Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: How I understand +/-

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default How I understand +/-

    In my view, positive accepting elements see information that is at a sort of balanced point. ("set point") The element desires elevation beyond the median, and it is the role of the negative producer to produce the means by which this elevation may occur. The negative producer, which is below its set point, will raise its content level to its median by performing the functions necessary to elevate the acceptor.

    Vice versa for negative acceptors and positive producers: the problem at hand is that the acceptor is below an acceptable level, and the means for raising its level is the elevation of the positive producer. For example, take INTj: -Ti says there is not enough structure to meet the abundance of +Te facts on hand. To create enough structure, it is necessary to offer new possibilities of structure within existing structure: this is +Ne.

    Observe thus, that the set point of a negative element is always proportional to the level of its positive contrary at the same time. But what about the desired elevation magnitude for the positive...?

    hotelambush, hitta, labcoat, anybody else: is this how you see +/-, too?

    Interesting thought: I just realized that you can evaluate information levels in terms of either quantity... or quality. (*hint hint*)

    (And I just realized, that if +/- works on such a gradient, then it is indeed proof of Jung's libido concept.)

  2. #2

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    In my view, positive accepting elements see information that is at a sort of balanced point. ("set point") The element desires elevation beyond the median, and it is the role of the negative producer to produce the means by which this elevation may occur. The negative producer, which is below its set point, will raise its content level to its median by performing the functions necessary to elevate the acceptor.

    Vice versa for negative acceptors and positive producers: the problem at hand is that the acceptor is below an acceptable level, and the means for raising its level is the elevation of the positive producer. For example, take INTj: -Ti says there is not enough structure to meet the abundance of +Te facts on hand. To create enough structure, it is necessary to offer new possibilities of structure within existing structure: this is +Ne.
    Just want to make clear that I understand what you're saying, and that there's not a typo. You're saying that a + accepting function needs a - producing function to "elevate" its level, and that a - accepting function has the opposite "problem" which also requires the producing function to elevate its level. If the problems are opposite, why is the solution the same? (I.e., elevation, in both cases.) If a negative function needs to be elevated, wouldn't a positive function need to be reduced?

    Another question: It seems you're saying that with -Ti and +Ne, the Ne increases the level of something to satisfy Ti in some way. But why wouldn't +Se work just as well? We know that it's supposed to be +Ne, because that's how Gulenko defined the +/- dichotomy. But why does it have to be that way? If all -Ti needs is a "+" producing function, and Se can work just as well as a producing function as Ne, why not +Se then?

    I'm asking this because it seems we tend to accept that +/- is supposed to work a certain way...but how do we know?

    I've brought up perhaps one possible explanation in a thread that presents an alternate view of how to look at +/-...http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=15814. However, I'm not fully convinced that the cycle can't be reversed, as I mention there.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    -Ti and +Se.... OK, that would mean, "there isn't enough structure in the world, so I'm going to ... increase the energy level of something... to make more structure.... I don't think that would work at all... but try a total reversal: "I will destabilize the world by increasing my own power." In that case, the object is to lower -Ti to nothing by means of building one's +Se. (but would that work? I'm missing that second means of reversal... if Ti falls to nothing... does Se collapse to Si's level?) Destruction is an end in itself... or is it? If Ti falls, then Te rises. So does Si... or, Si falls to nothing, and Se rises without limit? Ti's absence would mean one's source point -- the id -- is being ingratiated, thus +Te gets lots of... loyalty, and the creation of loyalty is the motive for distruction, because then people will fear for themselves and need the destroyer: they will be loyal to him in exchange for stability. Also, knowledge wins out, too: an abundance of hard fact but no real theory.

    I'll recommend this: try applying that to Stalin and see what you get. Will you do this for me, Jonathan?

  4. #4
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IMO the - function is implicit in the +... It is never spoken about, never described... It doesn't exist except as self-evident, 'supposed to be there'.

    Like when putting 2 and 3 in a sequence, the difference of +1 is implicit. Any mention of it would be redundant.

    Take the INTj's logic: it is never spelled out so much as it is assumed to be understood by the INTj's audience. If I describe the specifics of a situation, I can assume that people listening to me will draw the appropriate logical conclusions.

    Or an ESFj's feelings: having described a concrete occurance from their own viewpoint (Si+), what is the point of telling about what one felt about the occurance...? They expect everyone to feel about things the way they do; such that any mention of feelings becomes redundant.

    BTW: this is the insight that makes me advise people to think in terms of function blocks as opposed to in terms of functions. Anything that is said and done is expressed in two functions, not in one. Function blocks describe thought structures, units of language. What they compose can not be broken down into individual functions.

    More on this: it is actually the Judging function that is implicit and not spoken about. Reinin Aristocrats do of course state things explicitly, but the things they want to bring to light are always NOT their exact words, but the comparison to something else that was expected to be. When an Aristocrat says "[someone] behaved like [this]", he might mean to say the person should have behaved another way.

