Thread: Gulenko's plus/minus (+/-) function signs

1. Gulenko's plus/minus (+/-) function signs

There's been a fair amount of speculation about Gulenko's +/- theory, without much solid discussion of the underpinnings. It seems that any discussion of how far one can go with it, whether one can reverse the signs, and so forth, ought to involve some discussion of what +/- means and why.

First of all, +/-, as originally conceived, appears to be equivalent to the process/result dichotomy, but applied to functions rather than types (i.e., reinterpret the dichotomy as being about the base function of the respective types).

Defined as such, it is merely a mathematical pattern and cannot be removed from its original context (e.g., you can't have Te blocked with Ni with Te being + or Ni being -).

But then there is the semantic interpretation of what +/- *means*, which as with any semantic interpretation, could always be removed from its original context.

As I understand it, the original semantic interpretation presumes a sort of "normal cycle" of processing:

N -> T -> S -> F -> N

...meaning that if one generates (+) ideas or possibilities (N), one has a problem one must solve (-), being that of understanding or organizing these (T). And once one generates (+) that plan, one has the problem to solve (-) of implementing or realizing it (S). And when one has generated (+) that reality (S), one has the problem to solve (-) of making sure that it affects people in the right way (F). And when one generated (+) has the relationship or atmosphere between people (F), one has the problem to solve (-) of figuring out what the meaning of it all is or the potential of the people (N).

It was for this reason, I deduce, that Gulenko assigned + and - signs. Originally, the "-" form of the function was meant not as an "antagonist stance" toward that function, but rather as a problem-solving mode as opposed to a generative mode. I believe that's why Gulenko called + "proactive" and - "reactive" (react to the problems you have to solve).

That also fits in nicely with process/result...process is the generation of something, whereas result is doing something just so that you can get a result (i.e., solve something that's a problem for you).

Where this becomes a problem for some Socionists is that this also seems to be the relation between the base and producing functions. That is, the base function is supposed to be generative, and the producing function solves the problems generated by the needs of the base function.

I believe this is why Smilex said sometimes that the relationship of base/producing functions was reversed for result types.

Another related problem for this theory concerns whether the cycle pictured above is intrinsically the way things are, or if it's just an arbitrary direction.

For example, why couldn't one just as easily have:

N -> F -> S -> T -> N

Here, you have an idea or possibilities and you express their significance, or you have certain values and relationships and so forth that lead you implement various things and so forth. Does that make any less sense than the other cycle, and why?

Those who see the relationship between accepting-producing as "accepting -> producing" for all types will tend to view Socionics in a way which is intrinsically opposed to Gulenko's +/- model. The alternative is to see the relationship between accepting-producing as being modified by whether one is a process or result type.

2. The +/- model

What do you think of it? Here's some info about it Functional Revise - Wikisocion

For the most part, I agree with how the +/- functions manifest in my own LII type, with the possible exception of the +Fi/-Fe agenda.

According to Wikisocion:

Extroverted Feeling
+: Positive reactions towards people, laughter, cheer, playfulness, manipulation through positive emotions, showing love, being subtle with people, gentle love, being able to caress, mild manner.
-: Negative reactions towards people, showing anger, sarcasm, yelling, organic emotions, guilt manipulation, having moody swings, being mean, showing disgust, having explosive moods, theatricality.

Introverted Feeling
+: Love, happiness, like, friendship, inability to break off relationships, bringing people closer, bring people together, sympathy, pity.
-: Hatred, repulsion, dislike, depression, sadness, antipathy, anger, pushing people away, breaking off relationships.

I see myself identifying more with +Fe/-Fi than the other way around.

Here's what Wikisocion has to say about about +Te/-Ti ego and +Fi/-Fe agenda people:

The Creators/Systematizers (-Ti/+Te in ego, -Fe/+Fi agenda) INTj; ENTp; ISTp; ESTj
This group is the producers of ideas in the world. The intuitive types introduce and implement new and extraordinary ideas. The sensing types attempt to produce and implement ways to be economical. This group can be very analytical, they analyze the situation and put the best idea into production. This group tries to break things apart and analyze them as them are at their deepest core. This group can be very rude, as its their functional need to be sarcastic and mean to people. In the intuitive types though, social anxiety can get in the way of this. This group wants to love and be happy. This group has a hard time appearing happy to the people around them. They are hardly ever completely nice to people.

I take issue with the bolded parts of this description. I would not associate rudeness with any of these four types. Functional need to be sarcastic and mean to people? Why would these types (or any type for that matter) have a this as a functional need? Sounds like an unhealthy manifestation of one's type rather than the norm.

