Advanced SHS Subtype Theory and Practice

Warning: This post is an ADVANCED treatment of the concept of subtype in the School of Humanitarian Socionics. It is absolutely NOT for people looking for a basic understanding of the concept of subtype, and it's not necessarily for people who only want some approximate and useful insights from the theory of subtypes (though it might provide that regardless). It's for people with deep questions about how subtype works, how subtype is consistent with other aspects of the paradigm, and who want to get into ALL of the nitty gritty detail about the functioning and variation of this fascinating concept (it's also possible to just read a section if that's the only sub-topic you're looking for). If you want a simpler but still useful and approximately correct introduction to subtype, then please read this post: https://varlawend.blogspot.com/2022/07/shs-subtypes-reference-2022.html

Sections:

-Warning

-Context: What is subtype and why is it necessary?

-Subtype: Basic Descriptions

-More to come next week!

Context: What is subtype and why is it necessary?

If we're going to explore all of the nuts and bolts of subtype, then we should understand exactly what we are talking about and what we are referring to when we say "subtype". These are some excellent selections to clarify exactly what we mean:

"Type - the deep core of the psyche. Constant throughout life. It is the hardest to "see" because it is hidden under the following layers of the psyche

Subtype - the middle, relatively stable layer of the psyche. It can change during life, under the influence of strong life shocks and persists for periods of decades. The subtype is a stable combination of several enhanced functions - two functions are mandatory, and the third is additional, which is a transition to other subtypes.

Accentuation is the "softest" and most mobile layer of the psyche. Strengthening of one of the mental functions. As a rule, not very adequate behavior for this function. It exists as long as it is necessary for adaptation to the current environment, about several years. Accentuations: FF Power Sensorics, SS Sensorics of Comfort, EE Ethics of Emotions, RR Ethics of Relationships, II Intuition of Possibilities, TT Intuition of Time, PP Business Logic, LL Structural Logic." - Dmitry Medvedev

...

We can see that subtype is an intermediate, semi-stable layer of the psyche that tends to persist on a timescale of decades (at least when it comes to main subtype, because as people who are already familiar with SHS subtype will be aware, we can have less prominent, subordinate subtypes which can change more easily). Subtype is intermediate between a deeper, more occluded type which represents invariant (at least as far as we know, because we haven't observed it to change in anyone, so if it can be changed, it must be very difficult) structure of the psyche, and more situationally employed and enhanced functions. We can also see that subtype is a stable combination of several Socionics functions, some of which are mandatory and some of which are more transitional. What else can we learn from Gulenko's explanation of similar principles?:

"The psyche in Humanitarian Socionics is considered as a volumetric system of layers, superimposed on each other: deep core — middle layers — surface. The quality and stability of these layers naturally change from the deep core to the outer shell. The closer to the outer border, the more mobile the psyche is and the less energy is required to transform it.

The type itself is located in the deep core. Its structure does not change during life by means of the psyche itself (maximum rigidity and stability). Its lifespan is equal to the time of existence of the psyche system itself. Thus, the socionic type is an invariant of the psyche. In order to directly detect and "reveal" it, it is necessary to apply the maximum load to the psyche.

Next, above the core, there is a middle layer, which has not absolute but only relative stability. It is called a type variant, or subtype. Relative stability means that the subtype can change, although this happens rarely and only under the influence of strong life shocks at times when the psyche is in a transitional state (for example, adolescence, midlife crisis, etc.). In the case of an individual psyche, we are talking about a period of decades. A type variant manifests itself primarily as a person's tendency to play a certain role in the primary group.

And finally, the softest and most mobile mental layer is formed on the outside - the functional profile, which is often an imprint of the current habitat of the type carrier. It exists as long as the type carrier stays in it. The usual lifespan of a profile is about several years. In this case, they also talk about behavioral stereotypes. For example, the army environment makes a person ruder, female upbringing contributes to the formation of a profile with emotionality, etc.

It is precisely the multi-layered nature of the psyche that explains the difficulty of unambiguous diagnosis of its type. Upon detailed and careful examination from a close distance, a bizarre picture of strengthened and weakened functions opens up before the observer, which resembles the superposition of two, and sometimes more, types.

In addition, current functional states should not be excluded (this part of the psyche is not shown in the diagram for the sake of simplicity). Their totality is often considered as the fourth, shortest-lived layer of the psyche. For example, when people collectively rejoice at some very significant event for them, then almost all of them find themselves in the ethical-extroverted state "E", etc. Thus, the functional state is short-lived (in an individual it lasts from several minutes to several hours) and is completely situational. It can be imagined as a local "splash" on the functional profile.

Humanitarian socionics recommends the following order of recording a three-part mental model (the current state is usually not recorded): type - subtype - enhanced functions.

