Process/result, positivism/negativism, +/-
What are these things really, and what are the differences between them?
I wouldn't be asking, except it seems difficult to find reliable information. I suspect I may be using these things interchangebly, and that it may be adversely affecting the quality of my type characterizations.
process = focusing on the means
result = focusing on the ends
positivism = focusing on presence
negativism = focusing on lacks
+ = process
- = result
So is hitta's +/- positivism/negativism, or process/result?
huh? are you sure about the last part?Originally Posted by machintruc
how does "focusing on the means" = "focusing on presence"?
how does "focusing on the ends" = "focusing on lacks"?
and why would there be two dichotomies to describe the same exact thing?
if reinin did this then..um...oooook.
i mean, i could see something like
+ process..... - process
+ result........ - result
but not necessarily the + = process; - = result
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
There's a big n00b-like flaw in your reasoning : +/- DOES NOT mean Positivism/Negativism.
PLUS = PROCESS
MINUS = RESULT
that's all
I wouldn't call it nOOb-like flawThere's a big n00b-like flaw in your reasoning : +/- DOES NOT mean Positivism/Negativism.
PLUS = PROCESS
MINUS = RESULT
that's all
more of misunderstanding what you meant by "+" and "-"
see, a lot of people here use "+" as short hand for positivism and "-" as short hand for negativism
since you had been talking about positivism and negativism and then brought in the "+" & "-" symbols, it was a natural mistake.
but thank you for clearing that up for me.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
however +/- is already allocated to process/result. if you want to abbreviate positivism/negativism, you should use other abbreviations such as pst/ngt or even 1/0.
You mean to say that Accepting Plus is Process and Accepting Minus is Result; a rather important detail that should not be omitted.There's a big n00b-like flaw in your reasoning : +/- DOES NOT mean Positivism/Negativism.
PLUS = PROCESS
MINUS = RESULT
that's all
Tcaudilllg, these terms are just names that were given to types that have certain properties in common as regards the +/- signs of their functions.
If there is a type with a +Fe function and a type with a +Te function, then there is also something these types have in common, namely the possesion of a +Judging function. Aristocracy is the name that was given to the group of types that have this characteristic. Most of the other groups can be understood the same way.
Think of it this way: "rational" is just a name we give to all types that have accepting judging functions. Likewise, "aristocrat" is the name we give to types with + judging functions.
+Accepting/-Creating = Process
-Accepting/+Creating = Result
+Judging/-Perceiving = Aristocracy
-Judging/+Perceiving = Democracy
+Introvert/-Extrovert = Declarer (a.k.a. Narrator)
-Introvert/+Extrovert = Asker (a.k.a. Taciturn)
Positivism/Negativism is different from the others. It supposes a commonality between Accepting Dynamic functions and Creating Static functions, and between Accepting Static functions and Creating Dynamic functions. The former are usually refered to as "limiting", the latter as "empowering". Without this supposition there is little reason to suppose this dichotomy exists at all.
Limiting Function = Accepting Dynamic Function OR Creating Static Function
Empowering Function = Accepting Static Function OR Creating Dynamic Function
If it needed clarification:
Dynamic = Te, Fe, Si, Ni
Static = Ti, Fi, Se, Ne
+Limiting/-Empowering = Negativism
-Empowering/+Limiting = Positivism
That covers the "small-cycle" dichotomies... The remaining require a lot more blind faith to be used... I won't go into them myself as I don't trust them.
Using these dichotomies is very, very tricky... IMO the only way to effectively do it is to combine multiple of them to form larger type groups, like Gulenko does when he points out the four thinking styles.
accepting Statics means producing Statics, and accepting Dynamics means producing Dynamics. nobody can have one static and one dynamic element as functions 1 and 2.
it seems you're tired. I suggest you go to bed.
You misunderstand. Limiting and Empowering are aspects of functions, not types.
A commonality, you say...?Positivism/Negativism is different from the others. It supposes a commonality between Accepting Dynamic functions and Creating Static functions, and between Accepting Static functions and Creating Dynamic functions. The former are usually refered to as "limiting", the latter as "empowering". Without this supposition there is little reason to suppose this dichotomy exists at all.
Machintruc is technically right here: The people whose base function is "+" are the same types that are defined by Reinin as "process" types. The result/process dichotomy is conjectured to be about focusing on the result vs. focusing on the means. Ultimately, it's merely a grouping of types.
Where it got complicated is that Gulenko's definitions of "+" and "-" (and hitta's more exaggerated forms of these) sound exactly like the way positivism and negativism are described. That is, Gulenko conjectured that based on his system for assigning + and -, those functions that are "-" will involve focusing on the lacks. This is very clear in his paper introducing the +/- concept, which as I recall doesn't make reference to Reinin dichotomies per se.