3. I'd say that fits more for SLI and LSE

I'd say when Alpha NTs seem harsh, it's more carelessness than needing to be sharp. Delta STs, however, are intractable.

4. Those descriptions were written by user Hitta.

The general consensus is that they suck.

A +/- model isn't really needed to describe what INTj, ENTp, ISTp and ESTj have in common as the labels "Si/Ne valuing" and "Logic" combined already denote this group of types.

"Ti-/Te+ Fi+/Fe- valuing" is the same thing (/denotes the same group of types) as "Si/Ne valuing" except it attributes similarities to the Rational function axis rather than to the Irrational function axis.

I don't think this theory is entirely baseless. ENTjs are said to value +Fe, whereas ESFjs are said to value -Fe. In practice I find that ENTjs often have more loud, positive emotional behavior than ESFjs. ESTjs are again -Fe valuing and are very emotionally subdued.

This theory kicks against certain claims that are taken for granted under the old model. INTp, for example, is said to be a +Fe valuing type.

I would call this theory "interesting" but not usable in it's current form.

5. As far as I'm concerned, those +/- descriptions are some of the fundamentals, really the holy grail of socionics. I would suggest that you spend at least a few hours reading them over, trying to memorize every detail. Also, if you have time, I suggest pouring over anything written by wikisocion user Anthony Caudill.

My sincerest wishes in your studies,

jason_m.

6. Originally Posted by jason_m
As far as I'm concerned, those +/- descriptions are some of the fundamentals of socionics. I would suggest that you spend at least a few hours reading them over, trying to memorize every detail. Also, if you have time, I suggest pouring over anything written by wikisocion user Anthony Caudill.

My sincerest best wishes in your studies,

jason_m.

HoF'd

7. The whole purpose of Bouklovs Model B is to create a divide between the types. Too many people have such a hard time deciding between INTp and INTj, or INFj and INFp or whatever that it makes no sense. The two types are on the opposite side of the totem pole, they should have opposite qualities. The "quasi-identical" notion is that opposites tend to project the qualities that the other does subconsciously and naturally.

Take -Ti/+Te and +Ti/-Te as examples. -Ti/+Te(INTj) tries to analyze. To analyze something one has to look at things naturally has being distinct. Take a Box. The INTj looks at the Box as a whole entity naturally(+Ti/-Te) and logically and consciously deduces it down into networks of complex concepts. Basically Alphas come to a conscious and ego driven understanding of all things by rationale.

Now take Gammas. They naturally and unconsciously see things as disconnected and and undistinctive. Its like a natural view of reality for Gammas, hence Gammas always seem as if they are somewhat tired and uninvolved.(-Ti/+Te) Gammas try to group things together and assign them meaning. Gammas are extremely detail oriented. They try to group things together into sets and assign rules. They want rules, they want structure. Its what drives them. (+Ti/-Te)

In synopsis, Alphas try to discover the meaning and the purpose of everything around them; and Gammas try to build their own purpose and rules.

8. hitta, that actually wasn't half-bad.

It wasn't half-good either. But still.

I do think Gammas are detail orientated because I sure as hell isn't. I am a very generalized person.

9. Originally Posted by warrior-librarian
What do you think of it? Here's some info about it Functional Revise - Wikisocion

For the most part, I agree with how the +/- functions manifest in my own LII type, with the possible exception of the +Fi/-Fe agenda.

According to Wikisocion:

Extroverted Feeling
+: Positive reactions towards people, laughter, cheer, playfulness, manipulation through positive emotions, showing love, being subtle with people, gentle love, being able to caress, mild manner.
-: Negative reactions towards people, showing anger, sarcasm, yelling, organic emotions, guilt manipulation, having moody swings, being mean, showing disgust, having explosive moods, theatricality.

Introverted Feeling
+: Love, happiness, like, friendship, inability to break off relationships, bringing people closer, bring people together, sympathy, pity.
-: Hatred, repulsion, dislike, depression, sadness, antipathy, anger, pushing people away, breaking off relationships.

I see myself identifying more with +Fe/-Fi than the other way around.

Here's what Wikisocion has to say about about +Te/-Ti ego and +Fi/-Fe agenda people:

The Creators/Systematizers (-Ti/+Te in ego, -Fe/+Fi agenda) INTj; ENTp; ISTp; ESTj
This group is the producers of ideas in the world. The intuitive types introduce and implement new and extraordinary ideas. The sensing types attempt to produce and implement ways to be economical. This group can be very analytical, they analyze the situation and put the best idea into production. This group tries to break things apart and analyze them as them are at their deepest core. This group can be very rude, as its their functional need to be sarcastic and mean to people. In the intuitive types though, social anxiety can get in the way of this. This group wants to love and be happy. This group has a hard time appearing happy to the people around them. They are hardly ever completely nice to people.

