...

2. ## Re: Plus/Minus Signs

*edited due to bad temper when writing it*

3. I don't really follow the question, and I may be stating something you already know... but I just wanted to point out that the + and - signs aren't anything more than arbitrary symbols assigned to the concept that Alpha Fe is different than Beta Fe. They're as arbitrary as the circles, triangles, etc. used for functions. I'm not sure how many people really think they offer much insight into the theory of Socionics anyways.

4. Originally Posted by Kioshi
That line is repeated in just about everything I read. What is not provided is any actual information. I can't make any more sense out of model A in the absence of the relations than I can in the absence of those signs. What I was looking for was information from you, not some bullshit response. But I suppose if that's all you have then it will have to do.
Ok, fair enough.

The redundancy is that if you start from the standard model A, if I tell you that the "classical" model A block is , I need no other information to know that in that system we have - + + - . It's all connected to how the original functions are blocked. So the signs do not give any new information. They don't tell you anything that you didn't know already from looking at the original version of model A.

5. I don't understand your diagram...

Are you trying to figure out how the + or - is assigned to each of the functions in each quadra? The pattern that decides it which functions get a + and which get a - ?

6. Originally Posted by Kioshi
Originally Posted by Joy

Are you trying to figure out how the + or - is assigned to each of the functions in each quadra? The pattern that decides it which functions get a + and which get a - ?
The diagram was about all I could find of the original model A.

Ni => Fe => Si => Te => Ni

This is obviously the right dynamic loop in the socion. From this we get the Ni => Fe ego and the Si => Te superego.

Se => Ti <= Ne => Fi <= Se

This is obviously not the static loop. From this we get Se => Ti super-id and Ne => Fi id. This is about as far as I can get.

Anyhow, I just need to understand how all 16 elements are defined using model A.
Wait now, there are only eight elements, let's get that straight.

7. 16 if you involve accepting/creating. 32 if also abstract/concrete, but that's an aberration (IMO).

8. Originally Posted by labcoat
16 if you involve accepting/creating. 32 if also abstract/concrete, but that's an aberration (IMO).
But they are intutively the same. Everything falls into one of the eight.

And I don't think the elements are accepting or creating. That's a property of the functions that use them.

9. Expat: she's talking about how the functions (somehow) perceive IM elements other than their own. How that is done has not been made clear. We deduce that they have "opinions" about each other but how they have them is not mechanically understood.

My assessment: the first one has a disposition towards one, and the other functions are left to "fight" over the rest. (with some exiling to the unconscious thrown in on the part of the victorious ego elements.)

You can't let get in the way of , or in the way of . You've got to put them somewhere.

(I'll try to come up with an answer to how this happens...) But even then, the underlying mechanism of their considerations is not explained, only how they consider them. e.g., the consideration is "assumed" at this point without further explanation.

10. Originally Posted by Kioshi
Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Wait now, there are only eight elements, let's get that straight.
8 or 16, it doesn't really matter. All I am trying to do is make the connection between the 4x2x2 model that is model A and the 4x2x2 model that is the socion. (In either case, both have 16 elements by my count.)
16 elements for how many aspects?

11. I started writing a response and decided it's crap... but I'll send what I have to you in a PM anyways Kioshi.

12. I don't think anyone is going to understand what you're trying to do until you show a bit more about the resources you are drawing this information from, and what steps you perform to arrive at it.

13. "He" is actually Augusta herself. (note the A followed by the long name; and to affirm, google translate on the name itself gives "Aušra A.") This was one of her later papers, it would appear.

One thing I immediately notice is that she says point blank that socionics is a theory of perceptions; she makes no mention of activity. This paper stands in support of dual-type theory's postulate that the metabolism and exertion types are distinct, because she does not claim their union. Therefore the inventor of socionics herself is on record as not making the assumption that the two are identical. The belief that they are is a non-empirical assumption not attributable to Augusta. (effectively reducing the state of the dual-type theory debate to a matter of opinion, with no institutional basis for either its acceptance or rejection.)

As for what's going on with the functions, I don't immediately see where your diagram comes from, Kioshi. But I'll be taking another look at it.

EDIT:
I'm puzzled by what has to do with distances, (although I guess they could be "external field statics" by some reckoning) but the id description in particular is very informative. "Unrealized activities" points towards the hopes and dreams that are shared by people of similar political persuasions and rapports. Also interesting is that the id block is said to be "responsive to direction". The question is, direction from where?

An ego strong enough to master the id, of course.