The self-image (a person's idea of ​​himself) usually focuses on the middle layers of the psyche and above (the level of the subtype and accentuated functions). Self-awareness in a pure (standard) type is easy only for holistic personalities with adequate self-esteem. It is necessary to remember that real people can consciously or semi-consciously focus on several mental layers at once - think one thing, say another, and behave in a third." - Victor Gulenko

...

There are some similar points here, like how subtype is an intermediate layer of the psyche, and how it is relatively stable and can rarely change (often at the pace of decades and during major transitional life events). There are a few new points:

-Subtype represents a variant of a sociotype, that is, a major potential differentiation from how other people of the same type operate

-Subtype manifests in the tendency to play a certain role in a group setting, which gives it a major social dimension (indeed we often say that subtype is most prominent at the social level of the communicative space)

-Examination of a person in its true complexity reveals a picture that appears as a superposition of several different types (at least, and in most cases)

-Subtype plays a major role in the self-image of a person (it is often assumed by people new to Socionics that our self-image relates mainly to sociotype, but this is false, as the subtype and accentuated function layers of the psyche are more directly subjects of personal focus and prominent within consciousness whereas sociotype is relatively hidden, autonomic, and deeper in the psyche in the SHS paradigm)

Because subtype plays such a large role in our self-image, we often play the role of our subtype even when we are alone. This is because our activity is sociologically conditioned and motivated in almost any case, and the functional states within a subtype (mentioned in the first quote about subtypes) give a stable equilibrium to a person in terms of energy level and basic goals and strategies for daily life (which sociotype has only distant relevance to).

It's worth noting that there is a slight inconsistency between the two quotes I cited in that one refers to "Accentuation" as the softest and most mobile layer of the psyche, whereas the second refers to the "Functional Profile" in the same role (excluding functional state which as Victor says is rarely recorded anyways since it is too situational). The second article written by Victor is more correct here, because accentuation relates to psychological complexes on specific functions which can vary in their degree of depth and stability (but are capable of a great deal of depth and stability, similar to subtype, because they relate most prominently to the psychological level of the communicative space which has a lot of potential depth, even more than subtypes in some cases since subtype is more focused on the superficial social level of communication in spite of its inherent stability). The functional profile, by contrast, represents a more superficial, variable layer of the psyche than that of either subtypes or accentuations, and is only a marginally stable way that a person uses to visibly solve problems in their current environment and situation (lacking the stable functional states and consistent role in a group which subtype necessitates, and lacking the psychological depth of an accentuated function). Our subtypes and accentuations affect our functional profile a lot, since they will often express themselves through it (subtype because we use it to stably interact with others and maintain a stable and consistent way of life manifested in certain functional states, and accentuation because such psychological complexes cause us to focus a lot on functions they relate to), but fundamentally functional profile is more variable and flexible since it lets us use all functions as the situation or environment demand of us. With all this in mind, what else can we learn about subtype?:

"Individual sociotype does not exist in isolation! One should take into account the inevitable imposition on it of one or several integral types of micro and macrosocium. In socio-analysis, therefore, at least eight levels of a person’s psychological life are studied:

1. temperament, by which I understand the emotional-motor proportions of the communication process,
2. behavior, by which I understand the change of various communication modes,
3. nature, i.e., trends in behavior change in the process of adaptation,
4. upbringing, i.e. control of behavior changes,
5. individual sociotype itself,
6. integral type of informal group in which an individual is included (primarily family and circle of friends),
7. integral type of a formal group in which an individual’s public and professional activities take place,
8. the type of mentality of the nation in which the individual developed.

Do not be afraid of the seeming complexity of the approach. Thinking with four-dimensional concepts is a new frontier that we have to master on the fascinating way of knowing society through man and man through society. Yes, do not stay away from this intellectual holiday." - Victor Gulenko

...

This is an old article, so the particular levels that Victor mentions here are not necessarily what are typically studied and spoken about in SHS today. For example, temperament is just a physically oriented part of sociotype, behavior is broadly a key facet of how we recognize various aspects of the psyche (sociotype, subtype, accentuation, specific functional states) as well as almost every other aspect of reality, nature is just a stable essential concept of something and the broad arena in which everything takes place, and upbringing is a large part of what conditions our personality (being the historical part which may include our subtype and accentuations but most likely not our sociotype). However it is easy to adapt the layers Victor had mentioned to consider all levels of the psyche in an ordered, hierarchical way, from the most surface level, changeable and mobile, to the most stable, deep and enduring:

1. Functional State, the purely situational functional state a person is experiencing
2. Functional Profile, specific behavior used to solve current problems in the environment
3. Temporal Vector, accumulated personal history of functional states, profiles, accentuations and subtypes, as well as any fixed direction of development or change in any of the foregoing
4. Functional Accentuation, a deep psychological attachment or complex in relation to a very sharply manifested Socionics function
5. Subtype, stable role in a group and equilibrium energy level for a person manifested in a stable coordinating group of functions
6. Sociotype, the main subject of Socionics, manifested fractally to some degree at other communicative levels
7. Integral type(s) of informal groups in which an individual is integrated (primarily family and circle of friends)
8. Integral type(s) of formal groups in which an individual's public and professional activities take place
9. Integral type of the nation, culture or civilization in which an individual is immersed
10. Integral type of the biological species of which the individual is a member
11. Integral type of the physical universe in which a being is immersed, etc.

