+/- and what we know for sure

[Kristiina]

I want to skip all the subjective added stuff and just cover the basics.

Functions can not exist by themselves. There is no such thing as without either or . So we can just call it " blocked with " and " blocked with " (in the same block with, not blocked/stopped with). Or we can use a different nomenclature and say - and +. It makes no difference. But according to the model and rules of socionics we can be certain that Ni is always blocked with either Fe or Te and that can not be blocked with , , or .

There is a difference between +Ni and -Ni. Ni is always blocked with some mixture of Te and Fe and everyone has both functions. But some functions are easier to use than others. And it seems some function combinations are easier to use than others. For ENFjs, Fe is much easier to use with Ni than with Si. And when I use Te, it's easier to use it with Si, right? (resulting in -Te and +Si). ego block functions are the strongest and those are most clearly either + or -. It's not easy to jump from using your creative to using your PoLR, which means your program function is clearly blocked with your creative. There is no point in saying that a person can easily start using +Ni in stead of -Ni, because they became more confident in something. It is more likely that their -Ni will look like +Ni if not observed closely. And if it's systematic behavior, it's more likely that it has always been +Ni. I say that because a person can not start using their PoLR every day without any problem. ILI with +Ni would have to use Ni blocked with Fe, which is absolutely absurd.

The controversial theories of the loud and unreasonable hitta has currently made the entire +/- theory controversial. I do still think that understanding the manifestations of functions through other functions can give further information about types and relations. I think that +/- functions explain a new aspect of some relations being better than others. For example it explains why semi-duality and illusion are not very good relations even though one function is correct. And if I'm not mistaken, it also explains why conflicting and super-ego relations have such a strong initial chemistry - they have the right kind of functions.

[Gilly]

Well, you're really not giving much of a case here for anything but the fact that functions need to be observed in blocks and not as single entities when they manifest in reality. And that IS a good point, but it doesn't really give justification for +/- theory.

[Expat]

She's presenting the original case for using the -/+ notation at all. It was what the -/+ thing amounted to, which is useful to keep in mind.

[Gilly]

Well, I see the case for functions being observed in blocks, and I think it's a very good one and I agree that's how functional analysis should be done, but I don't think use of +/- notation necessarily follows from that.

[Kristiina]

Well, you're really not giving much of a case here for anything but the fact that functions need to be observed in blocks and not as single entities when they manifest in reality. And that IS a good point, but it doesn't really give justification for +/- theory.

I don't think we should have +/- theory. Why complicate matters. I just think information about +/- functions shouldn't be treated as "some controversial hitta shit". +/- functions should just be used to occasionally explaind socionics observations more specifically and more accurately than classic socionics enables. Whenever +/- observations seem to override classic socionics, we should conclude that classic is more accurate.

[Gilly]

Agreed. But you do bring up a good point about observing functions in pairs; I think this is something that needs to be emphasized more.

[krieger]

Functions can not exist by themselves. There is no such thing as without either or . So we can just call it " blocked with " and " blocked with " (in the same block with, not blocked/stopped with). Or we can use a different nomenclature and say - and +. It makes no difference. But according to the model and rules of socionics we can be certain that Ni is always blocked with either Fe or Te and that can not be blocked with , , or .

As much as this makes good sense and as much as I even personally champion this way of seeing things, it needs to be said that the idea that "functions can not exist in themselves" is in the strictest sense an interpretation that takes certain liberties. I worry that it might not be the first thing to put on a list of things known for sure about the +/- signs.

[Kristiina]

As much as this makes good sense and as much as I even personally champion this way of seeing things, it needs to be said that the idea that "functions can not exist in themselves" is in the strictest sense an interpretation that takes certain liberties. I worry that it might not be the first thing to put on a list of things known for sure about the +/- signs.

The way I understand it, functions can be described on their own but they do not exist on their own. Te can not analyze anything Ni or Si isn't feeding it observations. We can describe Te as the function that analyses the practical applications, but it still needs other functions to work properly.

[Kristiina]

Te needs either Si or Ni to function, so this would justify +/-Te, but Te also needs Ti, which makes a connection between the information. Te itself doesn't need Fe (opposite of Te) or Se/Ne (totally irrelevant to Te), but it benefits from Fi, although can probably exist without it.

So any type with Te blocked with Ni has to also have strong Ti (blocked with Ne?), otherwise the Te can't be used. But since all strong needs strong , we still end up with two kinds of :
1. blocked with , has strong and benefits from .
2. blocked with , has strong and benefits from .

aaah... that brings us further into the core of the topic. " blocked with " likes " blocked with ".
" blocked with " will seem quite meaningless and not very useful. Why is that?

[Jonathan]

She's presenting the original case for using the -/+ notation at all. It was what the -/+ thing amounted to, which is useful to keep in mind.

It's a little more than that though. It's one thing to say that blocked with is different from when it's blocked with . But +/- says that the *way* it's different is somehow similar to the way is different when blocked with vs. when it's blocked with . In other words, but assigning the same "-" sign to S blocked with T as to T blocked with N, it's suggesting a similarity.

And it's clear when Gulenko introduced the +/- idea that he had this in mind, because he called + "proactive" and - "reactive." As I explain in my other threads, this presumes a sort of cycle, or natural order of doing things. But I won't explain it again here.

It is possible that Gulenko took things too far, making too much of the + and the -. But what really confuses things is when people react to the notation "plus" and "minus" rather than remembering where they came from, which is simply one of the Reinin dichotomies (process/result).

[Gilly]

Can someone point me to Gulenko's article.

How did he derive this hypothesis from Model A?

He couldn't have, at least entirely, the way I see it. But maybe I'm missing something.

[Hitta]

I want to skip all the subjective added stuff and just cover the basics.

Functions can not exist by themselves. There is no such thing as without either or . So we can just call it " blocked with " and " blocked with " (in the same block with, not blocked/stopped with). Or we can use a different nomenclature and say - and +. It makes no difference. But according to the model and rules of socionics we can be certain that Ni is always blocked with either Fe or Te and that can not be blocked with , , or .

There is a difference between +Ni and -Ni. Ni is always blocked with some mixture of Te and Fe and everyone has both functions. But some functions are easier to use than others. And it seems some function combinations are easier to use than others. For ENFjs, Fe is much easier to use with Ni than with Si. And when I use Te, it's easier to use it with Si, right? (resulting in -Te and +Si). ego block functions are the strongest and those are most clearly either + or -. It's not easy to jump from using your creative to using your PoLR, which means your program function is clearly blocked with your creative. There is no point in saying that a person can easily start using +Ni in stead of -Ni, because they became more confident in something. It is more likely that their -Ni will look like +Ni if not observed closely. And if it's systematic behavior, it's more likely that it has always been +Ni. I say that because a person can not start using their PoLR every day without any problem. ILI with +Ni would have to use Ni blocked with Fe, which is absolutely absurd.

The controversial theories of the loud and unreasonable hitta has currently made the entire +/- theory controversial. I do still think that understanding the manifestations of functions through other functions can give further information about types and relations. I think that +/- functions explain a new aspect of some relations being better than others. For example it explains why semi-duality and illusion are not very good relations even though one function is correct. And if I'm not mistaken, it also explains why conflicting and super-ego relations have such a strong initial chemistry - they have the right kind of functions.

How exactly have I been unreasonable? All I've done is posted theories. In response some people said that I was wrong. Then I asked why I was wrong. Then I get called stupid for asking why I was wrong and am called unreasonable.

[tcaudilllg]

This is what I'm observing as the logical relations to Model A.
Process/Result seems to be the reinin dichotomy associated with +/-.

Process types are irrational with a external and internal element in the ego or Rational with both ego elements external or internal.

NT/SF irrationals and ST/NF rationals.

Result types are rational with a external and internal ego element in the ego or irrational with both ego elements external or internal.

ST/NF irrationals and NT/SF rationals.

Process/Result is the club + rationality/irrational dichotomy.

So what Process/Result hypothesizes is that two internal elements in the ego function <> two external elements <> external 1st + internal 2nd <> internal 1st + external 2nd.

What it also proposed is that intuition and feeling are similarly "internal" and that sensing and thinking are similarly "external".

If anyone know of Gulenko's articles on this I would like to see how he came up with it.

