# Thread: Theory of cycles: more wild speculations and ramblings on +/-

1. ## Theory of cycles: more wild speculations and ramblings on +/-

Okay, so I thought I'd join in the fun and have my own "wacko" theory of +/-, if anyone cares to know. I'll just ramble on for awhile, but I promise that if you're interested in cycles and +/-, there are some ideas you may find interesting. For a pretentious title, you can call it the "Theory of Cycles," or "Model C," if that's not already taken. If it is, call it C+- . I know Smilex talked a lot about cycles, so some of that may be related, but I'm not sure.

In my opinion, the problem with much of the discussion on +/- is simply that people don't discuss *why* they think + is expressed a certain way and why - is expressed another way, but instead simply say what they think they are and leave it at that.

The initial case for even considering +/- is that it has some notational usefulness. In addition to allowing the base function to serve as a shorthand for the entire type as it appears labcoat and perhaps others have begun to do at least in part , the process-result dichotomy on which +/- is based is the only dichotomy that can represent how functions blocked with other functions modify those functions, IF one must honor the rule that the functions blocked with each other must be on different sides of the dichotomy. So mathematically, there's something to +/-. Only the meta-interpretation is in question.

As I stated in a previous mostly unread thread, the only rational way I can see to justify the interpretation of process-result as relating at all to "process" "result" "+" "-" and the other words that have been used is to presume a natural cycle between rational and irrational functions, being N>T>S>F>N, which is one of only two such cycles. (Was this called concretizing in one of Smilex's threads? Everything I mention about this could perhaps also happen in reverse if one goes the other direction; perhaps it may go in reverse for result types, for example.)

A rough interpretation of this cycle is that ideas need to be structured, structure needs to be implemented, implementation must be humanized, and human potential must be discovered. The interpretation of + and - then is simply that "-" is the next problem to solve given "+"…or given that there's +, we must then deal with it somehow, according to the next phase in the cycle, and that "dealing with" is what "-" means. (This is different from other interpretation of + and - that have floated around, which in my view sometimes seem to be more about what the notational symbols "+" and "-" connote by themselves than about anything directly actually relevant to Socionics.)

2. Now, among the most interesting assertions that have been made about +/- are hitta's, and I think we can come up with some different, perhaps better explanations of these apparent phenomena. It is clearly true that illusionary partners are supposed to be closer than contrary relations, and thus it is perhaps logical to believe that +Ni (a.k.a. ILI) is more compatible in some way with Ne when Ne is paired with Fi than when it is paired with Ti. Hitta apparently reasons based on the "zero sum game" inherent in the structure of Model A as often interpreted in terms of absolute "values" and "devalues" that if +Ni "likes" -Ne, then -Ne must be redefined in such a way that it is the complete, total antithesis of +Ne.

What I'm going to propose instead is a model which, unlike Model A (which has two blocks in one's quadra and two in the opposing quadra), instead features all quadras and all types as part of a person's potential mental states, all bound together simply with this concretizing cycle or "natural cycle."

I believe that the problem this model may solve is that sometimes people act in a way that seems uncharacteristic of their quadra. Cycles offer one potential way to show some inherent order in that process.

When viewed as a cycle, the opposing quadra becomes merely the furthest point in a continuous, constructive, cycle. Hence, it is not really opposed, but merely the furthest removed…the most challenging, because it is the most distant. We might surmise that people who like challenge would love the opposing quadra and may tend to be the most confused about which one they're really in.

3. I liked you more when you kept asking whether Ni was about planning, Jonathan.

4. Okay, so now with this theory of cycles. The idea is simply that there is a natural sequence of steps, and each step involves a reinterpretation of a function to its flipped extraversion/introversion and its sign. This may be recognized as hitta's idea that inherent in +Ti is -Te…i.e., that they're in fact different sides of the same thing, much as Ti and Fe are also different sides of the same thing in another way. What I feel has been lacking is any explanation of what the way is in which +Xi is the flip side of -Xe, and so forth. And I'll attempt do this now by way of example.

Consider Delta NF. Delta NF realizes the potential related to what people want based on what is of intrinsic human importance. It considers what people might want, and generates ideas having to do with potential. When a person is Delta NF, these ideas are seen as Ne, because the person is implementing them and acting on them.

But suppose you were to do that all in your head, and then start with the ideas themselves. Suppose you were to think them in your mind and not act on them, but rather, thinking them just inside in your mind, to consider how you might give them structure. All of the sudden what started out as an Ne impulse looks very much like Ni. If we consider the natural cycle that +/- presupposes, it must be +Ni, because the next stop is to give it order through T.

So the idea is that there's a cycle of left-shifting that proceeds from one quadra to the quadra to the left of it (not the type to the left it). Delta NF goes to Gamma NT in the example I just gave.

5. Originally Posted by Expat
I liked you more when you kept asking whether Ni was about planning, Jonathan.
This is me in experimental mode. Anyhow, I thought someone should at least try to come up with a theory of +/- that has at least some rational basis for associating them with certain meanings.

6. On with my self-indulgent rant...

The next step is that after one goes from +Ni to -Te, the Te gets reinterpreted as Ti. This is something I've observed a lot, and I gave it the pretentious title of "the relativity of Te and Ti" back when I used to be on Ganin's site. Basically, as long as you're looking for the right order to give to Ni, using various criteria such as reality testing, efficiency, effectiveness, the scientific method, and so forth, you finally wind up with a definite order. As soon as you say "okay, there it is, that's what I found out using Te" and set it down, so to speak, it no longer looks like Te anymore…because now it's set into stone and your next step is to implement it, defend it, use it, and so forth. So at that point, it looks like Ti ... infact, Ti+, since you implement it with Se-.

Here's again where my model looks at some similar phenomena to what I think hitta was seeing but comes to different conclusions. In hitta's model, which is based on the zero-sum-game Model A, there is a recognition that -Te turns into +Ti, but it assumed that this is blocked with -Ne. But +Ti can only be blocked with -Ne if one assumes a reversed cycle (I guess that's the abstracting cycle if I remember). Now that is possible, but what I find most interesting is that +Ti here might be blocked with -Se, as it usually would be.

Unlike Model A, we don't need to stay within the quadra and opposing quadra; we can consider a cycle that works itself through all quadras.

What this means is that once a person has used -Te to find order, one then has a system or plan, +Ti, which one now must implement: -Se.

7. Merely as an analogy, I'll mention something Phaedrus said long ago. People were doubting Phaedrus's conclusion that he's ILI, and one of the reasons was that he seemed too sure of himself, whereas many people saw ILI's natural process as a state of constant reflection and induction, rather than a state of resolution. Phaedrus said that he in fact had the uncertainty that people expected of ILI, but once he figured things out, he then went to a new stage. This caused some people to think that he's LSI. Later, Expat, recognizing both Ni and Beta in Phaedrus, concluded that Phaedrus is IEI. It is possible though, in this theory of cycles, to see Phaedrus as someone with +Ni rather than -Ni who nevertheless has demonstrated a lot of +Ti, thus appearing Beta…LSI to some, IEI to some, but +Ni rather than -Ni at the root, just as he claims.

(This is just an analogy and not a definitive attempt to say what type Phaedrus is or dispute anyone else's interpretation.)

8. The next step is Alpha SF, taking the implementation as experienced by an individual and humanizing it…making it friendly and hospitable. While this is two steps removed from +Ni, in my model it's actually part of a natural progression, leading back to Delta NF and finally Gamma NT again.

While this cycle covers 4 or possibly 8 types as mental modes, if one considers each mirror-type variant, it also involves the other 8 if you consider the implied dual reaction for each type state. For example, LSI comes with an implied EIE (the stronger the +Ti, the more the implied +Fe emotion comes out.

Considering all these mental states as various parts of a natural cycle may make it seem to imply that there are no differences in the types, but actually I think most people may typically emphasize only small parts of the cycle, and even if going through the whole cycle have characteristic individual ways in which they do it.

9. Well, yes, this is close to how I understand the situation. What I have never understood is why should Te- become Ti+ instead of Te+. But perhaps it's a problem of different terminology. Anyway, I think you understand the Phaedrus change phenomenon correctly.

Do you know the origin of the Te- -> Ti+ idea, why do people use this?

10. yaaaaawwwwn...

Can we just go ahead and re-title General Discussion "Mainstream Socionics Discussion" so we can delegate all of this crap to the dumpster already?

11. Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
Well, yes, this is close to how I understand the situation. What I have never understood is why should Te- become Ti+ instead of Te+. But perhaps it's a problem of different terminology. Anyway, I think you understand the Phaedrus change phenomenon correctly.

Do you know the origin of the Te- -> Ti+ idea, why do people use this?
It is hinted at by some of the 'special' versions of the model A that Gulenko has been spreading about at some point of his career. People (hitta) pick this stuff up and find out that it works better than what had been around up to that point.

I think that what makes all this 'fit' together is that under Gulenko's interpretation functions inversed in +/- are antagonistic to eachother. Hence, for ENTj to be expressed as ESTj would be a complete reversal of ones attitude.

12. Originally Posted by labcoat
It is hinted at by some of the 'special' versions of the model A that Gulenko has been spreading about at some point of his career. People (hitta) pick this stuff up and find out that it works better than what had been around up to that point.

I think that what makes all this 'fit' together is that under Gulenko's interpretation functions inversed in +/- are antagonistic to eachother. Hence, for ENTj to be expressed as ESTj would be a complete reversal of ones attitude.
Perhaps it would be helpful to get a list of links to the relevant Gulenko articles on this. I've only seen this one so far: http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=ru_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fsoci oniko.net%2fru%2farticles%2fgul-znaki.html.

In that one, it's clear that he didn't see them as antagonistic to each other in the way hitta does. Rather, "-" is sort of like a double negative...it's the avoidance of the absence of something....whereas in hitta's versions, it's more like the indulgence in the absence. I think Hitta did this to explain why people in opposing quadras would clash so strongly, but I suspect he over-emphasizes the degree and nature of the conflict. Labcoat, what exactly do you think works better in his system?

As to the original question, "why should Te- become Ti+ instead of Te+": What I mean when I say that is simply that when the structure that was created by a dynamic process is looked at once it's finished, it looks like a static thing. This is just something I've experienced in composing and in analyzing music and speech....I think something is Te and I look again and it seems like Ti. It depends on how I'm looking at it, like one of those cubes that invert depending on how you look at them.

This may sound really far-fetched, but where the whole idea for this thread came from is that I was listening to Rubinstein playing some Beethoven piano sonatas, and the sense of flow and streamlined conception of form made me think of and (Filatova thought Beethoven was ILI, for whatever that's worth). But when I listen to Beethoven's 5th symphony, it seems as if I'm hearing and makes me think of LSI. It's as if Beethoven took his conception of the science and art of creating perfect, inevitable-sounding form, and turned it into a "static" conception, which nevertheless is not pure but rather something coming from and a concern for the problems of actually keeping the listener's interest at all times. Of course, Toscanini's performance makes it sound like SEI, so I got thinking about these cycles.

It seems to me that perhaps cycles is the best way of understanding Beethoven's music or it's appeal to me at any rate...and I see a possible cycle LII-LSE in Bach. In comparison (and I may be wrong about this) but to me I never have trouble viewing Borodin as pure Gamma. So, if that's so, I'm trying to understand what's different about the mental state in Beethoven's music than in Borodin's.

@Gilly: To each his/her own in terms of reading threads. I understand that this is a rather complex and speculative thread. However, I'm being careful to avoid baseless or unexplained assumptions. I think we're starting to have a good discussion here, so if anything belongs under General Discussion, I would think this would. Should more basic topics be moved to a "remedial Socionics" section? In any case, if you see anything in particular you disagree with, feel free to mention it.

13. Ok... Regarding that article... Interesting... He seems to have found the -/+ functions from the analysis of process vs. result groups. On some level I agree with his process. On some level I also agree with his description thereof but I note that he shows it mostly as something based on opinion. I'd also like it more if he didn't spend time connecting socionics with stuff like chinese trigrams because it doesn't really add to the believability and the using such a connection would be very suspect.

But I don't see this article to give support to the conclusion that Te- -> Ti+. There must be some source for that idea...

14. Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
Ok... Regarding that article... Interesting... He seems to have found the -/+ functions from the analysis of process vs. result groups. On some level I agree with his process. On some level I also agree with his description thereof but I note that he shows it mostly as something based on opinion. I'd also like it more if he didn't spend time connecting socionics with stuff like chinese trigrams because it doesn't really add to the believability and the using such a connection would be very suspect.

But I don't see this article to give support to the conclusion that Te- -> Ti+. There must be some source for that idea...
Yes, I've noticed in Gulenko's writings and those of other Socionists things that may impede their credibility. Given that Socionics has grown primarily from individual and group observations and self-analysis, rather than from quantitative research, I think the best one can do to verify these theories (short of devising some big research study to test them) is to see if they correspond with one's own observations....or use them as inspiration is devising some sort of more rigorous discipline of linguistic analysis.

I'll have to look sometime for the link to the rest of Gulenko's articles to see if any support labcoat's statement that Gulenko had written anything implying a connection between +Xe and -Xi and visa versa.

For now, I can only offer narrative examples for why such a progression as Ni -> Te reinterpreted as Ti -> Se makes sense to me as a natural progression. I don't see it as exclusive of other mental pathways though...just one particularly salient one that I see potential in looking at more closely.

15. Originally Posted by Gilly
yaaaaawwwwn...

Can we just go ahead and re-title General Discussion "Mainstream Socionics Discussion" so we can delegate all of this crap to the dumpster already?
I hope that when you die, you are eaten by lions and turned into feces.

16. Originally Posted by hitta
I hope that when you die, you are eaten by lions and turned into feces.
Me too.

17. Originally Posted by Jonathan
Merely as an analogy, I'll mention something Phaedrus said long ago. People were doubting Phaedrus's conclusion that he's ILI, and one of the reasons was that he seemed too sure of himself, whereas many people saw ILI's natural process as a state of constant reflection and induction, rather than a state of resolution. Phaedrus said that he in fact had the uncertainty that people expected of ILI, but once he figured things out, he then went to a new stage. This caused some people to think that he's LSI. Later, Expat, recognizing both Ni and Beta in Phaedrus, concluded that Phaedrus is IEI. It is possible though, in this theory of cycles, to see Phaedrus as someone with +Ni rather than -Ni who nevertheless has demonstrated a lot of +Ti, thus appearing Beta…LSI to some, IEI to some, but +Ni rather than -Ni at the root, just as he claims.

(This is just an analogy and not a definitive attempt to say what type Phaedrus is or dispute anyone else's interpretation.)
The problem I have with this kind of thing is that soon we don't know anymore what we're talking about. It's not necessary to go for alternate - or more elaborate, whatever - versions of socionics to accept the obvious, that is, that people of any type can use any function.

What you're doing is fiddling around with the system. If you do that, you can make anyone be any "type" and all you have in common, in the end, is the name. What you're doing is no different - in principle - from what we do when we stretch the concept of subtypes to its breaking point, so as to explain, say, why an "ILI extreme Ni subtype" might "appear" to use lots of Fe but still, somehow, remain an ILI rather than IEI --

Just this for you to consider: Occam's razor.

18. Originally Posted by Expat
The problem I have with this kind of thing is that soon we don't know anymore what we're talking about. It's not necessary to go for alternate - or more elaborate, whatever - versions of socionics to accept the obvious, that is, that people of any type can use any function.

What you're doing is fiddling around with the system. If you do that, you can make anyone be any "type" and all you have in common, in the end, is the name. What you're doing is no different - in principle - from what we do when we stretch the concept of subtypes to its breaking point, so as to explain, say, why an "ILI extreme Ni subtype" might "appear" to use lots of Fe but still, somehow, remain an ILI rather than IEI --

Just this for you to consider: Occam's razor.
In principle, I fully agree with you. The other thing to take into consideration, though, is that all of the advanced/experimental theories (subtypes, dual-type, and so forth) are intended to try to explain phenomena that seem either contradictory or unaccounted for in the basic theory.

Now it may be that you don't see any such contradictory or unexplained signals in Phaedrus's case, but my observation is that there is more to be discovered than just the 16 types. My goal is not to merely put people into categories...whether 16, 32, 64 or whatever...but rather to more fully understand the dynamics of any mental state. And I don't believe that simple typology can do that, but I think the basically vocabulary is there to begin on that quest.

One thing that your comment also touches on is the fact that any theory, to be of much use, must be testable. I realize I probably haven't given enough information yet for this idea to be fully testable by others, but I think I've already given more information than is the case with some of the other theories that have floated around.

19. In that one, it's clear that he didn't see them as antagonistic to each other in the way hitta does. Rather, "-" is sort of like a double negative...it's the avoidance of the absence of something....whereas in hitta's versions, it's more like the indulgence in the absence.
This is how I see it, also.

As to the original question, "why should Te- become Ti+ instead of Te+": What I mean when I say that is simply that when the structure that was created by a dynamic process is looked at once it's finished, it looks like a static thing.
(Just looking at that passage, I realized that you were describing exertion Te's relationship to exertion Ti (though you may not have been aware of it?), something that had flummoxed me for a while. Please don't inquire further about it here, because I don't want to derail your thread.)

