Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Function descriptions on the16typesinfo

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Function descriptions on the16types.info

    This started from hitta's ENTj thread, but it seems maybe it deserves a thread of its own. Here we've been debating, sometimes contentiously, hitta's views. Many people have suggested either that hitta is a deranged madman who is completely distorting Socionics, or else a creative Socionics genius.

    But it turns out that most of what says isn't really that original or different. It's merely deductions based on the functions as posted on http://www.the16types.info.

    Where do these come from, are directly from Gulenko, and in any case, are they to be taken seriously at all?


    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    http://www.the16types.info/functions.php?function=Fi

    Jung's function: Introverted Feeling
    Socionics function: white ethics - relation - relational ethics
    subjective emotional relationships between objects - attraction vs. repulsion, like vs. dislike, need of each other, love, friendship, antipathy, ethical norms, morals, qualitative properties, subjective judgments
    Positive(short range):
    Good relations — love, friendship, sympathy, an attraction, heat of attitudes, the sociability, a close psychological distance, kindly, pity;
    Negative (long range):
    Bad attitudes — hatred, enmity, antipathy, pushing away, estrangement, the unsociability, a far psychological distance, angrily, ruthlessness.


    The other ones are on that site too, but as you can see gulenko has them as polar opposites.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    By the way, I have to acknowledge that if you're using those function definitions on the the16types.info as your source, then your view of +X/-X as being so strongly opposed seems more warranted, at least as a reading of what Gulenko or whoever wrote those meant.

    (Are we sure that Gulenko wrote those? Or was that Rmcnew's or someone else's interpretation at one time of what Gulenko said? And if Gulenko wrote them, why do they differ so much from the ones by Gulenko that you posted above?

    Perhaps we should shift the discussion a little to Gulenko's plus/minus theory. How is this viewed by other Socionists? Is it accurate? How does one account for the fact that it would appear to make ENFps most un-Ne-like, and ISFjs most un-Fi-like, in contrast to the vast majority of descriptions of them. Rick, who knows a lot of Socionists and has studied it with people well-connected to the Socionics community in Russia, tends to use a process of typing that first looks for a person's 1st function. If a person's dominant and most comfortable role among other people shows a lot of confidence in the area of "Ne," then that person is considered most likely either IEE or ILE. But if -Ne is so anti-Ne, this process doesn't work. We should look for the utter absence of what is typically thought of as Ne in determining if someone is IEE.

    On a larger scale, what even is the rationale for assigning + and - in this way? It seems arbitrary. Being blocked with N makes T "negative" but it makes F "positive."

  2. #2
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    They were written by the creator of the site, Jimmy, who perhaps did not get them from a Gulenko source. Jimmy may have added his own interpretation, but I don't know.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    They were written by the creator of the site, Jimmy, who perhaps did not get them from a Gulenko source. Jimmy may have added his own interpretation, but I don't know.
    So Jimmy gets to have the blame for all the stuff hitta has been writing then.

    Hitta seemed to think these were quotes from Gulenko. My guess is that Jimmy was misled by the use of + and - signs to denote Gulenko's proactive/reactive (short/long-range) idea.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    To hitta's credit, his deductions based on these (and any similar ones) would be mostly valid, but they reflect lack of any analysis of whether they're valid to begin with (i.e., a good demonstration of Ti > Te).

  5. #5
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    My guess is that Jimmy was misled by the use of + and - signs to denote Gulenko's proactive/reactive (short/long-range) idea.
    The use of short-range/long-range is just a way to explain that, say, in the same block as (as in Beta and Delta) will lead to different characteristics as in in the same block as (as in Alpha and Gamma).

    They're still though.

    That's all there is to it.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  6. #6
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Gulenko wrote those descriptions. They are on socioniko.net/ru.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    My guess is that Jimmy was misled by the use of + and - signs to denote Gulenko's proactive/reactive (short/long-range) idea.
    The use of short-range/long-range is just a way to explain that, say, in the same block as (as in Beta and Delta) will lead to different characteristics as in in the same block as (as in Alpha and Gamma).

