1. ## Model A analysis

The way I look at Model A is as follows:

As accepted, the functions are broken into several different categories. There is accepting/producing, valued/devalued, conscious/unconscious. Accepting and producing functions could be viewed as two sets of functions, and the contents of each individual set could be viewed as one big function working. Accepting/producing could be viewed as separation between hemispheres of the brain; one hemisphere being accepting and the other hemisphere being producing. Conscious/unconscious could be look at is the difference between reality and motives. Also, if one function is to be conscious and valued, its inverse must automatically be unconscious and devalued(if +Ne is conscious and valued, -Ne must be unconscious and devalued). I do not believe that the distinction between conscious/unconscious functions can always be valid. Conscious functions in my opinion can be unconscious and unconscious functions can be conscious.

Also the way I look at model A is that the producing functions are the subjects of the accepting functions. For example, -Ti/+Te base with +Ne/-Ni creative would be like disjunction of singularity, or understanding theoretical systems. Alternately, +Ne/-Ni base with -Ti/+Te creative would be singularity of disjunctiveness, or creating originality out of understanding.

As I said earlier in the post, conscious is what you are, and unconscious is what you want to be. Valued is what you favor, devalued is what you do not favor. So combining that to model A, the PoLR is both conscious and devalued. This would mean that that person is unable or severely handicapped in using that function. PoLR is what you ARE NOT. Now function 7 and 8 are unconscious and devalued. This would mean that functions 7 and 8 are what you do not want to be. These functions are your antithesis. Now, as I have said before, the functions "leak" both into the conscious and the unconscious, so sometimes all functions can be conscious or unconscious. The POLR will sometimes be the antithesis, especially in certain situations, as well as the 8 function being the POLR.

Using +Ne/-Ni as an example for each block in model A:

Ego: The person will be original, will see multiple viewpoints, will see different angles on things very easily.
Super Ego: The person will fit in to an extreme degree. This person will be very single minded, only able to see one perspective. It will not be intentional though.
Super Id: The person will have a need to see all the possibilities in things. This will in turn cause paranoia about certain things. They will often do things to try to be original or creative. They want to be creative in approach.
Id: The person will totally be repulsed by relative viewpoints and different perspectives. They will do their best to not try to stand out.

2. Your deductions aren't bad. But again, the validity all rests on the definitions.

Are you able to see the viewpoint that +Ne may not be the same as seeing different viewpoints and being creative, and that Ni+ and Ne- may not be about fitting in and being anti-creative and anti-flexible-thinking?

Are you able to see alternative views of what the IM elements represent? Or are you so single-minded in your view of what they must represent to not be able to see other possibilities of what they might represent?

3. Originally Posted by Jonathan
Your deductions aren't bad. But again, the validity all rests on the definitions.

Are you able to see the viewpoint that +Ne may not be the same as seeing different viewpoints and being creative, and that Ni+ and Ne- may not be about fitting in and being anti-creative and anti-flexible-thinking?

Are you able to see alternative views of what the IM elements represent? Or are you so single-minded in your view of what they must represent to not be able to see other possibilities of what they might represent?
(Way to needle, -Te)

4. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Originally Posted by Jonathan
Your deductions aren't bad. But again, the validity all rests on the definitions.

Are you able to see the viewpoint that +Ne may not be the same as seeing different viewpoints and being creative, and that Ni+ and Ne- may not be about fitting in and being anti-creative and anti-flexible-thinking?

Are you able to see alternative views of what the IM elements represent? Or are you so single-minded in your view of what they must represent to not be able to see other possibilities of what they might represent?
(Way to needle, -Te)
My point is simply that hitta puts so much emphasis on the idea that Alpha NTs are the types who think flexibly and consider differing viewpoints, and that Gammas view things rigidly and don't consider differing viewpoints, but he contradicts this by identifying himself as Alpha NT and yet demonstrating that he has one fixed viewpoint that he follows, and pretty much ignoring any other views about the definitions or how Socionics may work (at least, that's the way it appears, or comes off to me).

I'm not trying to be a meanie, and sorry if I come off that way. There's nothing wrong with hitta being so "single-minded." By shutting pretty much everything else out and moving forward with his ideas, ignoring anything brought up concerning alternatives or anything that might be wrong with them, at least he conserves his energies to focus on building his own idea, and has a consistent message that makes people more likely to consider it.

But this is pretty much the opposite of how he apparently would describe himself.

So, it's just quite interesting how hitta disproves his theory by contradicting it...that's all.

5. I am extremely open to any other point of view that explains the phenomenon that exists in the types that can't be explained by the accepted version of model A. I have been thinking about the model I've been pushing for a very very very long time, and it seems to make sense to me in the way that anything in the "accepted" relative plane can make sense. I will say that you can't even calculate a percentage as to how correct it is because its impossible to know true absolute reality(or whether or not it actually exists). If you have any other ideas as to why the phenomenon exists in a type, being as most things "seem" in our accepted plane to exist symmetrically, please do tell. I am pushing this theory because it explains everything that I have thought of so far as in true motives behind peoples personality. It seems to gage every aspect of human behavior(very unlike model A originally did). And as I think that every thesis seems to have an antithesis in the accepted plane of reality(notice the word seems, because its impossible to even know if the accepted model of reality is the accepted model of reality nor is it possible to prove that it even seems that way, hmm what a complicated problem we have). The only way to state any type of data is to make an assumption, its the only way possible. All thoughts, ideas, logic.... everything is just an assumption. In accordance to this, I try to place a disclaimer on everything I state that it only exists within this relative plane or at least it may seem this way, or whether or not it may seem this way can be debated to. If we didn't make any assumptions, we wouldn't exist. Life is one big assumption. And the assumption that life is a big assumption is an assumption, and this whole post is a assumption, as is the whole thread, as is the assumptions that this thread is an assumption, as is that this thread is an assumption of an assumption of an assumption. We can get anywhere without making an assumption(athough this is an assumption to, and its an assumption that you actually get anywhere, or getting anywhere is totally dependent on the relative plane in which it is presented into, and the relative plane is just an assumption adaikfafjaijoajvujainruahvianayufvnkajnvuajkwhfiaj fjahisna.... I'm broken.... but thats just an assumption too.