My goal is not to merely put people into categories...whether 16, 32, 64 or whatever...but rather to more fully understand the dynamics of any mental state.
Mere categories? How do you intend to understand the dynamics between phenomena without "mere" categorization? It seems to me that you need to know what the phenomena are before you can trace their dynamics, otherwise it seems like a nihillistic blur.

20. Originally Posted by Jonathan
In principle, I fully agree with you. The other thing to take into consideration, though, is that all of the advanced/experimental theories (subtypes, dual-type, and so forth) are intended to try to explain phenomena that seem either contradictory or unaccounted for in the basic theory.
It could be argued that they are indeed accounted for in the basic theory, if you understand it fully. Even subtypes - I think they are useful for the purposes of describing people to others (if I say that someone is a Se-SEE rather than a Fi-SEE, you get a more precise idea of what the person is like, in principle), but I'm questioning now the point of actually developing theories based on them.

Originally Posted by Jonathan
Now it may be that you don't see any such contradictory or unexplained signals in Phaedrus's case, but my observation is that there is more to be discovered than just the 16 types. My goal is not to merely put people into categories...whether 16, 32, 64 or whatever...but rather to more fully understand the dynamics of any mental state. And I don't believe that simple typology can do that, but I think the basically vocabulary is there to begin on that quest.
My comments apply generally to this approach, not necessarily to Phaedrus or anyone else.

Originally Posted by Jonathan
I think I've already given more information than is the case with some of the other theories that have floated around.
Which is not difficult given the quality of some of those other theories.

21. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Mere categories? How do you intend to understand the dynamics between phenomena without "mere" categorization? It seems to me that you need to know what the phenomena are before you can trace their dynamics, otherwise it seems like a nihillistic blur.
Well this is more a matter of how one thinks about it rather than something that's actually completely different mathematically. It seems to me that because typology is based on putting people into "buckets" so to speak, then in considering extending it, people may think in terms of creating more "buckets"...and then other people will say "What's the point? Pretty soon you need a bucket for each individual person, and then it doesn't tell you anything."

There are other paradigms....To take a simple example, to explain differences between two people of the same type, you might consider that they use various non-ego-block functions to various degrees. I believe that's the model that Expat favors here, although I believe it's more complicated because it seems that when people use non-ego-block functions, they often use them in combinations that seem to suggest another quadra (say, a Te-valuing person using Ti and when using Ti Fe also lights up more than usual). I think your theories are in part an effort to take this into account.

In any case, other mental "analogies" besides buckets may be useful. Quantitative coordinate maps, pathways, etc. ....Ultimately you're right that everything could be mapped to a set theory approach, but not everything needs to be thought of that way.

22. Originally Posted by Expat
Even subtypes - I think they are useful for the purposes of describing people to others (if I say that someone is a Se-SEE rather than a Fi-SEE, you get a more precise idea of what the person is like, in principle), but I'm questioning now the point of actually developing theories based on them.
Well now you seem to be arguing on both sides of the fence. The postulation that subtypes exist is a theory. You're saying it's useful for certain purposes, but then you say don't develop a theory based on it...yet it's already a theory. And either it's valid and useful, or it's not.

You seem to think it's valid and useful after all, but I gather you're skeptical of any more complex subtype theories. That's understandable, since the accepting vs. producing subtype model is probably the best understood and most accepted model for intratype variation.

I think we're in agreement that in order to develop any useful new understanding of Socionics, one should understand the basic theory. Clearly, sometimes people take the position that they can theorize in a vacuum and don't need to check that their typings or understandings of the mainstream definitions and approaches correlate with those of the Socionics community. And when people do this, they may come up with a complex theoretical way to explain something that the basic model can explain simply.

But it's also incorrect to assume that *any* proposed extension to the model must necessarily be based on a misunderstanding of the model, or to assume that anybody who proposes such a thing must have a shoddy understanding of the basics afterall.

23. Originally Posted by Jonathan
Well now you seem to be arguing on both sides of the fence. The postulation that subtypes exist is a theory. You're saying it's useful for certain purposes, but then you say don't develop a theory based on it...yet it's already a theory. And either it's valid and useful, or it's not.
Not at all. Even if there is nothing to it theoretically, I think it's valid for practical purposes -- just as when in engineering one refers to a "centrifugal force" for convenience.

