school of system socionics +/- sign diagram
Model A with the +/- signs
school of system socionics +/- sign diagram
Last edited by silke; 06-03-2014 at 12:23 AM. Reason: added picture from sss website
Interesting...
(If it only was a higher resolution image.)
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
I'm starting to think that the nomenclature like for example INTj or LII, should be revised. I do not believe that INTj are naturally introverted, it just depends on the subtype of the type.
mostly, although its based off of other things
Socionics introversion and extroversion aren't the same as social introversion or extroversion.
Never said it was. I'm just stating that an INTj for example doesn't naturally prefer an introverted function, it depends on the person's subtype. INTjs could choose -Ti or +Te as its dominant function.
*ahem*
oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=11490
It's amazing how much this forum went downhill.
I know... didn't we already do this one to death like two years ago?
Um, this is entirely different that that model. -Ti is not +Ti. +Te is not -Te. If you think this theory is even remotely close to that one, you are wrong. In an INTjs ego block the main functions are -Ti and +Te. -Ti is about abstraction, and analysis. +Te is about productivity. In the 7th block, you have -Te and +Ti. These are extremely different from -Ti and +Te. This theory has nothing to do with the influence of function 7 on function 1 or function 8 on function 2. I am not regurgitating an idea. I am saying that there is a difference between the ways that Ti manifests itself in INTjs and ISTjs. I believe that the Ti in these two types are extremely different. I am also stating that each use Te in their main dominant function (+Te and -Te respectively).
I'm not even talking about that, but just the seemingly low level of intelligence of a lot of the members now.I know... didn't we already do this one to death like two years ago?
I see no such distinction. I think +/-is an approximation of a structure that is observed, without actually trying to apprehend the structure.
Your theory could not be distinct because we are modeling the same things. I don't care if you have a different take on it or not, glad to see you do. But respect the fact that the phenomenon we are modeling is the same.
I don't think in models, but in phenomena.
Do you see justification for the +/- viewpoint? If you do, and are not simply taking the "fact" of their existence at face value, then perhaps there is some truth to it. Actually, the idea stems from Jung's observation of parallel extroverted and introverted thinking processes in his own introspective experience. (socionists acknowledge this; see Psychological Types - Thinking) However saying that
Why exactly did you pick this post to talk about the low level of intelligence on the forums? Are you trying to insult me or something because of my theory?
I see no such distinction. I think +/-
Your theory could not be distinct because we are modeling the same things. I don't care if you have a different take on it or not, glad to see you do. But respect the fact that the phenomenon we are modeling is the same.
I don't think in models, but in phenomena.
No offense, but that made absolutely no sense.
Got intuition?I see no such distinction. I think +/-
Your theory could not be distinct because we are modeling the same things. I don't care if you have a different take on it or not, glad to see you do. But respect the fact that the phenomenon we are modeling is the same.
I don't think in models, but in phenomena.
No offense, but that made absolutely no sense.
Another thing, I'm also suggesting that the way we look at functions could be changed. I think that -Ti and +Te are one function, and +Ti and -Te are one function. -Te is the side of the function that expresses itself to the world, +Ti would be the side that would be internal (this being for the -Te,+Te function). There is a very distinct difference between the different polar functions of the same expressive types. Take Ti for instance:
+Ti would be : reality, detail, detailed study, carefulness, severity, place in hierarchies, laws, decisions, instructions, a choice of the best variant, logic of the organization.
-Ti would be :abstraction, generality, universality, system, classification, typology, the general laws, objectivity, true, validity, the analysis, logic of a science, criteria.
This is one reason;
But it's not just you. Other posters like machintruc give me that similar feeling while reading their posts. It's not even disagreeing with people, but thinking the entire post lacks any substance or organized thought. That shouldn't really happen.
In your bar you said you think in phenomenon and not models, yet you call yourself an INTj. That logically contradicts that. INTjs think in models. Thats what -Ti is. You see no such distinction because you aren't looking at it the right way. The whole purpose of socionics is to model human behavior. If you think that phenomenon will explain everything, then you are wrong. Doing that will cause you to make logical assumptions that should not be made. The only way to explain something is to create a system, otherwise there is no logical proof that you are correct in your assumption.Got intuition?I see no such distinction. I think +/-
Your theory could not be distinct because we are modeling the same things. I don't care if you have a different take on it or not, glad to see you do. But respect the fact that the phenomenon we are modeling is the same.
I don't think in models, but in phenomena.