    In general: Perception = form of statement, Judgment = comparison to something else (can simply be a way of understanding a transition from a past state to the current one). Important: you can't EVER express one without the other.
    Last edited by krieger; 01-03-2008 at 10:24 PM.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I get the gist of it. (what type are you?)

    You are saying that the producer acts on behalf of both of the acceptors... then, what is the role of the second producer? -Ni is the origin of +Ne, so +Ne must rise above Ni's set point: the potential must offer something that advances time itself; it must offer something beyond any limited scope of time.

    It seems to me that if -Ti is drawing on +Te, then wouldn't +Te be drawing on +Ti? What is the role of -Ni?

    Under your hypothesis, jxrtes, wouldn't -Ti/-Te break down free energy even further? Into, say, something imaginary? (how do you break down energy that is already disconnected?) Or maybe it doesn't break energy down at all, but instead merely does nothing with it? Then the point of the +Ne is to recognize the energy for what it is, and the world for what it is. One is exploring the totally inactive world. I think I get it: using two negative contraries allows one to cease libido flow in a given dimension of the psyche. This gives one a sense of stability and, wouldn't it also offer a degree of self-confidence, because you have a means by which to contrast a part of oneself to the changing reality around you? And too, those balanced elements could subvert the elements to the intentions of the balance... although I intuit that the lack of libido flow in the two would increase the libido volatility between the other six by a factor of 1/3. (is that right? My math has never been great.)

    BTW, where did you come up with this? My instinct in reading this is that you are aware of something I'm not.

    EDIT: OK, I think I may have figured out how you came up with this. You thought of the elements are actual forms of real energy, rather than as psychic "non-real" concepts. You thought not in terms of elements, but in terms of aspects. Basically, you processed via what what I call information exertion. (the nature of which I've not fully defined as yet.)
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 01-04-2008 at 05:33 AM.

  6. #6
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Another question: It seems you're saying that with -Ti and +Ne, the Ne increases the level of something to satisfy Ti in some way. But why wouldn't +Se work just as well? We know that it's supposed to be +Ne, because that's how Gulenko defined the +/- dichotomy. But why does it have to be that way? If all -Ti needs is a "+" producing function, and Se can work just as well as a producing function as Ne, why not +Se then?
    I'm no expert on this, but I think the reason why +Se may not work with -Ti is because -Ti is about breaking down the system, looking at all parts. So, if you were looking to apply a system in real life, you would probably want to focus on building, or structuring it.

  7. #7

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    ... Se looks for force relations, whereas Ne changes the Te facts to make them fit an entirely new paradigm. ...+Ne examines all the Te simultaneously to find hidden possibilities, -Ne examines only a small sample of Te. ...+Ne makes novel new links between Te facts to produce a set of new relationships which generate a new paradigm. +Ne is what generates new systems. -Ti/+Ne is inductive....The disorganized set of -Te facts is organized by +Ti into an arbitrary system. -Ne discovers new links between the Te facts in the system to reach a specific conclusion about the data. -Ne doesn't generate anything new. It looks for hidden potentials for Te to reflect the Ti structure, and rewrites the Te data to accord with what +Ti has decided the structure should be. +Ti/-Ne is deductive.
    I don't dispute that such transactions as you describe exist in some form; I think that many transactions between functions are possible; Ne drawing from Te is possible, though not one of the standard pairings.

    However, I hope you don't mind my pointing out that your definitions seem a bit Alpha-centric, leading to a system in which any reasonably intelligent and creative person must be Alpha. Did you get your definitions at least in part from reading hitta's posts?

    Se as force comes from a long tradition in Socionics, but if that's taken too far it basically makes all Se types seem to be Neanderthals then. Alpha Ne looking at all the facts, but Delta Ne only looking at some of them, suggests that Delta NFs are perhaps also intellectually inferior? The idea that Te equals disconnected facts is a popular definition, especially among Alphas. It's interesting that you nuance this a bit by considering "+" as applied to T to mean connected in some sense, so that any Te in Gammas is disconnected facts. But Expat and others around here accepted as LIEs don't go around spouting disconnected facts...so perhaps they're not real LIEs then? If +Ti is an arbitrary system, then again we must conclude that LSIs are pretty stupid, since their systems are arbitrary, which means that they're probably incorrect....which is too bad because then they try to force them on people with their Se.

    I don't mean to imply that there's no merit to your thinking. One could take these terms and define them the way you do, and come to the conclusions you come to, and these may be perfectly good insights taken that way. I'm just pointing out that somehow it doesn't seem balanced.

    One other thought: It seems to me that result types (democratic rationals + aristocratic irrationals) may be more inclined to see -Te as some sort of disconnected something-or-other that must then be integrated by +Ni or something....and if you're a result type, that may help explain some of your reasoning and why it sounds perhaps all completely backwards to process types.

