Originally Posted by
strrrng
how did the whole +/- thing start and how valid is it, really?
I think Gulenko, and maybe others, wrote about how an IM element may be used differently depending on what it's blocked with. So for example, Si used with Te may emphasize more of the practical dimensions of Si, whereas Si used with Fe may emphasize more emphasis on people's comfort. Somehow a convention was started that with N blocked with T or S blocked with F, the irrational element would be "+" and the rational "-"....and the reverse for the other two blocking combinations. Originally, the terms used were "short-term" and "long-term" I think. The descriptions didn't necessarily suggest a conclusive overall interpretation for what "+" is or what "-" that applied in all cases.
Hitta took this to a new level, interpreting "-" as meaning a sort of "anti" form of the IM element. That much, however, is interesting and maybe worth investigating to some extent, although I've heard that mainstream Socionists don't view this kind of interpretation as working in practice.
What Hitta has suggested that's quite a bit more radical though, is that people use the IM elements that are in the id block, but with reversed "polarity," so that for example, ILI would have Ti+ blocked with Ne- (something that doesn't conform to the standard definition because when T is blocked with N, T is - by definition, and N is + by definition). Hitta's model discounts the role of the id block as a "strong" block, and instead replaces this idea with the idea of putting those functions, with reversed-polarity, "into" the ego block, whatever that really means.