    They're still though.

    That's all there is to it.
    Actually I think there's something more to it, at least the way Hitta is describing it. The + forms all have in common positive expressions of the functions as we current view them, whereas we view the - forms as bad or counterproductive. +Ti for construction, -Ti for destruction, for example. (consider all the times you thought my methods destructive, and you may see what's being discussed.)

    What hitta is saying, is that you don't consider the positive and negative simulateously, even though you can alternate between the two. Think about it: time was you were hesitant to take something apart to learn more about it, right? But when you grew older, you eventually decided to risk doing that due to factors unique to your own experience, am I correct?

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    Gulenko wrote those descriptions. They are on socioniko.net/ru.
    Yes, we have to give you credit here. I found it: http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...gul-znaki.html

    It should be noted that the site overall doesn't seem to endorse Gulenko's view. Here's another interesting bit on the site:

    Opinion of the editorial staff of the site: we consider that in the last 7-8 years the views Gulenko more and more greatly disperse from the the sotsionikoy, including from those theoretical positions, which were once developed by it by itself. The reason for this we see in a number of the postulates, which Gulenko once introduced speculative, without the faktologicheskoy checking of their contents (hypothesis about the "signs of functions", the "right - left" types, etc.), which unavoidably came into conflict with the "basic" of sotsionikoy.
    Very interesting. the page on Gulenko can be found here: http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...2fgulenko.html

    This is a speculative article, and intended as such. It's not an easy article, and it's clear that he's introducing +/- not as the primary dichotomy but as a "fourth order" of division. Using his list as one's primary source of information on IM element definitions may be misleading, as I'll show below.

    The key part here is where he says "Taking into account the intuitive- speculative nature of similar reasonings, give let us be turned to the concrete sotsionicheskim types in order to illustrate the work of the sign of function in practice." This is where he gives examples on how to understand these speculative definitions operationally.

    Here's one of his examples on how to properly interpret his idea of +/-:

    Following related pair - this "Don Quixote" (ILE) and "Huxley" (Iee). The signs of their leading function - the intuition of abilities I, are distributed as follows: "Don Quixote" - "+", Huxley "-" - ".

    ILE is directed toward the collection of interesting information, promising ideas and promising theories (direction and quality) in its surrounding territory (distance), moreover these knowledge is characterized by large prorabotannost'yu, numerous details (scale).

    However, Iee departs from the uninteresting information (direction and quality), evaluates well the deeply hidden abilities of previously unknown people (distance) and recovers prospect as a whole, it is alternative, on- large (scale).
    We see clearly that he views IEE as departing from uninteresting information and discovering hidden abilities. So even though the "definition" talks about "boredom" and so forth, his clarification below makes it plain that he doesn't see IEE as anti-Ne or as hyper-practical or anti-unique. The application he has in mind is that the "-" functions are about departing from, avoiding those negative things, not about dwelling on them. Hence, IEE and ILE, rather than being complete opposites (seeking what's interesting and unique vs. being against what's interesting and unique), are actually much more subtle variations on the same thing (seeking what's interesting and unique vs. avoiding what's uninteresting and boring). This is the key the thing to understand that you've flipped around.

    Similarly, he describes ESI as "having sharply divided people into the friends and enemies (scale), special attention it is given to the criticism of evil (quality) it attempts to leave from the source of poor relations": In other words, ESIs know who their friends and enemies are (i.e., they have friends); they criticize evil (i.e., they're against evil); they attempt to depart from things causing poor relations (i.e., they're in favor of good relations). So this isn't about people who are full of hate or unable to be close to anybody; it's rather about people who seek better, closer relations by avoiding hurtful people and minimizing things that would hurt relationships with close people.