No offense, but that made absolutely no sense.
This is one reason;
But it's not just you. Other posters like machintruc give me that similar feeling while reading their posts. It's not even disagreeing with people, but thinking the entire post lacks any substance or organized thought. That shouldn't really happen.
Because I do not believe that an INTj really automatically prefers and introverted function over an extroverted one. I think that the I in INTj is wrong. The main function of an INTj is (-Ti,+Te). An INTj uses both. Um, my theory has a ton of organized thought behind it. There have been many socionist that have touched on this before. I don't see where you say my post lacks substance. It sounds like you are judging me before you hear me out.
You sound like Phaedrus now.
You think an Introverted type now, does not have a dominant introverted function. Why do you think this? It contradicts the whole point of the theory.
What I was saying was, we never used to have all these theories thrown around that make no sense.
If you so think your dominant function is extraverted, then call yourself an Extraverted type. The amount of twisted logic being thown around is becoming repulsive.
No my point is that theres shouldn't be type distinctions on order of functions made by introversion and extroversion. INTj is not an introverted type imo. That is the whole point of my theory. It does not contradict any theory. The proposed introverted types that people currently acknowledge are just introverted subtypes for an order of functions. There can be +Te INTjs and their can be -Ti INTjs. It depends on the person. And just curious, what is your type?
Last time I checked, Carl Jung disagreed.
And Carl Jung coined the terms Extraversion and Introversion. So I'm trusting he knew what they meant.
It contradict the theory that everyone prefers one mode over the other.INTj is not an introverted type imo. That is the whole point of my theory. It does not contradict any theory.
Seems like a pretty pointless claim to make.The proposed introverted types that people currently acknowledge are just introverted subtypes for an order of functions. There can be +Te INTjs and their can be -Ti INTjs. It depends on the person.
Apparently everyone has a difference definition of a type, so I couldn't tell you, you'd have to tell me. Because my idea of a type is probably different from yours.And just curious, what is your type?
No Carl Jung said that functions were introverted or extroverted. He didn't say that types were defined by that. Its hard to explain what I'm trying to say when I say this, because model A can get very complex when you think about it certain ways, but the point of my theory is that introversion or extroversions doesn't automatically change the order of the functions in model A. An ENTp can be introverted or extroverted depending on whether or not it chooses -Ni or +Ne as its basic function. An INTj can be introverted or extroverted depending on whether or not it chooses +Te or -Ti as its main function. The I in front of INTj or the E in front of ENTp is wrong, because the types can be both I and E. This makes it very difficult in testing. This could make it so that an INTj could test as an ENTj, or an ENTp could test as an INTp.
I know, you've been saying that all thread.
But it really makes no sense. Or even if it did, would be totally unpractical.
and why exactly does it not make sense?
No point in calling someone with a dominant Ni function entp. Wouldn't be close enough together to consider them the same type.
Well its my opinion that +Ne and -Ni are the same function. But thats basically my point, the E in ENTp doesn't make sense.
FYI, that plus or minus model, which you call "true model A", simply says that the functions get the + or - signs according to the other function in the block.
So, if you look at the table, you will see that for instance the "first"is always a -
as in Gamma, and always a +
as in Delta. The same goes for all the signs.
So it's helpful, perhaps, to illustrate that the functions are different according to the block they are in; but it does not actually provide any new information. It's actually redundant, if you understand model A.
Then you're not talking of classical model A socionics, which is fine; just don't call it "true" model A, because it confuses newcomers. I will change the name of the thread.
Types use both an introverted partial and an extroverted partial in each of its sub-blocks. The E in ENTp is sort of incorrect because the ENTps dominant block is composed of both +Ne and -Ni. Technically an ENTp could be both introverted and extroverted.FYI, that plus or minus model, which you call "true model A", simply says that the functions get the + or - signs according to the other function in the block.
So, if you look at the table, you will see that for instance the "first"
So it's helpful, perhaps, to illustrate that the functions are different according to the block they are in; but it does not actually provide any new information. It's actually redundant, if you understand model A.
Then you're not talking of classical model A socionics, which is fine; just don't call it "true" model A, because it confuses newcomers. I will change the name of the thread.
ONLY according to your erroneous interpretation of what the authors of the +/- signs were trying to do, which is what I just described above.
I know that article, I have read those definitions of short-range and long-range lots of times, and as I said that theory doesn't add any new information to "traditional" model A. I's logically redundant. It seems to be useful if you go for Smilexian socionics, but even there, it does not add any new information, since the signs are always the same according to how the functions are blocked.