It's worth noting that the structure of such complicated entities as integral types of groups, countries, species and the universe itself are studied only to a minor degree (and to whatever degree psyche pervades them, may be notably more complex or even simpler than the other type structures we study). Thus discussion of these more sweeping layers, while potentially interesting, should be regarded as more speculative and tenuous than discussions about more practically verified concepts such as Sociotype, subtype, accentuation, functions, etc. In any case, what we have here is a broad contextualization of Sociotype and subtype within a vast interconnected network of systems, parts of systems, and layers all mutually interacting in a beautiful patchwork of apparent order and chaos (to our limited perspectives). Looking at it this way, we can say that man is a "system of types" as it were (not merely one simplistic sociotype), and this is exactly what Victor Gulenko said in another paper he wrote which is relevant to this examination of subtype:

"Nothing in principle prevents us from considering personality as a system of several types, at least two... The two types, mental and vital, co-function in man as a self-organizing communicative system. They act equally." - Victor Gulenko

...

So all of these types work together simultaneously in a more complicated, self-organizing communicative system, each with different functions, none inherently more primary than the other. This complexity, while possibly interesting in itself, could also be annoying when we are trying to achieve simple and useful insights, since complexity for its own sake makes theories more difficult to falsify (pointless complexity would flout the maxim of Occam's Razor) and forces us to expend additional effort to understand and apply the theory. But it turns out that considering the complexity inherent in subtype and variation of type is inherently necessary from an epistemological point of view:

"As a rule only careful observation and a weighing of the evidence permits a sure classification. Clear and simple though the fundamental principle of the two opposing attitudes may be, nevertheless their concrete reality is complicated and obscure, for every individual is an exception to the rule. Therefore, one can never give a description of a type, no matter how complete, which applies to more than one individual despite the fact that thousands might, in a certain sense, be strikingly described thereby. Conformity is one side of a man, uniqueness is the other." - C. G. Jung

"A real, not a theoretical system is impossible without subsystems. That is, combining elements that interact with each other more closely than with other elements of the same system. Thus, in practical terms, the system should distinguish at least three hierarchical levels, namely: system - subsystem - element. In social and humanitarian practice, the task of distinguishing system levels is particularly difficult. How to determine where the action of the subsystem, and where - the whole system? The difficulties are connected with the fact that the communicative processes are of a fractal nature. Fractality is an organization where parts are like the whole. In other words, the mental subsystems are arranged in the same way as the large system itself - the psyche as a whole. As a result, the personality is structurally and functionally similar to its subpersonal components. This leads to a completely logical question: what, in fact, do “flat” socionics diagnose - is it the person as a whole or is it one of its subpersonalities?" - Victor Gulenko

...

Several important points here:

-Individuals are NOT reducible to types, an insight Carl Jung had a long time ago when he inspired so much of modern typology. Thus if one type is only an aspect of or approximation of an individual, several types capture a greater number of aspects of a person and provide an even more precise approximation (kind of like a series with a greater number of terms in mathematics, or a model with a greater number of parameters in machine learning). Granted, it will still always be an approximation nonetheless. Having a model with more types affords us the option to gain even more precision and comprehensiveness in our understanding of a person, while not forcing us to use all of the complexity all of the time (if a more imprecise or partial characterization would suffice for a given purpose, we can still use it).

-We cannot arbitrarily ignore the question of subsystems within a larger system, since obviously some elements of a system interact more closely with certain elements than they do others. And this is exactly how a subtype is defined: a set of functions which interact more closely together than with the other functions in the psyche, such that they lead to archetypal behaviors, role in a group, energy level, etc. Since it is simply a fact that subsystems may operate in our psyche, behavior, etc., then we would need to at least consider them in accounting for the apparently contradictory and complicated behavior of people, otherwise we would be ignoring a plausible hypothesis that works for many other real life systems (radioengineering and telecommunications, administrative law, computers, the structure of language, etc.) and which could potentially explain our object of study better than a single type. Models with a single type also need to ask the question as to whether type changes or whether they what they diagnose is a system or merely a subsystem of the human psyche, otherwise they have technically not proven that what they diagnose in people is a stable type at all.

Now that we've clarified what we mean by subtype and why it is important to consider from an epistemological viewpoint in studying the typical aspects of the human psyche, we should move on to understanding the criteria for determining the subtype of a real person:

"A subtype is a stable part of a functional profile that changes little with repeated testing. The core of a subtype is defined by a trio of functions (2+1), the proportions between which are maintained for a long time. The remaining functions are individual characteristics or situational reactions...