    So basically, it's important to recognize that this is some of the more speculative, controversial, and advanced stuff in Socionics; taking Gulenko's list from the article out of context as implying that +/- forms of an IM element are complete ultra-opposites is plainly demonstrated to be a misunderstanding if one simply reads the rest of the article.

  9. #9
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    *bows to Jonathan*
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  10. #10
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have said time and time again, I have done nothing original here, I have just supported what I believe to be correct. My entire model was on the16types.info under computer functional analysis. The pages have been removed, and for some reason the guy that made the16types.info thought the same way as I do about it because the Oldham almost perfectly correlates with the types in the revised model A. I didn't create the revised Model A, I've only introduced it. I'm still searching for where he got the information from, because it seems as if everytime I try to communicate with the Russian people about it on their forums, I always get the type of response like what I am presenting is common knowledge. The model is apparently accepted by some Socionists, I'm just trying to find out which ones.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  11. #11
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

  12. #12
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Actually I think there's something more to it, at least the way Hitta is describing it.
    That's the whole point -- there's something more to it only according to the way he describes it.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    What hitta is saying, is that you don't consider the positive and negative simulateously, even though you can alternate between the two. Think about it: time was you were hesitant to take something apart to learn more about it, right? But when you grew older, you eventually decided to risk doing that due to factors unique to your own experience, am I correct?
    You are not.

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    because it seems as if everytime I try to communicate with the Russian people about it on their forums, I always get the type of response like what I am presenting is common knowledge. The model is apparently accepted by some Socionists, I'm just trying to find out which ones.
    I think that what most socionists recognize as "common knowledge" is the short-range/long-range distinction, +/-, and some will accept it.

    But I very much doubt that many will agree with the specifics of your interpretation of it as applied to types, if they read your type descriptions in detail.

    I suggest that you present to them your ISFj description, and then Jonathan's comments:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Similarly, he describes ESI as "having sharply divided people into the friends and enemies (scale), special attention it is given to the criticism of evil (quality) it attempts to leave from the source of poor relations": In other words, ESIs know who their friends and enemies are (i.e., they have friends); they criticize evil (i.e., they're against evil); they attempt to depart from things causing poor relations (i.e., they're in favor of good relations). So this isn't about people who are full of hate or unable to be close to anybody; it's rather about people who seek better, closer relations by avoiding hurtful people and minimizing things that would hurt relationships with close people.
    Jonathan has put his finger precisely on where your interpretation got it wrong, and I think even those who accept Gulenko's model will see it that way.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  13. #13
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,167
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The problem I have with any of hitta's views about socionics is his focus on '-' and '+'. Expat has explained these to me before, and I came to the conclusion that they were simply a subtheory, in which I have no interest. He is also highly theoretical, and there are a lot of people who have time for socionics, but not endless, abstract theory (in fact, only a few would read a lengthy discourse about different socionical theories (besides classical socionics)). And there's no use for an impracticable theory.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  14. #14
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Still on this, and following Jonathan's point:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko
    + R - good relations, love, friendship, sympathy, attraction, heat of relations, sociability, close psychological distance, is kind, the pity:

    - R - poor relations, hatred, hostility, antipathy, repulsion, the coldness of relations, alienation, unsociability, distant psychological distance, evil, mercilessness

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko
    Let us compare now "Dostoyevsky" (EII) and "Dreiser" (ESI). Both these ethical introverta well examine the nature of human relations - ekstravertnoy ethics R. Ethics EII has a sign "+", ethics ESI "-".

    EII wonderfully examines the relations between the people, since it associates with them closely (distance), it is oriented to the establishment of positive relations - friendship, love, heat (quality), it sees the nuances of relations (scale) and goes to the people, asserting good and pardoning evil (direction).

    However, ESI is held from the people at a distance, without allowing to approach them closely to itself to the long period (distance), are evaluated relations as a whole, having sharply divided people into the friends and enemies (scale), special attention it is given to the criticism of evil (quality) it attempts to leave from the source of poor relations - man, who causes in it antipathy (direction).