Positivism/negativism is a particular Reinin dichotomy (that is, grouping of types in two equal groups) which, again, is conjectured to be related to focusing on the presence vs. the lack of things.
Tcaud is absolutely right to point out that there's an apparent contradiction between what Socionics qualities the Reinin folks think would lead to focusing on the presence vs. lack of things, vs. what Gulenko apparently thinks would lead to this. It is, nevertheless, possible that both patterns of Socionic functions may lead to similar behaviors, in which case types that are both "result" and "negativist" (LII, ESI, SLE, EII) would seem the most negativist (in terms of behavior), whereas types defined as both "process" and "positivist" (ILE, SEE, LSI, EII) would seem to be the most positivist. However, I haven't seen much real evidence that this would be the case. Moreover, it would be wrong to even assume that Gulenko's +/- system should even imply that, because each type has both a "+" function and a "-" one in the ego block.
Basically, all "derived" dichotomies should be taken with a grain of salt. For reference on getting the Reinin stuff straight, you might want to look at http://the16types.no-ip.info/forums/...asc&highlight=.
I'm actually using dichotomies like Asking/Declaring or Process/Result to type, and I feel like it works (i.e. very few major mistakes).
I mean, you can't be a Result EIE (-
+) like Gulenko may say (it was a way for him to extend socion from 16 sociotypes to 32 "psychotypes"). Why ? because
I mean, although an ESE adaptsto
Now that's interesting... If you don't mind I'm not going to discard that one as quickly as you're doing.I mean, you can't be a Result EIE (Extraverted Feeling-Introverted Intution+) like Gulenko may say
Some things to notice:
such a type would also be reversed in Aristocrat/Democrat, Negativist/Positivist, Asker/Declarer.
However, this only when Aristocrat/Democrat is understood in terms of distribution of +/- signs as opposed to in terms of clubs.
Again, I'm tempted to theorize about ways in which this could explain information-domain interactions...
what I'm wondering about this system is what exactly the function after the / does. Like, an INTj's HA is +. So, one lists different characteristics based on these two functions. But the 'real' HA is Si, health. So, is the function after the / just there as a balancer, tempering and helping the initial function?
I've not seen this paper by Gulenko. Can you offer a link?I mean, you can't be a Result EIE (Extraverted Feeling-Introverted Intution+) like Gulenko may say (it was a way for him to extend socion from 16 sociotypes to 32 "psychotypes"). Why ? because Extraverted Feeling- means Extraverted Feeling perceived in the context of Introverted Sensing
OK then... don't we need a new nomenclature by which to distinguish them? R+? R-? G+? G-?Where it got complicated is that Gulenko's definitions of "+" and "-" (and hitta's more exaggerated forms of these) sound exactly like the way positivism and negativism are described. That is, Gulenko conjectured that based on his system for assigning + and -, those functions that are "-" will involve focusing on the lacks. This is very clear in his paper introducing the +/- concept, which as I recall doesn't make reference to Reinin dichotomies per se.
It seems to me that unless we adopt a new nomenclature confusion will persist. I will side with Gulenko though over the actual use of the symbols; because, what the hell does + vs - have to do with process vs result?
labcoat: Hmm... I wonder if one could invert all 15 dichotomies on the basis of sign? What kind of personality would that create?
That model is a totally bogus n00b trap.
It was somewhere on http://www.socioniko.net/ru/authors/gulenko.html, but I don't exactly remember.
No, I meant a table where there are 2 psychotypes for LII or such, like -L+I and +L-I.
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...%2fkolich.html
Here's my hypothesis to why LII's appear more LSE-like (I agree I do) than LIE-like :which model? hitta's explicitly-given model or the model implicit in my comments? as the thread progresses, it should become clear that i disagree with hitta's specific use of +/-. for example, that -Ti and +Te are identically the same - i disagree with that. and i gave extensive reasoning why.
however, in the past the argument has been made that perhaps -Ti base types find +Te more appealing than -Te. -Te is by definition explicitly subdued in the INTj id. it is by definition both serious and resolute and therefore diametric to -Ti's alpha values. +Te is at least judicious.
WARNING: This explaination may appear very complicated to people with limited socionic knowledge. It's not guaranteed 100% true or reliable.
It's because functions are NOT 8, but actually 16. Model A is actually a simplified model which simplify IM aspects to a number of 8.
IM divides into 2 loops. The conscious block, and the subconscious block. Those loops are either Static or Dynamic :
Customised Model A for LII
1' +- 1 2 +
- 2'
4' -+ 3'
6' -
7' +- 7 8 +
I added a ' sign to function numbers. It means "prime", just like X or X'. For example, function 1 is
Prime/Non-prime functions will be assigned to Aristocratic/Democratic IM aspects.
Let's suppose there is a Reinin-like dichotomy, which crosses Prime/Non-prime with Conscious/Subconscious.