But I would like to remind you once again how subtypes can be distinguished in Humanitarian Socionics.

The first way is through special dichotomies that resemble traditional Jungian ones, but are not reduced to them...

The second way to determine a subtype is through a stable triple of functions. Here it is important that two conditions are met:

1) these functions would be strongly expressed externally and 2) they would work in a coordinated manner...

There is also a third way to study the subtype - a purely practical one. To do this, you need to be included in a group of four people and assigned to complete a difficult task in competition mode. Based on the position you take in the group, it will be possible to judge your subtype with sufficient confidence. But this is already more difficult, and not only in terms of time spent, but also in terms of the inability of some people to cooperate in groups. It may turn out that instead of working together, we will get conflicts and showdowns - the first extreme - or everyone will isolate themselves and refuse to interact - the second extreme. That is, the group may simply not start." - Victor Gulenko

...

As we can see, there are three criteria which can be used to determine the subtype of a person:

-A trio of dichotomies specifically designed to diagnose subtypes

-A trio of functions which give the mechanical base for the qualities and behavior of the subtype, explaining which subsystem in the overall sociotype is responsible for the subtype

-The role that a person most suitably takes in a group, which doesn't always work in the case of less integrated groups but which is a bright and qualitative way to see the subtype in action

We will describe these criteria in detail along with all relations between and variations on the subtypes in the next sections!

Subtype: Basic Descriptions

We'll start with the stable duos or trios of functions that compose the core of a subtype:

"Next, in this trio of functions, we will select the two, which should be in first place. And the third function in the formula is additional. This is the formula 2+1.

If we see that the functional profile of a person expresses extroverted management functions P and F, then we have the right to assume that he has a dominant subtype. As an additional function, E acts - the ethics of emotions, which gives the ability to speak and a shade of hysteria.

If we find a strong pair of functions E and I in the profile, we assume creativity. The third function here is F, it is additional, it indicates pugnacity and audacity, to one degree or another inherent in creative people.

I have already spoken about the normalizing ones. This subtype is primarily expressed through L and S, which means a tendency towards order and stability. The third function R shows how sensitive, anxious and doubting he is.

And harmonizing. The presence of this subtype is indicated by the expression of very sensitive functions T and R in your profile, and the third function - S additionally indicates to what extent your craving for harmonization is materialized (harmony of soul and body)." - Victor Gulenko

...

The Dominant subtype is fundamentally a leader, which is the role it plays in a group (more specifically, I’ve called it an Ambitious Hastening Leader):

-The P function is necessary for a dominant subtype because a leader needs a goal and a purpose to organize and coordinate people around. A leader has to lead somewhere, and they need to encourage those they lead towards the goal at a certain pace to maintain momentum and get results in time to be useful for practical purposes. They also need endurance and persistence in achieving the goal, all of which is impossible without the P function.

-The F function is necessary for a dominant subtype because a leader needs to be able to defend their powerful position, which others will surely covet. They need to be able to protect their initiatives and subjects from threats and provide them with sufficient resources, and they also need to be able to apply force to those lower in the hierarchy in order to force them to do what needs to be done when their projects get stuck, or to put people back in their place when their actions stray from a useful purpose.

-Without P and F working together, you cannot be a stable, realized Dominant person at all. However, the E function can also add an additional tool to the Dominant subtype, which gives an ability to charm and motivate people towards one’s goals and leadership at a more visceral, directly appealing level, giving people more intrinsic satisfaction and joy in following your leadership in something or scaring them away from the consequences of not following you. Strong emotions can also give you extra emotional motivation and energy as a leader to go the extra mile with a degree of zeal and ability to ignore pain while pursuing one’s goals.

The Creative subtype in the group is a generator of new options (I’ve called it a Rebellious Bright Generator):

-The I function is necessary for a Creative subtype because it generates new ideas and options more than any other function. It gives a person the ability to find new, non-standard actions in situations by looking at things in an unexpected way and implementing actions not outlined in any previous rules or expectations, which can solve problems in surprising ways and offer a deep source of resourcefulness. It has lots of curiosity and interest in unusual things which gives it more motivation to search for the undiscovered and more chances to notice it by expecting the unexpected.

-The E function is necessary for a Creative subtype because it gives interest and motivation for socializing and networking with other people, bringing new contacts and allies instead of just new ideas. It gives a need and desire to express one’s own inner world, making sure ideas and feelings are aired and expressed without shyness in case they might be useful. It can encourage the sharing from others with its contagious joy and curiosity, but also through provocations, insults and creating unexpected situations, making sure that deeper truths aren’t being hidden. Most of all, E stands out from the crowds with its bright expressiveness to make the creative person noticed and not forgotten, so its ideas can captivate and be transmitted.