    The difference is on emphasis. Gulenko is clearly saying that the ESI divides people into friends and enemies and focuses on keeping the enemies at a distance - not the friends.

    The EII is described as more inclined to focus on promoting positive relations.

    As far as it goes, it's correct -- we agree that the Gamma ESI will be more "ruthless" than the Delta EII.

    But that is far cry from concluding this:

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    Internally though, ISFjs tend to be repulsed by most things. They may not even realize this. They tend to find something that they hate in everything. This in turn causes them to have a hatred for all things, even though they may never show it
    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    ISFjs have an extreme hatred for people that do not follow the ethical norms. They love to gossip about these people to others. In relationships, ISFjs usually find things about their partner that they do not care for. This often causes the ISFj to distance themselves completely from that person. After time, they may give the person another chance. The ISFjs will then find something else, or focus on the same problem that caused them to distance themselves from the person before. ISFjs have a hard time maintaining relationships because of this.
    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    ISFjs usually lack compassion for things. They often feel complete hatred for things that go against their beliefs. They do not understand true love and they usually distance themselves from people after they find something about that person that repulses them
    .

    So, based on those descriptions of +/- Fi, hitta arrived at the conclusions above.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  15. #15
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,635
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Johnatan's awesome, and we also have to take into account that Gulenko after all was an INTj himself, and supposing that he was mostly around types of his same quadra, he might have seen ISFjs distancing themselves from Alphas and overemphasized this trait.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  16. #16
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Still on this, and following Jonathan's point:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko
    + R - good relations, love, friendship, sympathy, attraction, heat of relations, sociability, close psychological distance, is kind, the pity:

    - R - poor relations, hatred, hostility, antipathy, repulsion, the coldness of relations, alienation, unsociability, distant psychological distance, evil, mercilessness

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko
    Let us compare now "Dostoyevsky" (EII) and "Dreiser" (ESI). Both these ethical introverta well examine the nature of human relations - ekstravertnoy ethics R. Ethics EII has a sign "+", ethics ESI "-".

    EII wonderfully examines the relations between the people, since it associates with them closely (distance), it is oriented to the establishment of positive relations - friendship, love, heat (quality), it sees the nuances of relations (scale) and goes to the people, asserting good and pardoning evil (direction).

    However, ESI is held from the people at a distance, without allowing to approach them closely to itself to the long period (distance), are evaluated relations as a whole, having sharply divided people into the friends and enemies (scale), special attention it is given to the criticism of evil (quality) it attempts to leave from the source of poor relations - man, who causes in it antipathy (direction).

    The difference is on emphasis. Gulenko is clearly saying that the ESI divides people into friends and enemies and focuses on keeping the enemies at a distance - not the friends.

    The EII is described as more inclined to focus on promoting positive relations.

    As far as it goes, it's correct -- we agree that the Gamma ESI will be more "ruthless" than the Delta EII.

    But that is far cry from concluding this:

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    Internally though, ISFjs tend to be repulsed by most things. They may not even realize this. They tend to find something that they hate in everything. This in turn causes them to have a hatred for all things, even though they may never show it
    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    ISFjs have an extreme hatred for people that do not follow the ethical norms. They love to gossip about these people to others. In relationships, ISFjs usually find things about their partner that they do not care for. This often causes the ISFj to distance themselves completely from that person. After time, they may give the person another chance. The ISFjs will then find something else, or focus on the same problem that caused them to distance themselves from the person before. ISFjs have a hard time maintaining relationships because of this.
    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    ISFjs usually lack compassion for things. They often feel complete hatred for things that go against their beliefs. They do not understand true love and they usually distance themselves from people after they find something about that person that repulses them
    .