As I said, if I (changing the example a bit), refer to a Fi-ISFj, the image you get is different, and more precise, than if I just refer to a "ISFj", since you know that the person is little like a Se-ISFj.

But I am wondering (still undecided) whether it's really worth it to develop complicated theories as to how being this or that subtype is going to affect the 6th or 8th function or whatever.

I think that individuals of a given type may get too focused on their 6th or 5th function (for instance), but not necessarily because of a subtype.

24. Subtype theory is not directly derivable from Model A; it does not follow necessarily from anything other than observation of different "types of types." You cannot use subtypes to logically justify something against Model A, because they have no basis in Model A. If you think they do, well, let's see your case.

I still have yet to see people justify +/- in any other way than linking Gulenko's articles. If you understand it so goddamn well, why don't you tell us where it comes from?

25. Originally Posted by Expat
Not at all. Even if there is nothing to it theoretically, I think it's valid for practical purposes -- just as when in engineering one refers to a "centrifugal force" for convenience.

As I said, if I (changing the example a bit), refer to a Fi-ISFj, the image you get is different, and more precise, than if I just refer to a "ISFj", since you know that the person is little like a Se-ISFj.

But I am wondering (still undecided) whether it's really worth it to develop complicated theories as to how being this or that subtype is going to affect the 6th or 8th function or whatever.

I think that individuals of a given type may get too focused on their 6th or 5th function (for instance), but not necessarily because of a subtype.
Interesting analogy to centrifugal force. That's a case where there's clearly a real phenomenon going on but where the terminology is a well-known misnomer. But I'm glad you're open to (or undecided) about the idea of developing extensions to the theory. Overall, you have a good point about the need to be skeptical regarding whether a certain phenomenon requires an extension of the theory to be explained. When people see something that they don't think Model A can explain, perhaps they should try a little harder before concluding that they've found something new. However, it's also obvious that Model A can't explain everything, just as Socionics can't explain everything. Furthermore, some people based on type or inclination will naturally tend to want to explore the different possible extensions to things, because that's how their mind works.

26. Originally Posted by Gilly
Subtype theory is not directly derivable from Model A; it does not follow necessarily from anything other than observation of different "types of types." You cannot use subtypes to logically justify something against Model A, because they have no basis in Model A. If you think they do, well, let's see your case.

I still have yet to see people justify +/- in any other way than linking Gulenko's articles. If you understand it so goddamn well, why don't you tell us where it comes from?
This thread wasn't really about subtype theory, although there is a connection in that one may view the idea of ILI tending toward LSI and ILI tending toward IEE (via the cycles I mentioned) as being similar to the T and N subtypes respectively.

Anyhow, I don't think anyone implied that subtype theory came from a deduction based on Model A, or that subtype theory proves any logical contradiction in Model A. You're right that it's based on observations, as the whole thing is ultimately based on observations.

As to +/-, I think I already explained my position in this thread, and in an earlier one probably a page or two further down that didn't get noticed much. It would probably help for us not to hung up on the "+/-" notation and realize that it's just the process/result dichotomy applied to functions. As I've stated already, a case could be made for a natural order of doing things based on the cycle NTSFN...etc. although I'm not ruling out the possibility of the reverse order being just as valid. I pointed that out just because that seems the only way to explain Gulenko's conclusions in his original article cited in this thread. Think of the process types, and then think of + = base function and - = producing function, and that's basically all there is to it.

27. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
(Just looking at that passage, I realized that you were describing exertion Te's relationship to exertion Ti (though you may not have been aware of it?), something that had flummoxed me for a while. Please don't inquire further about it here, because I don't want to derail your thread.)
Actually, it would probably derail the thread less than debating whether subtype theory is justified, whether Socionics should be extended or not, or whether Gulenko was justified in using +/-.

So let me see if this what you mean. Suppose a person is creating some sort of discourse...writing, music, etc. And suppose the manner in which this discourse takes shape appears Ti+Se...that is, there's an emphasis on the unfolding of consistent inner structure, and a related emphasis on affecting contiguous space rather than branching outward and exploring the brilliance of different possibilities.

Suppose, however, that in all decisions, the perspective of ILI seems to be represented. That is, for example, that there's a primary concern for flow and imagination, and that this is organized through an emphasis on a streamlined and effective approach to how things overall are run, based on empirical data on what works.

