Breaking +/- down by quadras

[Hitta]

Each quadra is defined by functions that are similarities to two other quadra's functions. Many socionists have postulated that a +/- system exists. I'm going to attempt to break that down even further.

ALPHA:
-Ti/+Te is the function of proof, or the function that looks at things as they are. It is fact based. -Ti/+Te looks at everything as having to be proven. +Ne/-Ni is the function of originality,singularity, and relativity. +Fi/-Fe is love and explosive manners. -Se/+Si is about aggression. When combining their domiant functions together, Alphas thinkers look at things as being unprovable. -Ti/+Te fact based,proving scheme combined with a relative viewpoint causes Alpha thinkers to look at the world, or all ideas and facts, as being relative. To Alpha Feelers -Ti/+Te and +Ne/-Ni has unconscious motives. ESFjs and ISFps want to be open about things. Along with their dominant functions(+Fi/-Fe and +Si/-Se) Alpha feelers want to be open to knew experiences, and understand the people that they love(+Ne/-Ni and +Te/-Ti reaction on their dominant functions). When looking at Alpha thinkers one could say that they are open to every possibility. As an agenda function for Alpha feelers, this makes them open to every type of person, ESFjs and ISFps have a need to understand and love people +Ne/-Ni -Ti/+Te > -Fe/+Fi -Se/+Si.

Alpha Ideology: Open-mindededness

Beta: +Ti/-Te is about common-sense or implication. -Se/+Si is about aggression. -Fi/+Fe is about seeing things wrong with things, flaw finding(also playfulness). +Ne/-Ni is about relativity and originality. Combing the base functions together for Beta feelers, one could come to the conclusion that Beta feelers produce and find originality in sadness and antipathy. Along with a +Ti/-Te -Se/+Si agenda, beta feelers tend to try to want to use common sense in all of their ideologies. This usually allows beta feelers to be good writers. This usually allows Beta Feelers to see vague connections through things in the world in which to write about and find depression lonely and sadness to encompass in a relative or original way(yes I know thats hard to explain, I'm hoping Beta feelers will understand what I'm saying). Beta feelers like sadness and hatred, and they usually find originality through it. Now trying to think about Beta Thinkers in the same light as Beta Feelers, using Beta Feelers base functions as motive functions in the Beta Thinkers, one could come to the conclusion that Beta Thinkers are usually depressive, and impulsive. They usually find creativeness through their depressive ideologies. Beta thinkers are usually very unstable, and usually have very depressive and chaotic swings where they do things in which other people usually have no idea as to why they do it. Beta thinkers usually live by common sense and aggression. They usually do things impulsively.

Beta Ideologies: Poeticness Impulsiveness

[Hitta]

Gamma thinkers use +Ti/-Te and -Ne/+Ne as their dominate functions. Gamma feelers use -Fi/+Fe and +Se/-Si as their dominate functions. Gamma thinkers are usually attached to the concepts of code and loyalty. Gamma thinkers also usually have a love for order and rules. This often leads Gamma thinkers to enter the military. Gamma thinkers tend to follow orders from superior officers or bosses very well. Many Gamma thinkers usually end up with tons of metals and awards for their strong dedication to serving. Gamma thinkers are often hired by companies for their predication skills(-Ne/+Ni). They are easily able to see trends in things and where the trends will lead. Gamma thinkers usually have a compulsive need to own property or to own things of monetary value. Gamma thinkers love to take calculated risks. The +Ti/-Te +Ni/-Ne hybrid often helps Gamma thinkers to predict the market and to take huge risks that have big payoffs. Because of Gammas risk taking abilities, there are usually very few middle class Gamma thinkers. As soon as Gamma thinkers have money, they are thinking of ways to spend it to make more money. Sometimes this pays off, others times it doesn't(though it pays off more time than not because of Gammas predication skills). One misconception about Gamma thinkers is that they are natural leaders. This is simply not true. Gamma thinkers are usually better at taking orders and working for big corporations. They tend to make the places they work for big sums of cash. Gamma thinkers are usually very polite and courteous people.

Gammas overall are not very forgiving people. They believe strongly in their moral and societal values. Usually when someone breaks these rules, they are quick to drop the hammer on them. Both Gamma feelers and thinkers are very defensive. Gamma feelers usually are the Guardians of the world. They will not let anything happen to their loved ones. They are usually extremely protective. They are usually extremely quick to disowning someone for disobeying societal and moral standards. Overall Gamma feelers are very playful as long as they do not find something to dislike about the opposing person. Gamma feelers usually pay close attention to how people word sentence or how they are approached. They usually are waiting to be insulted so that they can defend themselves. When they believe that the person has said something to their disliking, they usually make very characteristic facial expressions to show their dissatisfaction(there jawline usually becomes very rigid and their eyes have a very fierce glow about them). Gamma overall tend to work in very slow paces. This does not change with the Gamma feelers. When cleaning or cooking they usually take their time. They usually don't cook or clean often, but when they do they do an extremely thorough job. Gamma feelers usually do not like to stand out, and usually have a strong distaste for people that do. They believe in loyalty to their superiors.

Gamma ideology: Loyalty

[marooned]

Hitta, I'm serious! Please stop putting "hate" and "love" in your descriptions. They aren't type related. They just aren't. They're universal.

PS: I don't know if you were done reserving space, and if you weren't I can delete my post.

[Hitta]

Hitta, I'm serious! Please stop putting "hate" and "love" in your descriptions. They aren't type related. They just aren't. They're universal.

PS: I don't know if you were done reserving space, and if you weren't I can delete my post.

Every trait is type related

[marooned]

hate and love are not traits

[Hitta]

wanting to love or hate are

[machintruc]

Every trait is type related

Do you know what socionic types actually mean, and to what they really relate ?