I'd suggest you spend some time trying to really understand model A, and what adding the +/- signs actually means, rather than think that you have made some amazing new discovery that escaped everyone else and that challenges the "E" in ENTp just because of one article that you haven't understood.
An INTj uses +Te, in that situation +Te is not blocked with -Si. So exactly how is it redundant?
If you spend some time looking carefully at the graph you posted - and NOT on your unwarranted conclusions - you will see what I mean. Look at how the +/- were actually put together. The only reason they added +
Remember that their starting point for --
You're just swallowing that article, and the graph, as if it was the "truth", without the slightest clue as to how it was put together or what its authors meant. And yet you're trying to create a whole new version of socionics based on that. Is that reasonable, I ask you?
Ok, then they could change all the +s into -s and vice versa. Then they could switch the definitions. The functions would still manifest themselves in a different way in different types. +Te and -Ti are technically the same function. The thing that makes them different is one is extroverted and one is introverted. Check this model here:If you spend some time looking carefully at the graph you posted - and NOT on your unwarranted conclusions - you will see what I mean. Look at how the +/- were actually put together. The only reason they added +
Remember that their starting point for -
You're just swallowing that article, and the graph, as if it was the "truth", without the slightest clue as to how it was put together or what its authors meant. And yet you're trying to create a whole new version of socionics based on that. Is that reasonable, I ask you?
This will demonstrate how +Te and -Ti are similar.
The point you're missing is that it went like this:
1) first there was Te;
2) then they noticed that Te in (for instance) ENTjs is somewhat different than in ESTjs
3) then they decided to call "ENTj-Te" -Te and "ESTj-Te" +Te;
4) in order to "balance" their model, they said that "ENTj-Te" was actually -Te+Ti, and "ESTj-Te", +Te-Ti
So, of course +Te-Ti is "technically" one single function - because they always come together, and are just describing what the original model described perfectly well with just "Te".
That is why the model is redundant and is not adding any new information. Your whole exercise is based on nothing.
And INTjs have both -Ti and +Te also. There dominant function isn't referred to as Te. Its referred to as Ti.
If you look at it that way, look at the graph. The conclusion will be that there is not difference between ENTj and INTj. It's that what you're saying?
You know, just because some put together that graph, it doesn't mean that it's true.
an INTj is -Ti +Te, an ENTj is -Te +Ti
+ and - are locational signs. You could as well call them north and south, left and right, or back in time and ahead in time.
The last one is closest to the conventional way of interpreting them... other reasonable interpretations include: 'backward and forward', 'raw material and product', 'primitive and advanced', 'past and future', etc.
Important to realize is that the configuration is determined entirely by the two functions that a type (/function trajectory) is made up of. N and T combined always results in the N function being - and the T function being +. Likewise, T and S combined results in T being + and S being -. When I say 'always' I actually mean: unless indicated otherwise. This is very easy to represent in a diagram:
N+ -T+ -S+ -F+ -N
Where left is concrete and right is abstract.
Events are generally understood to move from the + side to the - side. Take for example the construction of a house: it begins with a human need (F), then becomes an idea (N), then it becomes a decision to realize that idea in a certain way (T), and finally it becomes a concrete reality (S). Then, when the house is finished, people begin to live inside the house, realize that it wasn't as perfect as they imagined it to be, and learn about what other wishes they have in regard to it (F). From there, the process repeats itself.
Now in this thread function trajectories are being discussed in which the + and - roles are reversed. It's harder to come up with an interpretation of what would be happening in such a case. Perhaps it would involve the destruction of the house, or it's creators realizing that their plan to realize the construction wasn't good enough and needed to be brought back into the stage of being just an idea. Destructive criticism or agression may factor into this, which is in line with how the ID functions (which are said to have reversed + and - signs) are associated with negative actions.
+ and - are also called concrete and abstract in some circles.
The most important implication they carry is that they determine wether a type is process oriented (= focussed) or results oriented (= unfocussed). Process types look at a situation and determine how they can help it forward to another situation. Result types look at a situation and wonder how they can redefine it, how they can look at it in different ways or reshape it in accordance with their goals. The former is immersed in it's actions, the latter observes action from a rather disconnected position from where the end looks more important than the means. The former's actions are directly constructive, the latter's actions are revisive and perfecting.
Process = +accepting, -creating
Result = +creating, -accepting
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote