well with all the functions
+Te/-Ti -Te/+Ti +Fe/-Fi -Fe/+Fi +Se/-Si -Se/+Si +Ne/-Ni -Ne/+Ni
you could have 32 different ego block combinations, maybe there is 32 types
32 types instead of 16
well with all the functions
+Te/-Ti -Te/+Ti +Fe/-Fi -Fe/+Fi +Se/-Si -Se/+Si +Ne/-Ni -Ne/+Ni
you could have 32 different ego block combinations, maybe there is 32 types
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
Yeah, if each block appeared twice. Every appropriate block of functional combinations exists within some type, just not as an ego block.Originally Posted by hitta
Last edited by Gilly; 12-26-2007 at 06:46 PM.
well take for instance an INFj which is +Fi/-Fe -Ne/+Ni. Well im trying to say with 32 types that you could have +Fi/-Fe +Ne/-Ni, or something different than an INFj.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
Yes, this is a very interesting idea, since the idea of emphasis-on-a-base-function and the +/- thing are two separate criteria for defining types, which aren't necessarily linked. If I understand what you're saying here, one might have in your system, for example, two people with Ni-/Ne+ and Ti-/Te+, but one of them emphasizes the Ti/Ne part more, and the other emphasizes the Ni/Te part more.
I think I suggested something like this in an earlier post, although I'm not sure it was stated in a way that it was understood clearly.
Actually, I realize from INFj example that what you're considering here is slightly different from what I just said. In that case, if you combined those ideas, you might have 128 types or so.
Anyhow, I guess the key is to see how to "test" for those types...how to distinguish them. In the past, people who have proposed more types have tended (in my opinion) to have trouble convincingly demonstrating that the people they classified in these different types didn't fit just as well in a 16-type model.
In any case, there is so much intra-type variation that some further understanding beyond the 16 types is warranted Whether one calls them new types, subtypes, or something more fluid (modes, or personal "maps of functional use" within a type), etc. is a key question.
But that would be inconsistent with the rules of the system. A + function has to be blocked with a - function. You, of all people, should understand that.
My point is that you would be changing Socionics fundamentally, even from your own perspective of +/- functions.
I'm in support of this, and I think only good can come from it.
I caution, though, that we should be clear on how these things manifest. I made a lot of mistakes with the crosstype theory because I assumed that pairings like Ni and Ti in the same block were possible. (they aren't.)
You'd be able to tell from how their temperament and club point at one type, while their relations with people AND their thought style (positive/negative, process/result) AND their command style* (taciturn/narrator, democrat/aristocrat) point at one antagonistic to it. Reversing +/- reverses what the person does and does not get along with; this wouldn't be hard to miss. On top, you'd be seeing some extremely weird mixture of a quadra with it's opposite. Dynamic SF's with gamma values...?Anyhow, I guess the key is to see how to "test" for those types...how to distinguish them.
* for lack of available terms
That's why I recently pointed out that introvert/extrovert should be read as a description of a superficial similarity rather than as a technical aspect common between functions. The "e" in Je and the "e" in Pe do not mean the exact same thing. Same goes for taciturn/narrator and positivist/negativist. Limiting and empowering, likewise are descriptions of similarities. Introvert/extrovert came about in the same way as those did.I made a lot of mistakes with the crosstype theory because I assumed that pairings like Ni and Ti in the same block were possible. (they aren't.)
On the idea: the way I currently understand the + and - signs, it would be impossible to reverse the signs. I can not fathom why the + and - signs would exist at all if it wasn't implicit in, say, S paired with T that S would be - and T would be +.
Can this please be moved to Non-Socionics Type Theories?
Of course +/- isn't classical Socionics anyway; it's an add-on by Gulenko, as I understand. So if we violated that rule, we wouldn't be changing classic Socionics. It wouldn't be as fundamental a change as blocking Fi with Ni or Ti, for example.
Anyhow, my idea here was that you could reverse all the polarities...i.e., INFj with Fi- and Ne+, which wouldn't violate the idea of opposite polarity, if we wanted to preserve that rule for +/-.
That block exists in Beta already. Are you proposing a Beta EII?