-A Creative role demands both I and E for stability, but the F function also adds to its arsenal of tools. Creative people are put in potentially risky situations more than other subtypes because of their non-standard actions and the attention drawn to them, so being able to protect and fend for themselves makes them much more capable and further increases their freedom. It is even worse if Creative people are put under the yoke of unhelpful rules and restrictions, which their F pugnaciousness can serve to prevent. Additionally, if Creative people are more present-minded and alert, which is greatly aided by F, then they will be presented with far more chances to realize openings to implement their ideas and exploit random openings and unexpected changes.

The Normalizing subtype in the group plays the role of a stabilizer (I’ve also called it a Quality Task Finisher):

-The L function is necessary for a Normalizing subtype because it adheres to the disciplined order needed to maintain consistency, reliability and a systematic approach to tasks. It has everything to do with structure, rules, instructions, plans and schedules need to track and maintain stability, predictability and consistent understanding of life. L is a very perfectionistic, high-standards function as well which causes it to be determined to fill in any missing logical links in its understanding and any uncompleted details in its tasks. Any lack of compliance to its rules and ideals will cause L to itch and desire to restore order. If it's not sure about something, it's very inclined to check twice or even more than that, to recalculate, etc. which gives an answer that we can be sure of.

-The S function is necessary for a Normalizing subtype because it gives stability in the material world, in the form of a physical comfort zone and a circadian rhythm. It maintains continuity with the past by accumulating experience and being able to recall this experience associatively in the present; this memory, tradition and experience can be relied on and ground a person or a group in what has already been experienced. The S function will conformally adapt to the environment to a point of balance or homeostasis: arranging the environment for maximal convenience of habits, blending into the golden mean of the environment to not stick out too far to one side.

-Although one needs L and S to have any stable and realized Normalizing role, the R function also adds an important additional tool to Normalization. The R function, like a North Star, is loyal in its attachments, which lends itself to stable relationships just as well as stable habits and inclinations. R is a quite anxious and sensitive function as well, leading to a desire to keep behavior within the bounds of sensibility and sometimes even outright conservatism, preventing embarrassment and too much exposure of sensitive nerve. This gives relatively stable standards of appropriateness and informal norms of a human dimension, beyond what is laid out strictly in rules and systems.

The Harmonizing subtype in the group plays the role of a corrector of the psychological atmosphere (I’ve called it a Wise Kind Peacemaker):

-The T function is necessary for a Harmonizing subtype to see all kinds of subtle signals which hint at underlying inner processes and the future to come. This gives the ability to foresee danger and thus potentially avert or avoid it. This skill can also help to forecast the development of events, and thus smooth over their consequences. The T function is endowed with a rich inner world, which also gives it the ability to retreat inside of it and passively wait for dangers to pass. The imagination also lends itself to idealism, seeing how things could be better or fit into a harmonious whole, which is part of why it experiences pointless disharmony and unwholesome actions quite painfully.

-The R function is necessary for a Harmonizing subtype to be sensitive in a more emotional, humanistic sense. Empathically taking in the emotional signals of others at a very high volume, they are easily hurt by anything overly loud, abrupt, or violent, which lends itself to a peaceful approach to relations. The receptiveness of this function also lends itself to being responsive to others, desiring to meet their expectations and adapt to them, and paying attention to the deeper inclinations and sensitivities of a person. This generally helpful and sensitive attitude creates a safe and peaceful atmosphere.

-T and R are the necessary functions for any stable Harmonizing role, but the S function is a way to extend this subtype further. Harmonization in the abstract is made more holistic and convincing with physical relaxation of the body, pleasant and comfortable sensations, rest and rejuvenation. The health and good physical state of a person, as well as care and pleasantries offered to others, mollifies physical and psychological tensions. The theme of sensitivity carries over here as well in the form of disgust and sensitivity to discomfort; these feelings make the psychological atmosphere more tense and antsy, so awareness and aversion towards them, as comes from the S function, can be paramount for Harmonization.

…

Having addressed the primary group roles of subtypes and the functions that constitute each subtype, we should understand them in terms of a third method to diagnose them: the subtype dichotomies.