Non-prime Conscious + Prime Subconscious = Active
Non-Prime Subconscious + Prime Conscious = Passive
That would explain why some socionists say "It's more like functions 1 to 4 are active, and functions 5 to 8 are passive, rather than conscious or subconscious."
For an LII, Active IM elements would be :
and Passive IM elements would be the others.
The LSE-like
Howabout let's just say both dichotomies are equally applicable.That would explain why some socionists say "It's more like functions 1 to 4 are active, and functions 5 to 8 are passive, rather than conscious or subconscious."
They are, and I explained why
an issue I've had with the +/- is that they contradict more fundamental ideas of socionics. for example, an INTj values -Ti, which (by definition) is disjunctive logic, taking things apart, disorganized, so speak. also, +Ne correlates with a liking for variety and since it is about seeing new possibilities, the INTj (according the this definition) will start/develop many things/ideas, but due to the +Se polr, will lack the willpower to follow through. Doesn't this go against the definition of rational, which encompasses working thoroughly and steadily with a preference for finishing things? and the temperaments? An INTp on the other hand, valuing +Ti will establish laws and strict systems to live by. the +Se in their agenda will make them routine prone and "normal" seeking. this context makes the INTp look IJ and the INTj look IP.
But I guess it comes down to actual functions and different aspects of things.
an issue I've had with the +/- is that they contradict more fundamental ideas of socionics. for example, an INTj values -Ti, which (by definition) is disjunctive logic, taking things apart, disorganized, so speak. also, +Ne correlates with a liking for variety and since it is about seeing new possibilities, the INTj (according the this definition) will start/develop many things/ideas, but due to the +Se polr, will lack the willpower to follow through. Doesn't this go against the definition of rational, which encompasses working thoroughly and steadily with a preference for finishing things? and the temperaments? An INTp on the other hand, valuing +Ti will establish laws and strict systems to live by. the +Se in their agenda will make them routine prone and "normal" seeking. this context makes the INTp look IJ and the INTj look IP.
But I guess it comes down to actual functions and different aspects of things.
This is a discussion of the "transcendent function" I keep talking about: the ability to change your function sign. It's not as simple as going from -Ne to +Ne, although there are some who can... these people are sociopaths and psychopaths, however.In order to trace the dynamics of sotsiotipa, it is necessary to consider the possibility of the change of the sign of function. The essence of this phenomenon is reduced, in our opinion, to the role manifestations of function. Our understanding of this phenomenon is based on Young's thesis about the compensating aspirations of the psyche of man.
Each of sotsiotipov, on the basis of the inherent in it originally sign of function, is approached its manifestation in the region of values opposite on the sign. And than more, the stronger and the longer it maintains this role, the more it tires and the more probable it returns to the basic sign. Let us examine these role manifestations based on the example of several types.
ILE ("The Don Quixote"): + I - > -.I. this formula, which shows the change of sign, it means that ILE to approach the globalization of its promising idea, giving to it of otriqahР»- alternative nature. Most vividly this tendency is shown in the intuitive version ILE.
LEAHS ("Robesp'er"): - L - > + L. LEAHS is approached of increasing clearness and concreteness in the logic of the explanation of one or other phenomenon or another, which falls under in his opinion for the action of universal law. In the logical version OF LEAHS this tendency is outlined much more distinctly than in intuitive.
ESE ("Hugo"): - "E - > to +E. ESE, confidently establishing its poor mood, attempts to leave from it, it enters into the role of merry, benevolent person, who approaches exclusively positive emotions. Withdrawal from the negative emotions, in addition is more characteristic of the ethical version ESE, than sensory, which more greatly is oriented in its behavior to the pleasant sensations.
Thus, takeing into account the regularity examined, namely that each function of sotsiotipa is shaded by the role manifestation of opposite sign, we are right to raise a question about the y'tikomponentnoy model. Let us take into consideration this fact, since the possibility in principle and the practical applicability of this model is shown by us mainly.
Most people (healthy people) change their auxiliary element's sign. (by which I'm talking about the kind of relationship INTjs experience as -Ti/-Te) This gives them an additional information channel by which to filter their attention more effectively. You have to have the ability to do it first though, and that ability seemingly comes only with corresponding development of the brain. The exchange is performed by switching out the functions with each other: +Te takes -Te's place in the id, and -Te takes +Te's place in the ego; -Ti and +Ti both stay put, because it is -Ti that makes the call for the switch.
Although pathological INTjs (the schizotypal crackpots) start with +Ti as base, with the proper brain development they can switch it to -Ti. This allows them to masquerade as "normal" INTjs. I'm still studying how that works, however.
imfd95: labcoat and I are working on these considerations as an aspect of supersocion theory. You are welcome to join.
You too, machintruc. ...Let me clarify: by "working" on a theory (or hypothesis, as it currently stands), I merely mean considering its consequences seriously, and trying to draw conclusions from them. Nothing more.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote