is on the section of Social Adaptation vs Subtype Variant. Our second subtype is not our “true nature” compared to our first subtype. It’s arguably the case that neither subtype is literally our true nature since all subtypes are adaptations, but the first subtype is closer to our true nature and more basic than the second subtype. I spoke to the leaders of SHS now to confirm that this is the case. And it only makes sense: the 1st subtype controls and revises the 2nd subtype, keeps it in place to only come out in some circumstances, whereas the 1st subtype sets the main goals and can come out in any circumstance (it doesn’t require close distance or anything else). This is exactly analogous to how the externalities in Model G supervise the internalities, which come out at closer distance. This is an overall principle in SHS and Model G, that the Socion comes before the individual, which is one reason why the Social Mission is more basic than the Self-Affirmation block that it holds carefully in place. If it were as you say, that the second subtype is more basic to our true nature than the first subtype, then it would be like saying our self-affirmation is more basic than our social mission, which in any case contradicts other aspects of your post (that the social mission is so important).
Another way to see that there is something wrong with your conception of the 2nd subtype being more basic is that I relate to everything you said about HN subtype at home. I work tirelessly to make sense of things. This is not unique to the Normalizing subtype, and I am not Normalizing 1st or 2nd (in fact I am the complete opposite, Creative 2nd). I think what you are describing is not the Normalizing subtype in 2nd place, but the work of any structural logic research type, or that of anyone with a T accentuation that causes them to think deeply and obsessively about problems important to them.
It’s true that many people have two subtypes, but there seem to be plenty of cases where only one main subtype is noticed, and other cases where even 3 subtypes are important. This is why some of us are working to develop more flexible subtype theories: because it’s not at all clear that everyone even has the same subtypical structure or psyche complexity (in fact it looks like they don’t). And further, it is realistically the case that we can each use all subtypes, since we have all these functions. It is just that some of them are much less systematically expressed in us or are not part of our normal equilibrium.
While I do think working on our tertiary subtype is a valid means of changing our subtype, it would not change all aspects of the subtype or its basic nature, because it wouldn’t make sense for a subtype to switch more than two positions at a time. If you want to change your basic subtype, then what you will really have to develop is your second subtype, not your third, so that you are comfortable using your second subtype in more circumstances, not just at close distance or to implement the goals of your main (1st) subtype. Your 2nd subtype will have to become the main goal way of implementing your social mission. This is another reason that more than 3rd subtype can be reasonably described as “aspirational”. If you were an ILI-HN and you wanted to develop more dominant methods of implementing your Harmonizing subtype goals, then you would need to sacrifice some of your Normalizing implementation methods, not your fundamental nature or anything like that. A subtype that wasn’t even developed before isn’t one step away from becoming your “true nature”.
I like some aspects of your recommendations for subtype change. It is very Harmonizing, as typical of you; trying to smooth over the possible rough edges inherent in developing a functional profile which you aren’t used to or which might involve some discomfort. I like that you include those aspects, but I don’t think it alone is sufficient for subtype change. Subtype change is a pretty dramatic change in the personality, requiring a very large amount of internal motivation and external conditions for realization of that motivation. Therefore it has many quite uncomfortable aspects. Focusing on how it is similar to your current subtypes is wise, but if you really want to change, there needs to be a very powerful motivating factor. I can think of a three things that would cause such motivation (though of course there might be more).
The first is a crisis situation of some kind. Say, for example, that you were dropped in a group of fighters on an island (all of them inexperienced and not inclined to fight like you) but you were the strongest and had to lead them (maybe some were children or teenagers) in order to survive, perhaps for a periods of months or years. This could develop in you a dominant subtype. It’s extreme, but it gives you a sense of how acute the motivation needs to be for you to change subtype (which is like changing your entire personality equilibrium). Maybe a less extreme example is something like this: you started a business and put most of your resources into that, but then certain laws changed which prevented you from practicing the business effectively, crippling your income. However, it turns out that a political lobbying group has been campaigning against that change, and they have some chance of success, but they need more leaders and activists, and if they were to succeed, then it could triple the income you originally had. In this case, you might gain a dominant subtype by becoming one of the leaders of this group for a periods of years, to live a flourishing life once again and do something you love and believe in. Basically, I’m trying to say that real subtype change is not a casual affair, and requires dire motivation. This is part of the sense in which subtype is a real “adaptation”, like the sort many animals perform to survive.
It is possible to improve one’s contacting abilities easily enough, and for that I think your advice is even better. So I do think your advice is part of the “gateway” to changing one’s overall subtype. But to go that extra mile towards true subtype shift, there has to be some kind of seismic shift.
Another way to gain the necessary motivation for subtype change is through functional accentuation. This is basically an internal crisis, since a functional accentuation is a psychological obsession of some sort over which we have little direct control. The key is that functional accentuation need not be consistent with a subtype. And when it isn’t, then developing a new subtype is the perfect way to balance that accentuation and smooth over its energies into something more socially productive. For example, Karl Marx is a Dominant-Creative Mentor, but he had a T accentuation. He is not Harmonizing subtype, but he does have the acute sensitivity, thoughtfulness and head in the clouds nature of the T function. If he wanted to develop a Harmonizing subtype, he would already have a lot of the motivation and energy to do it via his accentuation. He would just need to balance his T with R and S, creating a new subtype profile (though this could come at a price of lowering his creativity or dominance depending on how he went about that).
Another way I can think of to change subtype is achieving great social success with one’s first two subtypes. When Michael Jordan became world famous at basketball, he wanted to try baseball too. Once we have already achieved great success in solving the matters of our subtypes and accentuations, we have reason to become somewhat bored, and thus naturally progress into a new subtype to fill the void and expand on what we have already accomplished. Boredom is very strong motivation indeed, and we might need new ways to continue our social mission in a different way. But when we haven’t achieved that yet, it doesn’t make as much sense to switch, so it’s more unnatural and requires some kind of significant interruption (e.g. a crisis, accentuation, etc.).
Comments
Post a Comment