My understanding of Model-A
I see model-A as a kind of continually rejoined battle for dominance between the elements, with the strong functions leading the pack and the weaker functions always possessing a fatal flaw that ensures this defeat. I'm not certain what this flaw is, nor how it manifests, but type theories from Jung's to Augusta's have assumed it to be there.
It is a fact: all of the functions can perform any of the roles described in model-A. (were this not the case, how would we sympathize with people of different types?) However, some of these roles are more desirable than others. It is, for example, a better deal to be capable of observing phenomena and processes that are stable ("strong") than those that are unstable. ("weak")
As humans, we have an a-priori moral disposition within us. This disposition is our means of offering socially useful ideas and strategies. As labcoat noted, the offering of these strategies is in effect an opinion which threatens to be overwhelmed. It is not our relational supervisor who is threatening us, however; it is the vengence of the rejected opinion. Think of it as economics: whenever we make choices, we incurr the opportunity cost of the choice we didn't make. When we choose to give our 1st function priority over our 7th, we are choosing to observe with our base elements over the observations of our program. (by which is meant, self-awareness of our unique instincts) Observing with the 1st function is useful when everyone's being nice, but when faced with adversity it is quite lacking. Our repeated overtures for civility put us at a disadvantage when our environs are, for whatever reason, unsuited to it. It is particularly useful to notice when people share our instincts, because that can help us avoid the errors in communication that arise due to specializations/genetic diversity. Using the civil functions of ego block leads to a lot of misspent energy and a failure to see the instinct side of reality and its relation to social intercourse; we miss out on a big part of ourselves, and this causes us problems because if we can't understand ourselves, we sure as hell can't understand others, either. In the end, the ego is a creation of the id and society is an artifice of many ids acting together toward common ends. Without the id you can't really see the truth of anything, and are living literally in a fascade of your own making. Besides this there are some people who appear to be dominated by their id and if you don't understand them there is a good chance they will take advantage of you.
We evolved to choose the ego over the id because there is a clear evolutionary advantage to being sociable. (teamwork against common enemies and the like.)
Now with this opportunity cost principle throwing the 1st and 2nd functions up top and the 7th and 8th functions down below, the clear losers are getting shafted to the superego and super-id blocks. These guys are losers because 1) they interfere with the winners and 2) they are weaker than the winners because they observe information that is neither persistent socially nor instinctively. All those things that neither the ego nor the id can really get a fix on go here: fluxuating dynamics and inconstants of the id go to the superego, and the arcane details of the social world go to the superid. As I mentioned earlier, society rests on the harmonious interrelation of many id factors. These factors congeal between themselves various coalitions and protocols: the superego is in effect a means of regulating expressions by the id so that they do not. Social norms are reactive: the society that lets people walk around naked all the time and screw each other at will all of a sudden changes its behavior and rules when a serial rapist enters the scene. The superego is, in sum, all that the id can do to regulate itself, and is as dynamic and flexible as is needed to meet the demands and necessities of the regulation.
The reason the superego follows the ego is that all the ego's failures are always stacking up in the mind like an argument for the id. You played the rules and did the good deeds and you still haven't that nice pool you wanted, so the argument seems stronger that you should, for example, rob a bank; but you don't because you're not sure how to return to the ego after this act, nor do you want to give up what you already have. Instead you try to compensate for the ego's failures by balancing it. (this is where +/- comes from) If you don't have enough money to buy the pool, you should reconsider your investment strategies, maybe even try to organize a co-op for pool buyers. Maybe you can pick up some easy money doing yardwork, etc.
As said before, we have a disposition to be social. We also have a radar of sorts by which to detect anti-social activity. When something's going to strengthen the influence of our id, we are keen to it. This is why we set the superego block after the ego, to restrain and manage the resurgent id. I can't explain why exactly we see the id coming back up after we develop a new socially adaptable solution, be it +Se or +Ne or -Ti or what-have-you; it's just one of the rules. If anything, I would bet that the radar is simply that strong, that we have evolved to see the id coming from here, from there, from over there, and even in the context of our new opportunities. If you think about it, it makes good evolutionary sense: you don't want to offer a strategy for victory, only to see your opponent use it to capture and hang you later. An example of this philosophy can be seen in the early strategy of Compaq computer. To catch up to IBM, they disassembled the computer, then hired someone with the talent to reassemble it to do so, documented what they learned from the reassembly. Compaq used this information to make their own computer. Later they assisted IBM in pushing patent reforms aimed at curbing reverse-engineering of any kind, effectively making illegal the very technique that put them at IBM's level in the first place.
Having formulated their strategy and put it to use for them, they moved to regulate it so that it could not be turned on them later. This seems to me a (somewhat twisted) example of the aforementioned evolutionary pretext at work. (socially acceptable system gaming, you might say.) Clearly, there is a rationale for believing that humans know how not to leave themselves at a disadvantage.
- Some notes, not much time now.[*] the suggestive function is a defensive mechanism called up in defense against the external retailiation for using the vulnerable function.[*] the purpose of the PoLR is to prevent the emergence of the consensus id/civil overthrow attempt by the id. Because it is a problem of oneself, it is our duty to take on the burden of our PoLRs. This is also the excuse of our supervisors to make the accusation that we are problem to society, that we not only condense unreliable information, but must do so to account for our natural flaws.[*] the 8th function is a means by which to offer observation of all ids working in concert.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 01-16-2008 at 11:24 PM.