They're on Socioniko. Good luck finding out how he actually came up with it; inspiration can strike from anywhere.

He draws most of his insight from Jung.

It is possible that Gulenko took things too far, making too much of the + and the -. But what really confuses things is when people react to the notation "plus" and "minus" rather than remembering where they came from, which is simply one of the Reinin dichotomies (process/result).

Yes but that "simple dichotomy" has a lot of meaningful implications.

[Exodus]

It's a little more than that though. It's one thing to say that blocked with is different from when it's blocked with . But +/- says that the *way* it's different is somehow similar to the way is different when blocked with vs. when it's blocked with . In other words, but assigning the same "-" sign to S blocked with T as to T blocked with N, it's suggesting a similarity.

Of course the other grouping(s) is/are possible too - which means that +/- doesn't make any radically new predictions, really. It's just a way to refine Model A and connect it to the Reinin dichotomies.

[Gilly]

i don't think signs exist. i think signs should just be changed to e.g. Te- into Te(Si) as this is a Te that is bw Si and so will be looking a little different, though largely similar to Te(Ni) on it's own sense. when we talk about using Te to achieve an Ni goal, e.g. knowing ins and outs to be timely and to say how things would develop, knowledge of facts would be Te, but it would serve (action/means) the motivation/goal of Ni and not Si as in the case of doing work and analyzing facts to ensure comfortable life (talking about funny actions/data to make people feel certain physical sensations).

NOW you're getting somewhere.

[Jonathan]

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...es%2fsign.html

Well the way Gulenko looking at + and - here is not related to information elements.

The + is not associated with a element, it is associated with the leading function.

In one example at the end of the Article.
IL ENTp is a + type and FL ESTp is a - type. He compares the difference between + manifestation in the ENTp vs - manifestation for ESTp.

This part of Gulenko seems quite questionable.

An earlier article, one which seems to get more into his thought process for coming up with this, is http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...gul-znaki.html.

It's clear from this one that he's talking about more than just the leading function, because he refers to signs of the 2nd function also.

[Jonathan]

Of course the other grouping(s) is/are possible too - which means that +/- doesn't make any radically new predictions, really. It's just a way to refine Model A and connect it to the Reinin dichotomies.

Yes, it's just a pattern, a dichotomy. It's precisely the fact that one particular pattern was chosen as opposed to other possible ones that makes clear that more is meant than just the fact that functions act differently depending on the ones they're paired with.

Mathematically, there is no other dichotomy than process-result that would satisfy if each ego block must have its functions at opposite ends of the dichotomy. But if you forsook that rule, you could use other patterns.

You're right also that labeling something or pointing out a Reinin dichotomy doesn't in itself lead to new predictions. It's the interpretation given to the dichotomy that leads to new hypotheses.

[Exodus]

Yes, it's just a pattern, a dichotomy. It's precisely the fact that one particular pattern was chosen as opposed to other possible ones that makes clear that more is meant than just the fact that functions act differently depending on the ones they're paired with.

ok...but I'm saying the choice is arbitrary from a mathematical standpoint. If you looked at all the different possibilities you would just end up confusing yourself - which is the main problem that stems from Reinin dichotomies.

[Jonathan]

Um, wait a minute ...In the later article, he's using a different dichotomy. In the earlier article (the one I referenced), he uses process/result. But in the later one he switches it. But he uses + and - also. So one has to be careful...these articles are talking about two different dichotomies.

[Jonathan]

ok...but I'm saying the choice is arbitrary from a mathematical standpoint. If you looked at all the different possibilities you would just end up confusing yourself - which is the main problem that stems from Reinin dichotomies.

I think the problems with the Reinin dichotomies is that people too often take a given interpretation of what they mean at face value...just because someone said this dichotomy means this or that doesn't prove it does.

At any rate, we now have two articles by Gulenko where he uses two completely different dichotomies and calls them + and -, so I guess that proves your point that it could be confusing.

[Exodus]

Yeah...go figure.

[strrrng]

How exactly have I been unreasonable? All I've done is posted theories. In response some people said that I was wrong. Then I asked why I was wrong. Then I get called stupid for asking why I was wrong and am called unreasonable.

well, that's a nice, simple way of rationalizing it.