6. Originally Posted by hitta
I am extremely open to any other point of view that explains the phenomenon that exists in the types that can't be explained by the accepted version of model A. I have been thinking about the model I've been pushing for a very very very long time, and it seems to make sense to me in the way that anything in the "accepted" relative plane can make sense. I will say that you can't even calculate a percentage as to how correct it is because its impossible to know true absolute reality(or whether or not it actually exists). If you have any other ideas as to why the phenomenon exists in a type, being as most things "seem" in our accepted plane to exist symmetrically, please do tell. I am pushing this theory because it explains everything that I have thought of so far as in true motives behind peoples personality. It seems to gage every aspect of human behavior(very unlike model A originally did). And as I think that every thesis seems to have an antithesis in the accepted plane of reality(notice the word seems, because its impossible to even know if the accepted model of reality is the accepted model of reality nor is it possible to prove that it even seems that way, hmm what a complicated problem we have). The only way to state any type of data is to make an assumption, its the only way possible. All thoughts, ideas, logic.... everything is just an assumption. In accordance to this, I try to place a disclaimer on everything I state that it only exists within this relative plane or at least it may seem this way, or whether or not it may seem this way can be debated to. If we didn't make any assumptions, we wouldn't exist. Life is one big assumption. And the assumption that life is a big assumption is an assumption, and this whole post is a assumption, as is the whole thread, as is the assumptions that this thread is an assumption, as is that this thread is an assumption of an assumption of an assumption. We can get anywhere without making an assumption(athough this is an assumption to, and its an assumption that you actually get anywhere, or getting anywhere is totally dependent on the relative plane in which it is presented into, and the relative plane is just an assumption adaikfafjaijoajvujainruahvianayufvnkajnvuajkwhfiaj fjahisna.... I'm broken.... but thats just an assumption too.
If you must know what is true in reality, you need only observe the flow of time.

@Johnathan: actually I was remarking on the role of -Te in your personality as your foremost self-definitor. Basically by ignoring the relevance of PoV other than his own, he's ignoring the aspect of reality you are most accustomed to. (the viewpoint divisions between people) This seems to me a source of (unnecessary) tension.

7. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
@Johnathan: actually I was remarking on the role of -Te in your personality as your foremost self-definitor. Basically by ignoring the relevance of PoV other than his own, he's ignoring the aspect of reality you are most accustomed to. (the viewpoint divisions between people) This seems to me a source of (unnecessary) tension.
This seems quite plausible.

So you define -Te as the viewpoint divisions between people. I'm curious how you define the other +/- IM Elements as well. It would be interesting to have an another alternative to the various +/- definitions hitta has proposed.

8. My take:

+ function: the "what". what is going on? what can I use? what's in this for me?

- function: the "why". why is this done like this? why not the other way?

-Te: why establish these rules/facts and not the other?

9. Originally Posted by labcoat
My take:

+ function: the "what". what is going on? what can I use? what's in this for me?

- function: the "why". why is this done like this? why not the other way?

-Te: why establish these rules/facts and not the other?
I think you're having the same problem as hitta; specifically, seeing the basis for different belief systems. I don't think that the psychic domains (the divisions -Te sees via function 7) are formed from information metabolism, but from the act of metabolizing the objects and fields themselves; in particular, we seem to see objects and fields differently.

@Johnathan: yes, -Te are the divisions, based on whether you can or can't communicate with someone. +Te says you can communicate, -Te says you can't. Id -Te sees the instinctual bases on whether you can or can't communicate with somebody. Base -Te would see the more concrete and objective reasons. (like for example, you speak a different language; you can't hear them; etc.)

10. I think you're having the same problem as hitta; specifically, seeing the basis for different belief systems. I don't think that the psychic domains (the divisions -Te sees via function 7) are formed from information metabolism, but from the act of metabolizing the objects and fields themselves; in particular, we seem to see objects and fields differently.
So you're essentially saying that the information domains determine how information is handled on a level below that of the Metabolism and Exertion type rather than on a level above it?

Personally I find it much more intuitive to think this is opposite. Exertion type is the lowest level, metabolism one above that, and domains the highest level and with that most tied in with the nature and motives of the person.

-- keep in mind that "immediate perception" can be defined as both the most elementary, low-level view of the world AND as the highest, most encompassing organization of perception. Change either of them and the nature of the person changes in highly impactful ways.

11. Personally I find it much more intuitive to think this is opposite. Exertion type is the lowest level, metabolism one above that, and domains the highest level and with that most tied in with the nature and motives of the person.
That's what I was trying to say. Lately you've suggested that + and - have bearing on the psychic domains. (in personal correspondence) I see no evidence of this at all.

#### Posting Permissions

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