I really think there's a bit more to introvert/extrovert than that. According to Model A, the id block is supposed to be "strong"; that's because it's considered that the introverted form of a function is highly related to the extroverted form of it. Furthermore, in each case, the introverted form involves a sort of self-contained version whereas the extroverted form presumes some sort of external interaction.
It's true that Je and Pe are different, but to say that they're unrelated is going a bit far. For one thing, besides the fact that quasi-identical pairs are in opposing quadras and structure things in a different way, they often have many similarities in terms of interests and social role.
Well, if you accept hitta's earlier formulation that Beta NF is defined as -Ni/+Ne and +Fi/-Fi, then it wouldn't make any sense. But the classical definition of Beta NF is an ego block with Ni and Fe and has nothing to do with + or -.That block exists in Beta already. Are you proposing a Beta EII?
So, if one has these two definitions...one that says that Beta NF is -Ni/+Ne and +Fi/-Fi, and another that says that it's emphasis on Ni/Fe instead of on Fi/Ne....then why assume that the two are necessarily linked?
It's only that article by Gulenko that speculated about the +/- dichotomy as applying to the types and hitta's elaboration that the ego block in fact has 4 functions instead of 2.
How do we know that the qualities associated with "+" and "-" are linked with the 16 types? Maybe it is a different dimension that could be reversed, leading to 32 types.
Static/Dynamic can be used to understand the relation instead. This makes more sense because then the whole 'block' correlates as opposed to each function individually. Function pairings, or blocks, types, are more or less readily observable things, whereas individual functions have a much higher 'fiction' factor.I really think there's a bit more to introvert/extrovert than that. According to Model A, the id block is supposed to be "strong"; that's because it's considered that the introverted form of a function is highly related to the extroverted form of it.
That would be what I call a 'description of a superficial similarity'. It happens to be one that I don't fully agree with; something like this should be said about 'introverted' types rather than functions.Furthermore, in each case, the introverted form involves a sort of self-contained version whereas the extroverted form presumes some sort of external interaction.
Again, a description, something that is perfectly well allowed under my interpretation, as long as one keeps in mind that the types are technically miles apart despite being superficially similar. Just look at the extreme differences between the type relations that quasi identical types form.It's true that Je and Pe are different, but to say that they're unrelated is going a bit far. For one thing, besides the fact that quasi-identical pairs are in opposing quadras and structure things in a different way, they often have many similarities in terms of interests and social role.
they would be an INFp if that was the case though
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
You do realize that an ENTp would never have asked for this to be moved right?
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
Is that so?
Perhaps the mistake was in not distinguishing the concept of "same block" with "strong"? For example, it is usually assumed that those functions that are strongly expressed and that one is consciously aware of are the ones in the ego block. But perhaps it's still possible that one may be consciously and strongly using two functions that aren't blocked with each other? (Just an idea.)
Well then, you could call them INFp, but the point is could you have an INFp by the definition of -Ni/+Ne Fe+/Fi- who nevertheless stresses +Ne and Fi- more than the -Ni and Fe+ part? And might this constitute a different "subtype" of INFp?
It seems that there have been a lot wackier threads than this under General Discussion.
But maybe all of the experimental-leaning posts should be in non-Socionics-type-theories...as long as the key people interested remember to look here, that is.
Is there a thread where you explain this idea?
Code:public GameBox() { grid = new String[10][10]; gameOver = false; numPasses = 0; guessList = new ArrayList<Guess>(); for (int x=1; x<9; x++) { for (int y=1; y<9; y++) { grid[x][y] = VOID; } }//sets game board to VOID int count = 0; int a = 0; int b = 0; Random r = new Random(); while (count < 6) { a = r.nextInt(8); b = r.nextInt(8); if (grid[a+1][b+1] == VOID) { grid[a+1][b+1] = ATOM; count++; }//distributes 6 atoms in random pattern on board } for (int i=0; i<10; i++) { grid[i][0] = " " + i; grid[9][i] = new String() + (i+10); grid[i][9] = new String() + (29-i); grid[0][i] = new String() + (39-i); }//sets outer grid numbers grid[0][0] = CORNER; grid[9][0] = CORNER; grid[9][9] = CORNER; grid[0][9] = CORNER; }//end constructor
explain how you could have a base accepting -function paired with a creative producing
-function
Well theres not really much there to say it can't be. I'm basing this off the ideas of Dmitri Lytov and some of what Gulenko had to say. Really all functions are is aspects of personality. To say that a person can't have certain aspects of function is kind of ridiculous.