    So, based on those descriptions of +/- Fi, hitta arrived at the conclusions above.
    If you think I came to my conclusions based off of what someone wrote you're wrong.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  17. #17
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder
    I'd give Jonathan some arbitrary number of points as is the fashion of the forum today, but I don't think his contribution is really quantifiable, I would be nervous about giving him the wrong amount. So... I think I'll just join Expat on the floor.
    well you start at +2 then if the next person who you think deserves a plus is ATM more worthy than the last you give them 1 or 2 more + points. It's all very scientific.

    I think I'm up to giving out +16 :wink:

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    I have said time and time again, I have done nothing original here, I have just supported what I believe to be correct. My entire model was on the16types.info under computer functional analysis. The pages have been removed, and for some reason the guy that made the16types.info thought the same way as I do about it because the Oldham almost perfectly correlates with the types in the revised model A. I didn't create the revised Model A, I've only introduced it. I'm still searching for where he got the information from, because it seems as if everytime I try to communicate with the Russian people about it on their forums, I always get the type of response like what I am presenting is common knowledge. The model is apparently accepted by some Socionists, I'm just trying to find out which ones.
    Thanks everyone for the feedback As to the "revised model A," (i.e., the idea that Model A ought to contain both + and - forms of every IM element, and the proposed solution), that's the one piece we don't have a source for yet...So that's what you saw this site (the16types)? Maybe RMcNew can pull it up.

    Since Model A's purpose is to show the role played by all IM elements, including the less-favored ones, I can see a rationale for wanting to somehow include all 32 forms that Gulenko specified (although considering switching between + and - forms of less-used functions may have little practical value). The main question is how one includes these. If you read further down Gulenko's article, he speculates that accepting subtypes use both the + and - forms of their 1st function, and that this changing between +/- may be seen as a variant of role-block behavior. He doesn't discuss switching between + and - for any other function, at least in that article.

    Your model, instead, appends the functions of the ID block with opposing polarities to the ego block. Since Socionics is based on blocks of two elements, it's not clear what these two functions are blocked with, except with each other; and if that's the case, then it would be useful to try to analyze what is really meant by +/- and how this can work when the polarities are flipped. Saying LII's ego block has +Te and -Ni seems to contradict the fact that the way Gulenko has defined +Te, it is by definition only + because of the presence of Si; and Ni is - only because of the presence of Fe. Is the idea that these are somehow blocked with the super ID elements?

    Gulenko's +/- model appears based on the assumption of a cycle -N-T-S-F-, where each element can be used proactively if one has stregnth (confidence) in the one to the immediate right, and reactively if one has strength in the one to the left (those with a positive first function then become "process" Reinin types, I believe, and the others would be "result"). A possible rough semantic interpretation might be, for example, "If you know you'll be able to practically implement things (S), then you'll create plans and models proactively (T)" or "If you know you'll be able to direct or understand things structurally (T), then you'll consider foresight and possibilities proactively (N)." The function that indicates a need or problem to be solved becomes the "-" function, which perhaps should really be thought of as "--" (solving the negative problem...a double negative). Considering that +Te could be blocked with -Ni suggests an opposite cycle (-N-F-S-T-) which would indicate that Gulenko's assigning of +/- is arbitrary and could just as easily go the other way (which is reasonable but kind of nullifies the whole +/- idea).

    As to Oldham, what in your model or conception seems parallel to that? I'm not sure though that finding parallels to non-Socionic systems is the way to answer questions about fine-points in Socionics. Also, your type descriptions tend to mix a number of things from standard Socionics and personal observations with the non-standard stuff, so if you see similarities to another theory, I'm not sure that even proves that it has anything to do with your revised Model A theory.

  19. #19
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    If you think I came to my conclusions based off of what someone wrote you're wrong.
    And yet you wrote this:


    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    I have said time and time again, I have done nothing original here, I have just supported what I believe to be correct. My entire model was on the16types.info under computer functional analysis.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

Posting Permissions

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