14. Originally Posted by Expat
Originally Posted by Kioshi
That line is repeated in just about everything I read. What is not provided is any actual information. I can't make any more sense out of model A in the absence of the relations than I can in the absence of those signs. What I was looking for was information from you, not some bullshit response. But I suppose if that's all you have then it will have to do.
Ok, fair enough.

The redundancy is that if you start from the standard model A, if I tell you that the "classical" model A block is , I need no other information to know that in that system we have - + + - . It's all connected to how the original functions are blocked. So the signs do not give any new information. They don't tell you anything that you didn't know already from looking at the original version of model A.
By that line of reasoning, Model A should only have two functions. It just depends on the desired level of resolution.

15. Originally Posted by Expat
Ok, fair enough.

The redundancy is that if you start from the standard model A, if I tell you that the "classical" model A block is Extraverted Thinking Introverted Intution , I need no other information to know that in that system we have - Extraverted Thinking + Introverted Thinking + Introverted Intution - Extraverted Intution . It's all connected to how the original functions are blocked. So the signs do not give any new information. They don't tell you anything that you didn't know already from looking at the original version of model A.
The new information they give, is that the Te of an ENTj and the Si of the ISTp have something in common. They're essential to understanding what the Reinin dichotomies are really about.

16. Originally Posted by labcoat
Originally Posted by Expat
Ok, fair enough.

The redundancy is that if you start from the standard model A, if I tell you that the "classical" model A block is Extraverted Thinking Introverted Intution , I need no other information to know that in that system we have - Extraverted Thinking + Introverted Thinking + Introverted Intution - Extraverted Intution . It's all connected to how the original functions are blocked. So the signs do not give any new information. They don't tell you anything that you didn't know already from looking at the original version of model A.
The new information they give, is that the Te of an ENTj and the Si of the ISTp have something in common. They're essential to understanding what the Reinin dichotomies are really about.
I disagree. We don't need to model that information, it's implicit.

17. Here's the thing.....

If I denote the group of people we know as 'INTj's' by the terms 'empowering merry result' (which if you know the terms you'll recognize contains the exact same information as 'INTj'), the accepting/creating positions of functions and the functions themselves are implicitly present in the information that was given.

Now you're calling abstract and concrete 'implicitly present' but what is to keep me from claiming it's the terms you're using that are implicit and the others that are not?

Neither of the two is more or less important or fundamental than the other, so they should be given the same attention. That is the only objective stance to the matter and any other is wont to seed misconceptions and bias in your thinking and that of others.

18. Originally Posted by labcoat
Here's the thing.....

If I denote the group of people we know as 'INTj's' by the terms 'empowering merry result' (which if you know the terms you'll recognize contains the exact same information as 'INTj'), the accepting/creating positions of functions and the functions themselves are implicitly present in the information that was given.

Now you're calling abstract and concrete 'implicitly present' but what is to keep me from claiming it's the terms you're using that are implicit and the others that are not?

Neither of the two is more or less important or fundamental than the other, so they should be given the same attention. That is the only objective stance to the matter and any other is wont to seed misconceptions and bias in your thinking and that of others.
I agree, but the question is this: where is the line of communication between the conscious and the subconscious? Where is the trancendental function?

On the other hand, I'm not sure I understand what has to do with . I thought you said instead of , but I misread.

19. No, what I was saying is that the Si of an ISTp and the Te of an ENTj are both abstract functions, and that this is something they have in common that can be detected with intuition and studied.

I think this is only useful to us exertion Te/Fi types though, as it takes the fact as understanding itself. It doesn't expect backup from an idea, or something (I don't really understand how you guys understand facts, but it seems as if you try to see through everything and to connect it on a deeper level... I myself do that on a metabolism level (eg. seeing 'type' not as behavior (smilingeyes did this) but as a deeper mechanism driving behavior), but not on an exertion level in that same way).

Not sure how you got the trancendental functions involved in this.

20. You're right. Augusta reckoned function 7's information as being a source of information in itself. I'm very skeptical that her model is accurate here, not sure where she came up with the the 7th going to the 6th AND the 8th. Doesn't make sense.

Perhaps Rick can tell us more.

P.S.: I disagree with your labeling of "16" elements. Positive or negative, they are examining the same thing.

21. Just for reference I did a clearer translation of that article for the wiki... (I did sort of poop out towards the middle somewhere but still it's easier to read than the one above IMO)

[web:86f2b4cbc1]http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Augusta_model_of_the_information_m etabolism[/web:86f2b4cbc1]

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•