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
I didn't think Dmitri was into the +/- stuff (?). I thought he was against that.
+/- aspects are the biggest thing russian socionics has going on right now, pretty much everyone is messing with it
Model X Will Save Us!
*randomwarelinkremoved
Really? Where is a good source for that, and what's Dmitri's role? I just remember that his site criticizes Gulenko's recent work somewhat, and that he seemed to be to be skeptical about Reinin dichotomies.
BTW, I posted some thoughts about the origins of +/- at http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=15814
See if you agree.
As I see it, one of the important things to do when reversing any system, is to understand the extent to which you must reverse to make it comprehensible. If you try a partial reverse and you can't understand it, then it's probably a good idea to try going a little farther upstream. In the case of inverted element signs, I've found it quite useful -- for the purposes of sampling the range of cognition thus delimited from a VERY detatched viewpoint, mind you -- to assume that the priorities are reversed as well. In an INTj, for example, -Te ends up not only replacing +Ti in the ego, but further holding court over +Ti. (which replaces +Ti) My intuitive assessment of this pairing is "the ends justify the means".
Society frowns on this kind of thinking... what I suspect is that we are always throwing the reverse sign of our base down into our subconscious, particularly whenever we have a socially maladjusted thought: it's the knowledge of good and evil, in other words. I get the impression that the process of differentiating "good" from "bad" inverts the "bad" thought process and puts the contrary to the base as the 7th function leader, with the sign opposite the base below it as an advisor. So if you saw an +Ti-Ne type, the first impression you would get is of someone who threw down their ego in favor of their id. ...But is this really a case of someone completely engorging their own subconscious, or is that merely a projection of ours, a perfect match to our eyes for the evil within us? At this time I don't know, but I'd like to.
Though damn, it'd make a lot of sense. I mean really, think about all the bad guys who laugh out loud at their evil plans: they know they are bad, and they're glad for it. I wonder if I'm just reading too deep into this... or....
As for the more extreme sign variations, I'm completely convinced I swap out my +Te for -Te on a regular basis.
I disagree.
@Niffweed:
Please stop trolling these threads.
I think the postulation of more types is really helpful. In fact, I think it holds the potential to shed light on such mysteries as sociopathy and extremism. Whether or not we can do anything about them, or even should, is another matter. I say we research them anyhow and let history be the judge.
There's never harm in keeping an open mind, but the way I see it, reversal is impossible in the absolute sense. A reversed 'ESFj' for example - the type with Fe+ and Si- - is simply equal to the ISFj type.
It seems to me that the reversed ID functions (as in Te+ and Ni- for the INTj) form a 'dictating' personality, as opposed to the 'constatating' personality of the ego functions. These two personality seem to alternate with eachother continually: first one learns a situation, then one forms an opinion of it, then one dictates the implications...
What's interesting is that when Reinin Aristocrats and Democrats communicate, the dictating personality of one speaks to the constatating personality of the other... I am particularly much aware of this when I speak to INFj's. The INTj-INFj relation could be called a relation of 'dictated duality'; one party helps the other using rules that the other might at first find alien...
I've been planning to write a thread about 'trait tiers' for a while now. This thread would be about a hyrarchy of socionical traits telling how many steps it takes to get from a particular trait to a readily observable phenomenom. It might appear sometime soon in my personal thread in the article section.Is there a thread where you explain this idea?
Btw: if I ever get around to writing such a thread, I will probably show a way how one can hold the MBTI functional system and socionics to be equivalent by thinking of type traits in terms of groupings of types.
That has been brought up, but what do you think of the counter-proposal I mentioned? Basically, you can define a type via what has + and what has -, or you can define it based on what functions are emphasized. If you combine those, you have at least 32 combinations.