Dominant: Contact, Terminal, Connective

Creative: Contact, Initial, Ignoring

Normalizing: Distant, Terminal, Ignoring

Harmonizing: Distant, Initial, Connective

"Contact subtypes are not afraid of danger, they come into contact with the enemy, they do not keep their emotions to themselves, but transfer them either into a fight (dominant) or into creative searches and non-standard actions (creative). The simplest marker is that in an extreme situation they blush, get excited, aggravate, etc. Distant subtypes, accordingly, avoid danger, freeze, disguise themselves, keep stress to themselves. In the case of real danger, they often turn pale and freeze, rather than blush and get excited." - Dmitry Medvedev

The Contact subtypes (Dominant and Creative) are composed of extroverted functions, whereas the Distant subtypes (Normalizing and Harmonizing) are composed of introverted functions, so this must explain the difference between them, and this is exactly what we observe (read this Reddit comment by me to understand how to understand the “vertness” of a function as a vector):

-Extroverted functions generally can be represented as a vector going from inside a person to the outside, in the particular domain of the function. They work best in action and perceive information at a faster rate in the process of actively interacting with the environment. This is exactly what contact subtypes do: they come outward to confront situations, pour their emotions and attitudes outward instead of keeping it inside themselves, and in general they affect some kind of work, change or influence on the situation. They have poorer self-control than Distant subtypes, their actions may run ahead of their thoughts, and they may not integrate or reflect upon the lessons learned from their experiences. However, they are far more well-oriented to fast-paced or stressful environments than Distant people, accumulate a lot more experience because of their greater activity level and boldness, and they have the energy to quickly and actively resist and change a situation if this is needed.

-Introverted functions by contrast can be represented as a vector going from outside a person to the inside. They work more slowly, qualitatively and reflectively in perceiving information, like System 2 in the work of Daniel Kahneman. This would explain why distant subtypes freeze during stress and keep their emotions and influence inside of themselves; they need to think and reflect on the situation, as well as consider carefully how they are going to act before they do it. They naturally work worse with fast-paced and stressful environments, since they operate at a lower level of energy, and their main desire would be to leave and reflect, and they are distracted from the activity by their cautious considerations (which explains why their energy is tied up). However, they have an advantage of greater self-control, thoughtfulness, reflection on their experiences, and creating a smoother, more stable and more agreeable environment.

…

“Initial subtypes are easier to start business, but quickly lose interest and switch, unlike more ordered terminal subtypes, which always bring what they started to the end, but it is difficult for them to start something completely new, they will collect information for a long time, doubt, etc.” - Dmitry Medvedev

The structure of Initiality vs Terminality is a bit more complicated than that of the previous dichotomy. Each of the initial subtypes has two possible irrational functions and only one possible rational function (which is ethical). Each of the terminal subtypes has two possible rational functions and only one possible irrational function (which is sensing). Thus we can see that initiality is more associated with irrationality and that intuition is the extreme pole of initiality (ethics and sensing have some initiality, but less than intuition). Terminality is more associated with rationality. and logic represents its extreme pole (sensing and ethics have some terminality, but less than logic).

It’s pretty easy to see why rational functions lead to more terminality and irrational functions lead to more initiality in a subtype. Irrational types and functions are more situational in nature, not as toned as rational types and functions, and it’s harder from them to stick to a consistent plan, schedule or mode of behavior since they can adapt to each situation anew and their mood and state change accordingly. Rational types and functions are more ordered and linear, which gives them an advantage in regulating their behavior with enough consistency to bring started tasks to their end (especially in the long term). The linearity and order in rational functions makes them more inflexible, and thus it is harder for them to change course according to a new situation; they change more gradually as their more generalized rational reasons change.

Logical functions lead to terminality more than ethical functions because logic is more disciplined, goal-oriented and objective. Although ethical functions are rational and thus have a degree of linearity, they are more sensitive, subjective and prone to fluctuations of mood than logical functions which force themselves to complete the tasks they set out to regardless of how they feel about it.

Intuitive functions lead to initiality more than sensing functions because intuition is more curious, inquisitive, and less tied to material circumstances in comparison to sensing functions. The practicality of sensing functions, and their greater need for stable material ties (powerful positions and resources in the case of F, homeostatic comfort zone and previous experience in the case of S) limits the new options and situations that they can pursue in comparison to intuitive functions. Intuition can ideate a broad range of new options, experiences and perspectives that are not tied to circumstantial limitations, and it may become bored with a previous option more quickly due to being able to generate or perceive more new options so much more easily.

…

“Connective subtypes have a sensitive connection with the surrounding communicative environment. They take into account feedback signals and adjust their behavior according to them. Ignoring subtypes, as the name itself indicates, are able to ignore the feedback from the communicative environment for a long time and act without taking into account the opinions and requirements of others.” - Dmitry Medvedev

Connective vs Ignoring has perhaps the most complex structure of all the subtype dichotomies we’ve discussed so far. Each of the connective subtypes has two possible dynamic functions and only one possible static function. Each of the ignoring subtypes has two possible static functions and only one possible dynamic function. The other principle that differentiates this dichotomy is a bit more obscure, and has to do with an elemental dichotomy called Involved vs Detached.

Dynamic functions correspond to a more unbalanced nervous system which more easily loses its equilibrium in response to stimulus and thus is more easily triggered into change and motion, which naturally gives a more sensitive connection to the environment. This is mirrored in the thought process of dynamic functions, which is more associative in nature, one thought cascading into another via simple experiential and imaginal association, which causes them to experience and comprehend feedback more rapidly than static functions. The movement of dynamic functions is smoother and more continuous, performed in mutual transition with the environment and adjusting to it in something approximating real-time.