I take issue with the bolded parts of this description. I would not associate rudeness with any of these four types. Functional need to be sarcastic and mean to people? Why would these types (or any type for that matter) have a this as a functional need? Sounds like an unhealthy manifestation of one's type rather than the norm.
I wrote this when I was undergoing a lot of stress. I think its accurate, but it needs to be worded differently; as I was using terminology that I could see as being hard to decipher(like my notions of love v.s. hate). In comparison between the two quadras(Alpha v.s. Gamma), Alphas tend to hate superficial qualities; meaning emotionally they are rather blunt. Alphas notion of love isn't superficial(like everyday love between two people). Alphas sort of feel an emotional bond between all things. It comes off as blunt and sarcastic, but their bluntness is a sign of neutrality. They feel as if they don't want to be bounded by the social construct that the term "love" as in romance signifies. More of a universal acceptance. Alphas strive to not have boundaries in their associations, which often leaves the Alpha saying exactly what is on their mind.

In contrast, gammas don't actually want to love or bond in that way with the "collective conscious". Gammas love by parameters. They have more of a notion of romanticism or finding the person that fits their grouping. The reason I noted that as hate, is that if a person idealized their mate apart from the rest of the collective group; then Gammas actually create criticisms towards everyone else; and create sort of a divide between the rest of the world and that person. This means that Gammas actually spend a lot of time searching for the flawless mate.

10. If that's true, then Betas are like Alphas in that they don't need a partner to be perfect. (BG, an alpha always goes on about how he wants his gf to have problems and shit lol) But Betas are like Gammas in the sense that we want an emotional bond with a special person/people as opposed to some sort of generalized happy vibe with everybody.

You said earlier on stickam that you didn't believe in marriage. I find that weird, not that I idealize marriage or 'the special someone'; it's just because I find it to be very natural that people have 'favorite humans', and I think it's kind of cute when humans go 'I hold this human in a higher regard than other humans.' Are you telling me that alphas don't have those same feelings of discrepancy?

Shit. Did I just use that word correctly?

lol

11. Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
If that's true, then Betas are like Alphas in that they don't need a partner to be perfect. (BG, an alpha always goes on about how he wants his gf to have problems and shit lol) But Betas are like Gammas in the sense that we want an emotional bond with a special person/people as opposed to some sort of generalized happy vibe with everybody.

You said earlier on stickam that you didn't believe in marriage. I find that weird, not that I idealize marriage or 'the special someone'; it's just because I find it to be very natural that people have 'favorite humans', and I think it's kind of cute when humans go 'I hold this human in a higher regard than other humans.' Are you telling me that alphas don't have those same feelings of discrepancy?

Shit. Did I just use that word correctly?

lol
Well I think that everyone has labels and "favorite" people. Its just alphas and deltas are actively trying to remove discriminations(trying to be accepting and open), while gammas and betas are more discriminative and focused.

12. Originally Posted by hitta
The whole purpose of Bouklovs Model B is to create a divide between the types. Too many people have such a hard time deciding between INTp and INTj, or INFj and INFp or whatever that it makes no sense. The two types are on the opposite side of the totem pole, they should have opposite qualities. The "quasi-identical" notion is that opposites tend to project the qualities that the other does subconsciously and naturally.

Take -Ti/+Te and +Ti/-Te as examples. -Ti/+Te(INTj) tries to analyze. To analyze something one has to look at things naturally has being distinct. Take a Box. The INTj looks at the Box as a whole entity naturally(+Ti/-Te) and logically and consciously deduces it down into networks of complex concepts. Basically Alphas come to a conscious and ego driven understanding of all things by rationale.

Now take Gammas. They naturally and unconsciously see things as disconnected and and undistinctive. Its like a natural view of reality for Gammas, hence Gammas always seem as if they are somewhat tired and uninvolved.(-Ti/+Te) Gammas try to group things together and assign them meaning. Gammas are extremely detail oriented. They try to group things together into sets and assign rules. They want rules, they want structure. Its what drives them. (+Ti/-Te)

In synopsis, Alphas try to discover the meaning and the purpose of everything around them; and Gammas try to build their own purpose and rules.
Weird. I've always known I needed structure in my life. Even though I hate being ordered it's the only thing to keep me progressing. This was before Socionics. And I thought I was LII, among other reasons, because of the need for structure in my life. The +Ti makes sense..

The other stuff does too though.