[Jonathan]

He doesn't really use a single dichotomy to represent the +/- trait.

He simply applies the signs to different dichotomies....

Like in the article he says right is positive, left is negative, postivism is +, negativism is -, static is +/dynamic is -. It's kinda of lax imo.

But I do not really understand where he's getting at fully and I might be missing something within the machine translation. As far as I know it does not seem very logically consistent. However he does state that what he is proposing is more observational then derived from the model.

I guess the lesson is, when discussing advanced dichotomies and their possible interpretation, we should always keep in mind that that's what we're talking about, rather than getting too hung up on the notation. Apparently Gulenko uses + and - to mean whatever he wants it to mean for the point he's making at the moment. But, like mappings to MBTI, it has become a hot-button issue, perhaps irrationally so.

[tcaudilllg]

An earlier article, one which seems to get more into his thought process for coming up with this, is http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...gul-znaki.html.

It's clear from this one that he's talking about more than just the leading function, because he refers to signs of the 2nd function also.

You know if we translated this, Expat would probably feel comfortable enough to seriously examine it.

[Kristiina]

How exactly have I been unreasonable? All I've done is posted theories. In response some people said that I was wrong. Then I asked why I was wrong. Then I get called stupid for asking why I was wrong and am called unreasonable.

Unreasonable because you re-typed people to fit your system and wouldn't listen to other people who said that classic socionics says something else. The +/- system began to override socionics theory.

[Kristiina]

I see I didn't know about the +/- theory correctly. I thought it just placed the functions into blocks with some other function. But it seems it's not that easy. I don't think I want to learn to understand the original really really complicated theory behind the +/- and Process/Result if it's not even proven to be correct.

So +/- is not just a simple addition to classic socionics to explain socionics observations better?

[Jonathan]

So +/- is not just a simple addition to classic socionics to explain socionics observations better?

It's an addition to classical socionics, and Gulenko obviously felt it explained his observations better. Whether it's simple or not is a personal matter.

But you're right that it's a bit more complicated than just pointing out Si blocked with Te is different from Si blocked with Fe. What really has complicated things further is that Gulenko has used +/- notation in different articles to mean different things. But in this forum at least, the use that corresponds with process/result is the one most people are familiar with.

[Hitta]

Unreasonable because you re-typed people to fit your system and wouldn't listen to other people who said that classic socionics says something else. The +/- system began to override socionics theory.

It doesn't override classical socionics theory in any way, also what is wrong with typing people? People here do it everyday.

[Rick]

About whether functions "exist by themselves." I don't know. Sometimes it seems that you can isolate them pretty well. Other times you can clearly see the context that a function is being used in, and that context is some other function (usually that it is blocked with). However, sometimes functions seem to operate together with the other function it is adjacent to, but going in the opposite direction (so, Fe with Si for EIE, and not just Fe with Ni). Right now I'm pretty sure my Ne is thinking about Ti, not Fi, if anything.

If this is that case and two functions operate in tandem like this, that would mean that extraverted and introverted mechanisms are being applied simultaneously (but with one auxiliary to the other), and irrational and rational. But each functional manifestation is either static or dynamic -- that one doesn't mix.

Food for thought.

[Rick]

you are idiots!

you are taking the works too fucking seriously. get out of the fucking box before socionics typing can say bye bye earth.

Let him who is outside of the box cast the first stone.

[FDG]

About whether functions "exist by themselves." I don't know. Sometimes it seems that you can isolate them pretty well. Other times you can clearly see the context that a function is being used in, and that context is some other function (usually that it is blocked with). However, sometimes functions seem to operate together with the other function it is adjacent to, but going in the opposite direction (so, Fe with Si for EIE, and not just Fe with Ni). Right now I'm pretty sure my Ne is thinking about Ti, not Fi, if anything.

So, you recognize the existence of type-change among the EP, EJ, IP, IJ continuum. When an EIE is using Si is obviously an ESE, Rick.

[Gilly]

Everyone uses all of the appropriate functions blocked with each other; we wouldn't be able to carry out normal lives if we didn't. How could we function properly if we just completely ignored some parts of reality and never thought about them at all? How healthy would that be?