Static functions correspond to a more balanced nervous system which remains unaffected by (i.e. "ignores") small signals. It is only triggered into motion or change by large signals past a certain threshold, or by the accumulation of smaller signals past this threshold (corresponding to the accumulation of potential energy). This motion will not be continuous like a dynamic function, but rather a discrete change to a new equilibrium state from which small signals are to again be ignored (at least for the sake of movement). It is the same in the mind; static functions think in terms of more rigid connections or valences, and mere associations will not cause a change or cascading of thought (they need to meet a certain threshold and substantive proportion to lay the next brick in reasoning).

There is more to this subtype dichotomy because Detached, Abstract functions (Logical or Intuitive: P, T, L and I) represent extremes on the scale of Connectiveness and Ignorativity, based on the previous standard of Dynamic versus Static:

-P ONLY belongs to the connective Dominant subtype, and not the ignoring Creative subtype at all

-I ONLY belongs to the ignoring Creative subtype, and not the connective Dominant subtype at all

-L ONLY belongs to the ignoring Normalizing subtype, and not the connective Harmonizing subtype at all

-T ONLY belongs to the connective Harmonizing subtype, and not the ignoring Normalizing subtype at all

Whereas Involved, directly felt functions (Ethical or Sensory: F, R, S, E) represent intermediate gradations on the scale of Connectiveness and Ignorativity, partaking to a greater extent of both sides of the spectrum:

-F potentially belongs to BOTH the connective Dominant subtype and the ignoring Creative subtype

-E potentially belongs to BOTH the ignoring Creative subtype and the connective Dominant subtype

-S potentially belongs to BOTH the ignoring Normalizing subtype and the connective Harmonizing subtype

-R potentially belongs to BOTH the connective Harmonizing subtype and the ignoring Normalizing subtype

Involved functions process information that is either fully kinesthetic or has a strong connection to the material body and circumstance, and they are primarily processed by the first signal system. They are maximally embodied in the everyday life of humans and likely even other animals to some extent. Biological life requires a careful balancing between various extremes in order to stably exist; this is often called a Goldilocks zone. Because of the careful balance needed to survive and support the fragile physical and social equilibrium of life, none of the involved functions can ignore feedback from the communicative environment for too long. Likewise, due to the predictability and stability necessary for life to exist, involved functions cannot constantly change in response to feedback from the environment, or they could not do anything except constantly adapt to the ceaseless flow of new changes. All involved functions thus need an intermediate degree of stability that is capable of staying alert enough to survive and adapt to local conditions while providing enough predictability and stable ground for other life activities to be built upon. Detached functions do not have the same limitations; their globality and abstraction allow them to selectively consider information about more absolutely stable things (regardless of how they relate to our more vulnerable and transient biological lives) or about a constant process of change to which we could not possibly consistently adapt and still get any rest or focus on anything else. Detached functions do not directly feel their subject matter kinesthetically and are fundamentally removed from the constant battle against entropy and impersonal laws needed to live in a Goldilocks zone. Involved functions, by contrast, are always immersed in that struggle and negotiation for balance.

Let's compare the functions of each temperament in terms of which is more extreme in their Connectivity or Ignorativity:

-The P function is more goal and result oriented than any other function. The entire point of it is to do whatever is needed to go straight towards the goal as fast as possible, which necessarily considers the interaction with the environment and the path through it (connective). This can often be stressful on the body and mind (since the P function requires endurance and willpower to use to any extensive degree). There is no point at which it can ignore the surrounding communicative environment because that would mean not moving towards its goals as fast as possible (since that will involve physical traversal, interactions with others, etc. that need to be taken into account). The E function is also dynamic, so it shares many aspects of connectivity with P that have already been discussed. Its emotional interaction with the environment takes place in real life and operates continuously and in mutual transition with the environment. However, E is a more involved, and embodied function than P; it cannot disconnect itself from its own emotions in the same manner that the impersonal, objective goals of P are not directly connected with the states and limitations of a person. The emotions of E are a stateful process within a person in their own right, and they cannot be arbitrarily changed. Because of this, E is also somewhat ignoring, because it needs to feel and express its emotions for what they truly are in the body and psyche of a person, and it needs the environment to recognize and pay attention to the true emotions without adjusting them.