Taking hitta's theory that ESFj's ego block has -Fe, +Fi, +Si, -Se,(which is a big assumption in itself, but let's take that for granted for the moment), then wouldn't this combination with focus on -Fe and +Si vs. focus on +Fi and -Se at the very least form two distinct subtypes (either two subtypes of ESFj, or one subtype of ESFj and one of ISFj, depending on how one looks at it)?
One can only have enthusiasm for various polarities: enthusiasm surrounds likes and dislikes, and must be built around it. (just look at the right's enthusistic hatred of Hillary Clinton for an example.) Every Ti structure, likewise, is joined by Te connectivity, the steady electron flow between objects. ("work") Every element is built on its contrary.
No need for subtypes, just the natural order of the world.
It sounds as if you're disagreeing with my proposal, but I'm not quite sure how what you're saying relates. My paraphrase of what you're saying is "certain combinations work, and others don't, and yours doesn't." However, hitta's model of reversing the polarities of the id block functions and putting them into the ego block isn't even classical Socionics anyway, so if we're going that far into far-flung speculation already, I don't see why this little extension would be a problem.
Eh you're assuming that people "prefer" functions at all. That's quite an assumption. I use the function appropriate to the situation, that's all.
Strange...we had this discussion before, and I was taking the position that I use the function appropriate to the situation, whereas you said there had to be more of a structure to it...but that was awhile ago.
Anyhow, you're right, it's a big assumption. But it's the assumption of Jung, and the foundation of Socionics. If you suppose that by considering + and -, we can now get away of the idea of valuing certain functions over others, that may be a deception, because it's the same problem but just renamed.
For example, if one values -Ti over +Ti, that is still a preference. In fact, it's just a renaming of the preference of Ne over Se in classical Socionics.
I think the solution to the issue is that everyone uses every function as needed per situations, but people don't use the functions equally, especially in public or in a leadership role.
Now I'm really puzzled. You have mentioned in the past your Se PoLR, how, for instance, in something like a socionics-aware society you shouldn't have to work, say, making hamburgers due to your Se PoLR, etc; the same going for all types. You have referred to SLEs (accepted or supposed) supervising, or trying to supervise you. Are you now saying that you can use Se whenever the situation calls for it - at the same level as, say, an SLE - or do you mean something totally different?
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Oh no, I couldn't use Se like SLEs do because they draw their power from agreement; I draw mine from feeling and emotion. My emotions are temporary, thus I build strength only in as much I feel the need to. If I don't see the need for a given form of force, I allow it to wane; I raise it, then neglect it, and no one picks it up. But SLE power is drawn from the human spirit of cooperation -- 8th function +Te -- and that power will never, ever fail. That's why they are so dominant; all you can do is try to balance it somehow... or degrade the cooperative spirit itself, and even then the cooperative spirit will rechannel itself into a new form for another SLE to take notice of. But I should note, -Se sees power evident in cohesion, but it is never what it could be. To make it strong, they must offer a structure on which to build it: as the structure improves, the power rises to an acceptable level.
It's great that your ideas always evolving. But your system is always so far developed beyond the context of the conversation that I find it hard to understand or validate what you're saying. If I were to assume that my own observations are *like* yours, and not worry about understanding you exactly, then although I may be stimulated in my own process of discovery, I still wouldn't know if what I thought you meant is what you meant.
Can you fill us in what the new postulates are so that we can understand what you just said?
Here's a start:
"Se like SLEs do because they draw their power from agreement"
What's the underlying postulate here? What function are you referring to when you talk of agreement, and why does it have to do with agreement?
"I draw mine from feeling and emotion."
Are you speaking for LIIs here? Or for EIE-exerting types? Or neither?
"But SLE power is drawn from the human spirit of cooperation -- 8th function +Te -- and that power will never, ever fail."
What does +Te have to do with this?
"-Se sees power evident in cohesion, but it is never what it could be. To make it strong, they must offer a structure on which to build it: as the structure improves, the power rises to an acceptable level."
Translate?
Posting Permissions
:" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"
Reply With Quote