So, although this isn't the best description, it's basically the idea of someone who appears to have a Gamma outlook or Gamma "bias" if you will but very naturally producing something that based on its very structure appears Beta (LSI).

Is that, as far as you can see, basically the same as what you would call "INTP-ISTj"?

And furthermore, what thoughts do you have on the relative prevalence of different combinations of master&slave types? Is it possible that, via various cycles and other such patterns, such as what I mentioned in this thread, that different pairings may be more common than others?

Also, if what I'm talking about is related to what you're talking about, what are your views on the stability of the "slave" type? Should it be considered to be as much of a "stable trait" as the master type, and if so, why?

28. If an INTP's transition from Ni to Te back to Ni makes it resemble and ISTj in terms of having solidified the knowledge and made it a system, is it because the cycle you speak about implies that an INTP does Te in a similar way to the way an ISTJ does Se given that they both external, creative, well-defined? (even if one is socially closed and the other socially open)

Furthermore do you imply that this conjecture can be extended to all the types, or not? Like - an ISFj is result and so his direction is switched from Se to Fi so let me think about it...an INFP? (from external, socially open to internal, not-well-defined?)

29. Originally Posted by Jonathan
Overall, you have a good point about the need to be skeptical regarding whether a certain phenomenon requires an extension of the theory to be explained. When people see something that they don't think Model A can explain, perhaps they should try a little harder before concluding that they've found something new.
That's precisely my point.

30. Originally Posted by FDG
If an INTP's transition from Ni to Te back to Ni makes it resemble and ISTj in terms of having solidified the knowledge and made it a system, is it because the cycle you speak about implies that an INTP does Te in a similar way to the way an ISTJ does Se given that they both external, creative, well-defined? (even if one is socially closed and the other socially open)

Furthermore do you imply that this conjecture can be extended to all the types, or not? Like - an ISFj is result and so his direction is switched from Se to Fi so let me think about it...an INFP? (from external, socially open to internal, not-well-defined?)
As to the second question, yes. INTp was just an example. So, the two sides around ISFj would be Beta NF on the one hand and delta ST on the other. So perhaps an ISFj would sometimes view his/her Fi dynamically and think of the Ni "meaning" behind it.

As to my reasoning, it wasn't that Te and Se in those cases are similar in both being external something of objects and producing functions for each of those types, although I don't rule out what you're saying. Rather, my point had to do with the similarity between the Te of Gamma NTs and the Ti of Beta STs.

Basically, if a Gamma NT decides to view the results of his/her Te-related efforts statically (through static Ti) to implement as a system or plan, but wishes to maintain the same orientation of Ni and Se (instead of Ne and Si), then that person will use Ti in a way somewhat similar to Beta STs. ...Which I think actually answers Smilex's question a bit....

31. Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
But I don't see this article to give support to the conclusion that Te- -> Ti+. There must be some source for that idea...
So I think I have a better answer to your question now. While of course a person may switch between Te- to Te+, and that may be another perfectly valid mental "transaction," it is a radical switch of orientations between resolute (Ni/Se) and reasonable (Si/Ne).

If a Gamma NT has a very strong Ni/Se orientation, it's reasonable that his/her use of Ti may sometimes appear Beta-ST-like because of that Ni/Se preference. Put another way, coming from creative Te and considering the logic statically and wanting to go to the next step of implementing, an LSI-like state may appear to be a natural next step.

(And, as I noted in a post quite a long time ago, for an ILI to switch to an LSE mode and try to use role-Si as if it were a creative function would, I think, be a particularly taxing and unnatural state.)

32. This all gets to a key question...which could be explained through this cycle theory...or perhaps through simpler ideas (per Expat's point), although I'm willing to consider both...

Basically, if one’s experience with Te and Ti is when they’re blocked with N, would Ti blocked with Se look a little like Te in some ways?

Experientially, I think LSIs are very interested in productivity, efficiency, and a number of things that may look a lot like Te to someone whose knowledge of Ti/Te is based only on thinking about the NT club. So I think an NT may thus be confused as to whether the T in LSI looks like Ti or Te.

Put another way, what does Ti in LSIs really look like, and is it really as much like Ti in LIIs as is often assumed? ...because it seems that most examples of Ti sound a lot like the way an LII would use Ti (Ti- if you will).

My theory here would suggest some sort of similarity, as well as even a natural progression, because -Te and +Ti.