-The I function is more interest and curiosity oriented than any other function. Interest is of course a dynamic concept in that it doesn't always stay the same, but it does not change continuously otherwise it could not serve as a point of focus or orientation of interest. This discreteness is why I is static rather than dynamic; using I, a person orbits around certain interests for a while, delving more deeply into them and exploring more broadly into the area around the interest. After a while, the person becomes bored and the locus of interest may change to something else in the periphery that accumulated some interest, dopamine, and/or curiosity in the mind or body. Due to the fact that I is much more interested in certain things than others and is oriented by the dopaminergic rewards of the future that will come from following its interests, I will not be interested in most other aspects of the environment. This is where I gets its reputation for ignorativity; I isn't going to devote significant effort or focus to anything it's not interested in, to criticism of what might go wrong with its adventures, and to other mundane disputes of daily life. If presented with something like that, the boredom of I will quickly make it lose focus and take it back to what it's interested in. This is also why the I function, and Creative people more generally, often don't enjoy and aren't interested in standard schooling or academics. The F function, also static, flexible, focused on certain resources and rewards, etc. shares many aspects of ignorativity with the I function. However, the material and kinesthetic aspects of F make it far more tied to the present moment and its awareness, as well as the immediate opportunities and threats which arise there. Thus F is far more aware of and present in its environment than I, giving it far more feedback signals. As a seeker of power, resources and status, F requires relatively stable positions of security than the more broadly curious, adventurous, less materialistic and less acquisitive I function. The power, resources and status that F seeks are scarce and often quite competitive in nature, so F needs to maintain a certain presence and readiness to fight and compete in response to getting new resources and defending the territory already possessed. Extreme manifestations of the I function, by contrast, make a person flighty and distracted like an absent minded adventurer who might forget where they placed something, forget to dress properly, etc. Thus, F has a significant degree of Connectiveness lacking in I.

-The L function is more ordered, structured and reliable than any other function. It is focused on operating according to a stable structure or plan, and in its assessments it is only motivated by objective factors and impersonal judgment. This makes L very ignorative because it already operates according to an explicit plan, structure or set of rules, and other signals from the communicative environment don't change the rigid sequence of actions demanded by the structure to maintain its proper order. In forming judgments, L can only consider matters that are strictly and clearly logically relevant to the issue that it is considering, so as to remain logically sound and properly focused on only significant details in its reasoning about the issue under consideration. It needs to ignore all irrelevant details and sidetracks as well as all subjective and personal matters (of itself or other people) in order to retain its pure and detached logical focus. The R function, by contrast, is much more sensitive than L and has fewer filters in its perception. It is still somewhat ignoring because it shares all the static features that L has, and it is oriented at stable relationships, attachments and habits that don't change due to small influences. In order to understand the deeper feelings and attachments of other people (and thus how to treat them at a more sensitive level), R needs to take in quite subtle signals in the actions of others. Deep attachments are often hidden, not explicit, and are necessary to understand in order to get a deeper understanding of a person. To be responsive and adaptive to the needs and inclinations of others, as R needs to be in order to harmonize the psychological atmosphere and smoothen the sharp edges of relations, R requires a felt kinesthetic empathy towards others, and this requires paying attention to the feedback signals that others give. R is also oriented at noticing and staying inside informal norms of communication (in other words, “appropriateness”), and the sensitivity to shame is also a feedback signal to which R is acutely responsive. Hence, R has a significantly Connective nature on multiple dimensions, rather than being more purely ignorative like L.

-The T function is more subtle and sensitive than any other, being associated with the nervous system itself. It can perceive all manner of small signals from the environment which could alert to changes, developments, inner patterns and processes, contradictions, etc. which may forebode the developments to come. Because of this, people may perceive T to be rather nervous in its reactions (for example appearing anxious, rocking back and forth, etc.) and thus intensely responsive to the feedback signals of its environment. T needs to be sensitive this way in order to predict how the environment will develop. It has a wide-ranging associatively organized memory as well, so when it receives some stimulus from the environment, it quickly recalls previous memories, as well as peripherally connected knowledge, etc. into consciousness. This may cause T to have reactions that others perceive as detached or strange, such as emotional expressions that aren’t connected to the current situation. All of this is part of T’s peculiar connectiveness. The S function is also dynamic, so shares in a lot of connective facets with T. However, S also needs to be able to create enough of a comfort zone that it doesn’t change in response to most signals for the environment. This function has the task of building a nest, as it were, which requires homeostasis and balance. It is like the creation of a Goldilocks Zone that I mentioned, a kind of “golden mean”; within this zone, people need to have some expectation of comfort, relaxation, and temperance of experience. Furthermore, the type of associations experienced by the S function are more rooted in the past experience of a person, so it reacts to a smaller range of stimuli than the T function does (which may connect even future-oriented and ambiguous knowledge and patterns together) and isn’t moved to such abstract and nervous chains of associations as T (which can make a person react to all kinds of speculative and subtle events and threats that may not even occur). It’s not hard to see how S has a significant degree of Ignorativity in its comfort zone as well as its more grounded and narrow focus, whereas T is more purely Connective.

Next week, we will start examining the relationships of these subtypes in detail!