    On the other hand, I'm not completely convinced of your type; you seem to be intelligently exploring this stuff, and clearly by your definitions and wording you identify yourself with Alpha right now. My recommendation would be to consider these definitions as experimental and flexible, as there are other definitions out there that would lead in other directions.

  8. #8

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    Now then, on to my post. All I was implying was that both processes: -X/+Y and +X/-Y exist in a type or have some possibility of existence. So, a beta ST can operate using both -Ti/+Se and +Ti/-Se. The first process is equivalent to inductive reasoning, while the other process is deductive reasoning. This frees induction/deduction from the pernicious paradigm that N = induction, S = deduction. The hypothesis is experimental, so I won't tout it as absolute truth.
    That's making more sense. Thanks for the clarification.
    The way I interpret a type using both -X/+Y and +X/-Y is that the directionality can go either way. +Ne/-Ti implies a certain directionality in a sense from Ne to Ti (finding the order in the Ne idea), even if +Ne is the creative function. -Ne/+Ti might mean finding applications, generalizations, or ways of looking at a given system. It may be that +Ti with -Ne is actually the primary state of LII rather than -Ti with +Ne. Just a hypothesis of my own.

  9. #9

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee View Post
    @ jxrtes:

    when are we gonna have a dictionary of socionics (elements, blocks, switching dynamics, element recognition) and reliable tests?
    Isn't that what wikisocion is all about?

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Has anyone offered like, nomenclature to the differences between the two? For the purposes of this post I'll refer to the "presiding" element of a function by the name of the function itself ("base", for example), and its auxiliary "helper" element as its contrary. ("base contrary")

    One of the questions before us now is, what is the relationship between an acceptor contrary and a producer contrary? Because it's my type and I know my type well, I'll use LII for illustration.

    -Ti says "there is not enough logic being used given the abundance of facts we have available. People are unnecessarily half-assing their way through important matters when they could approach life from a vantagepoint of increased logical coherency." Now if it were just -Ti by itself then one simply be inclined to complain without doing anything. What spurs the LII to take action is where those facts are leading in their disorganized form. "Looking at the current state of people's use of logic... the future is bleak. Possibilities are limited." -Ti sees itself as threatened by +Ti's impoverished state and its bleak outlook for the future. (by which I mean, without further organization the scale of possibilities will remain low, and one can look forward to more of the same s***. What this means is, low -Ne is good news for low -Ni, and that's bad.)

    What is evident is that there are two sides of each function, even at the polar level; more than mere surpluses and deficits, there is in fact a moral dimension to the elements. For by consciously raising the bar for -Ne, one prevents negative -Ni futures from transpiring; because the future is a matter of potential, and the more potential that exists, the better the future one can create for oneself and for others. Raising potential raises the quality of the future.

    In effect, the experience of -Ti is one of dreading its own outcome. Perhaps one even finds fault in oneself, but one believes that the potential exists for improvement. -Ti in its mediocre state is an experience of chaos; in its level state it is an experience of even balance between freedom and organization. There is a definite moral difference between these two states: the former is immoral and dangerous, the latter moral and palpable. Similarly, the -Ti person would look at a person who appreciated -Ti as it currently was as irresponsible, indifferent, and oblivious. A negative function in its low state is not be appreciated, but loathed. It is not a matter of -Ti being chaotic; (and I caution, chaos =/= anarchy) rather, it is the consequence of chaos as a reduced level of potential that make chaos undesirable to us.

    Now on that matter of +Te and -Ni... the question is this: how does +Te affect -Ni? If an increase in Te equals greater unity, ...it seems to me that +Te would be acting in service to -Ni. (this is process/result, right?) It is the future that is lacking, and cooperation is needed to influence it positively. To +Te the facts are well established; the question is what to do with them. If -Ti is looking at +Te as a monstrous sea of cooperation -- of loss of individuality (this is an old Jung theme: the introverted subject distrusts the extroverted object) -- ...yes, it's a matter of life vs death. -Ti plays against +Te, and uses +Ne to play against -Ni. +Te seems like all the forces trying to absorb oneself into the world... like a monstrous H.R. Geiger painting. Then if one cannot extricate oneself from the world... then does one have individuality? No, one is essentially the world as it is, which is no different from being dead. Thus the future, in this perversely united state, is bleak and lifeless. Raising -Ti offers oneself distinction from the world on the altar of -Te: it is extrication from the whole. The act of raising -Ti raises -Te, and therefore breaks down perverse +Te and derails it from advancing lifeless -Ni. But there is another prong against -Ni, coming from the +Ne whose amplification raises -Ti. Intensified positive, hopeful potential is the foundation of a prosperous +Ni future. The more prosperous +Ni is, the less -Ni's role in the coming future.

    LII ego is essentially a war against "dark" -Ni on two fronts. There is an inextricable moral dimension underlying Model-A.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 01-06-2008 at 02:36 AM.

Posting Permissions

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