33. Originally Posted by Jonathan
Experientially, I think LSIs are very interested in productivity, efficiency, and a number of things that may look a lot like Te to someone whose knowledge of Ti/Te is based only on thinking about the NT club. So I think an NT may thus be confused as to whether the T in LSI looks like Ti or Te.
The problem is in your (and others') definitions of Te then.

is about "productivity and efficiency", because it's about making the external world as logical - when checked against itself - as possible. So what works best, works best because it's clear according to external evidence that it works best.

is about the external world being as logical as checked against your own concept of how it should be, usually in pursuit of a vision. This concept may or may not include "efficiency" or "Productivity". That's the source of the confusion. For instance in Stalin's case, his "efficiency" was subject to how ideologically "correct" it was - as in, for instance, Verwoerd's case, who explicitly said that the pursuit of Grand Apartheid overruled considerations of productivity, efficiency, etc (if you read about him you'll see what I mean).

ETA: The issue is the difference between being "interested" or being "its main goal". Moreover, usually, LSIs (like those in charge of a production plant - I've known a few) are interested in "productivity" as defined according to specific guidelines, not to a Te understanding of it.

34. is about "productivity and efficiency", because it's about making the external world as logical - when checked against itself - as possible. So what works best, works best because it's clear according to external evidence that it works best.
Yes but efficiency is dependent on the quality of the relationships which define the system. There is nothing wrong with our definitions of Te, only your self-limited scope of them.

I personally see Jonathan's cycle theory as holding a lot of promise. It seem very interesting. (which I would not be saying were it not consistent.)

35. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Yes but efficiency is dependent on the quality of the relationships which define the system. There is nothing wrong with our definitions of Te, only your self-limited scope of them.

I personally see Jonathan's cycle theory as holding a lot of promise. It seem very interesting. (which I would not be saying were it not consistent.)
Thanks. Actually, I think Expat's analysis of the differences between Gamma NT and LSIs is very good. Keep in mind though that I'm talking about similarities and also possible mental connections between -Te and +Ti rather than implying that -Te is the same exact thing as +Ti, which would be absurd. Also, it seems to me that one reason that -Te may appear like +Ti at times is because the observer doesn't always know the motivations involved...only the actions.

I would also point out that, as with most explanatory examples, the scenarios are a little bit extreme. Stalin, or some plant manager who only cares about doing things "by the book" and cares nothing about improvements and adjustments based on external data, are both examples of a certain form of insanity. I imagine someone who just follows completely ridiculous and arbitrary guidelines and accepts only feedback from Fe types saying "good job! good job!"

On the other hand, a Gamma NT who is never able to rely on any sort of internalized guideline regarding what has worked in the past, but must instead constantly look outside for every little thing like a new babe, which no internalized thought, and who further is completely reliant on a Gamma SF type to be able to implement anything at all, is similarly dysfunctional.

In real life, the "sane" LSI probably focuses on internalized guidelines that are somewhat influenced and corrected by Te information, and the "sane" Gamma NT probably has internalized some "rules of thumb" based on Te information that become sort of mini-guidelines (Ti), which the person then implements (Se).

In either case, we have Te -> Ti -> Se, though with the emphasis in different places, depending on which type one's talking about.

In a sense, this is simply a recognition of what a lot of people have already said...namely that Te types use Ti, and Ti types use Te. In Model A, they use it as part of their id block...thus the Gamma types channeling back between Alpha and Gamma views of impractical theory and the Beta types channeling back and forth between Beta and Delta ST views of practicality.

What I find interesting, though, is that unlike what is specifically accounted for in Model A, people probably use functions in combinations other than what's in their quadra or opposing quadra. And I think this may be what people who have pointed out the combinations +Xe/-Xi and +Xi/-Xe are seeing.

Another way of looking at this: -Tx and +Tx are obviously similar in both being Tx. And -Tx and +Ty (x <> y) are obviously similar in both being "resolute" or "reasonable." Apart from the trivial, what exactly is similar in the second example?

It seems to me that based on Ni/Se focus on trends and achieving results, -Te and +Ti may both come off as aggregating information, whereas +Te and -Ti may both have a certain case-by-case, somewhat disconnected web-like quality reflecting Si/Ne focus on individual situations. Nevertheless, I'm cautious about such conclusions, especially when taken too far as I believe they sometimes have been. And I'm interested in other possible similarities.

#### Posting Permissions

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