Official site

Humanitarian Socionics

0
15583

The concept of subtypes in socionics. Dominant, creative, normalizing, and harmonic


The subtype is the next level of detail of the psyche in socionics after the sociotype itself and denotes a certain rather global shift in values, worldview and, as a result, behavior within the sociotype.

According to current theoretical concepts, the subtype arises as a result of some "strengthening" (increasing the degree of prevailing in the psyche) of one of the components (parts) of the sociotype as a result of adaptation to real conditions of existence. Moreover, the conditions of existence mean not only external factors (society), but also internal ones.

The subtype is a fairly rigid and rigid structure, which, however, can still change (semi-rigid structure, and not completely rigid, as the sociotype itself) with a very strong impact on the psyche (such an impact can be, for example, the death of a loved one or a spiritual crisis).

In addition, it should be noted that in the process of adolescent crisis or midlife crisis, the probability of changing the subtype increases, as psychological factors are amplified by physiological ones ("hormonal storm"). It is believed that in the average person, the subtype changes once or twice during life (i.e., there are people who have changed it more times, as well as people who were in a fairly stable and appropriate environment for their nature and whose subtype did not change at all during life).

Like the sociotype itself, the subtype is primarily a qualitative structure, not a quantitative one.

Like the concept of sociotype, a subtype can be used in two similar, but still different meanings.

In the first (narrow) sense, the subtype is considered as a structure based on the actual sociotype (the shell of the sociotype), but still not being it. In this approach, the subtype is considered independently of the actual sociotype (as a separate level), as if it is taken out of brackets. Accordingly, as a result, the subtypes appear to be "common" for different sociotypes (for example, any sociotype can have a creative subtype, and it is the same for all sociotypes).

In the second (broad) sense, the subtype is considered as a variant of the sociotype, and therefore the subtype includes the sociotype itself as the core (accordingly, if in the first case we talked about the creative subtype as such, then with this approach, the subtype will no longer be just a creative, but, for example, a creative Enthusiast). From this point of view, the sociotype itself, in turn, can be considered as an invariant of subtypes (that is, the part that remains stable and unchanged in various variants).

It is easy to see that both of these approaches do not contradict, but complement and enrich each other, but a narrow interpretation is more often used in the theoretical consideration and study of the subtype, and a broad one — in solving practical problems. We can also say that the subtype in the narrow sense acts as an abstraction rather, which is necessary for a more convenient study of the fragment of a single and integral entity that interests us – the psyche itself, while considering the subtype in the broad sense, we are thus relying on two abstractions (the subtype in the narrow interpretation and the sociotype in the narrow interpretation), we are approaching a correct description of reality.

One of the important questions in the theory of subtypes is the question of their number (especially if we consider subtypes theoretically as ideal constructions). When solving this issue, you can approach it from two sides-from the side of theory and from the side of practice. From a theoretical point of view, a subtype can be thought of as some qualitative reinforcement of a part of the sociotype, and therefore there should be as many subtypes as we distinguish elements within the sociotype — 2, 4 (rings and blocks), 8 (individual functions) or 16 (taking into account the signs of the functions). From a practical point of view, the level of detail should be sufficient to solve real problems, it should be sufficiently complete to clearly describe all the options, but it should not be redundant. Accordingly, when developing the theory of subtypes, it is necessary to find a compromise between these two approaches, at the moment such a compromise is to work at a level of 16x4 subtypes.

To date, the most common and used as a standard system of subtypes is DCNH, when the subtype is considered as an enhancement of a temperamental pair of functions:

The dominant subtype (D) is also sometimes referred to as the linear-assertive subtype. The dominant subtype formula is: PF (or FP) + E. This subtype is characterized by active endeavors to achieve the set goals, and in the process of implementation of these goals, all possible resources are often involved, including human resources, so such a person acts as a motivator for the people around them and the engine of the group.

The creative subtype (C) is also sometimes referred to as the flexible-ingenuine subtype. Creative subtype formula: EI (or IE) + F. This variant of the sociotype is characterized by a non-standard perception of situations and non-standard reactions to them, the introduction of new things, which gives the group that includes such a person the opportunity to develop flexibly choosing the direction of movement (and such a group can be either an informal team or a family, or a fairly large organization).

The normalizing subtype (N) is also sometimes referred to as the balanced-stable subtype. The normalizing subtype formula is LS (or SL) + R.

The normalizing subtype is characterized by the identification, establishment and keeping of norms and rules that regulate both the formal and informal side of life, the ordering of the surrounding space (in the broadest sense — from the allocation of a personal place for each thing to behavior in public places). This variant of the sociotype tolerates the situation of uncertainty and constant unpredictable changes in the rules worse than the others (however, it should be remembered that the comparison is between the variants within the same sociotype and the situation that for the normalizing Inspector will be perceived as a situation of uncertainty and cause comfort, for the normalizing Analytic it may well be perceived as definite and natural, and therefore do not cause any moral discomfort);

The harmonizing subtype (H) is also sometimes referred to as the receptive-adaptive subtype. The formula of the harmonizing subtype: TR (or RT) + S. This variant of the sociotype is characterized by sensitivity to changes in the broadest sense (from changes in one's own body to changes in the development of the organization), strong sense of aesthetic. This variant of the sociotype is worse than the others to tolerate aggravated conflicts and contradictions, as a result of which it is inclined to "pour oil into the fire", and if it is impossible to eliminate the conflict, it is inclined to distance itself from the situation physically and psychologically.

Comments

1000 characters left

Don't miss this, it's also

Interesting

Functions

Functional state F - power sensing

Intellectually, the state of F means the perception of strength-weakness. Thinking in this state is extremely concrete, grounded...

3
10071

Aristocrats and Democrats in Socionics

The aristocrats are representatives of the Beta and Delta quadras. For these types, the predominance of vertical...

3
20567
Installation

Social-communicative orientation

Social-communicative orientation is most effective in the social sphere – trade...

0
6645