I suggest you read this : http://www.socionics.us/intro/limitations.shtml

[Hitta]

Do you know what socionic types actually mean, and to what they really relate ?

I suggest you read this : http://www.socionics.us/intro/limitations.shtml

Enlighten me

[machintruc]

Enlighten me

And, do you actually know what + and - actually mean ? What do they mean to you ?

And, why do you call Bukalov's Model B "True Model A" ? That makes you look like you're a n00b.

[Hitta]

And, do you actually know what + and - actually mean ? What do they mean to you ?

And, why do you call Bukalov's Model B "True Model A" ? That makes you look like you're a n00b.

Wait you know where this model is from? I've been looking for information on this model for 2 years. It makes the most sense out of anything I've seen.

[machintruc]

Wait you know where this model is from?

http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_05_1.html

Boukalov A.V.
On the difference of the Socionics and the original C.G.Jung's Typology from the Myers-Briggs Typology

The differences between the structure of Jung's psychological types, the types of informational metabolism in socionics and the Myers-Briggs typology have been analyzed. It was shown that the Myers-Briggs typology, as opposed to socionics, is not derived directly from the typology of Jung. The reason of divergences lies in the different understanding of the work of the psychic functions in the type and introduction of the J-P criterion, which was different from C.G.Jung's original understanding of the criterion rationality-irrationality, also called judgment-perception. Nevertheless, the discrepancy between these concepts can be eliminated through the introduction of a 16th component model of the type of informational metabolism (also called Model B), which includes an integrative function. This model combines the introverted (Jung, Myers-Briggs) and extroverted (socionics) approaches to the analysis of the structure of the psychological types.

I mean, did socionists call Model A "True Model J" ???

[Hitta]

http://www.socionics.ibc.com.ua/ejpsy/psy_05_1.html



I mean, did socionists call Model A "True Model J" ???

I don't care what its called, its correct. Why does it matter what its called?

[Hitta]

I have to find that article somewhere.

[machintruc]

I don't care what its called, its correct. Why does it matter what its called?

Because this model already exists and has a name. Calling it otherwise than "Model B" is like stealing his model in order to make yours. If you want to call it "True Model A", you should ask permission to Bukalov. I don't think you support piracy.

Besides, most socionics people in the West don't know about Model B yet, but the first time they see that model, they see it as named "True Model A" ??? like Model A isn't true ?

It's like J/P switch, most Myersian people don't know socionics, and don't want to retype themselves. They fall into that retarded n00b trap. I'm LII, and not INTP, but ENTJ.

[Hitta]

Because this model already exists and has a name. Calling it otherwise than "Model B" is like stealing his model in order to make yours. If you want to call it "True Model A", you should ask permission to Bukalov. I don't think you support piracy.

Besides, most socionics people in the West don't know about Model B yet, but the first time they see that model, they see it as named "True Model A" ??? like Model A isn't true ?

It's like J/P switch, most Myersian people don't know socionics, and don't want to retype themselves. They fall into that retarded n00b trap. I'm LII, and not INTP, but ENTJ.

Wheres an article on model B?

[Hitta]

Because this model already exists and has a name. Calling it otherwise than "Model B" is like stealing his model in order to make yours. If you want to call it "True Model A", you should ask permission to Bukalov. I don't think you support piracy.

Besides, most socionics people in the West don't know about Model B yet, but the first time they see that model, they see it as named "True Model A" ??? like Model A isn't true ?

It's like J/P switch, most Myersian people don't know socionics, and don't want to retype themselves. They fall into that retarded n00b trap. I'm LII, and not INTP, but ENTJ.

Hey look, I don't care what its called or what you want me to call it. I could care less if I take credit for it. I just want people to see it. I had no idea wtf it was called, I just tried to make people understand that it made sense. Now please help me find an article.

[Hitta]

Because this model already exists and has a name. Calling it otherwise than "Model B" is like stealing his model in order to make yours. If you want to call it "True Model A", you should ask permission to Bukalov. I don't think you support piracy.

Besides, most socionics people in the West don't know about Model B yet, but the first time they see that model, they see it as named "True Model A" ??? like Model A isn't true ?

It's like J/P switch, most Myersian people don't know socionics, and don't want to retype themselves. They fall into that retarded n00b trap. I'm LII, and not INTP, but ENTJ.

Also, you're probably INTp. For some reason I get that vibe. An LII wouldn't care about about the rules of naming something.

[strrrng]

hitta is too absorbed in his Ti, so he wants everything to be type-related, specifically +/-.

[machintruc]

Also, you're probably INTp. For some reason I get that vibe. An LII wouldn't care about about the rules of naming something.

No, sorry, according to Classical Socionics, I'm LII. I'm not changing my type just to please you.

[Hitta]

No, sorry, according to Classical Socionics, I'm LII. I'm not changing my type just to please you.

You seem to be a rules following hammer drop. You probably strong believe in morality. Sorry, but those aren't traits of INTjs.

[Hitta]

LIIs are usually anarchistic

[krieger]

Looking forward to the descriptions of the remaining two quadras.

[machintruc]

LIIs are usually anarchistic

LII's aren't all anarchistic, that's a retarded stereotype.

There's no relations between politics and type.

Maybe political or cultural organisations/movements MAY have an integral type, for example Hippie and SEI.

[machintruc]

You seem to be a rules following hammer drop. You probably strong believe in morality. Sorry, but those aren't traits of INTjs.

You're taking types and elements as stereotypes. N00bs do so. Not you.

[Hitta]

Most INTjs are libertarians/anarchists. -Ti/+Te as defined by Gulenko is about disjunction/analysis. Desystematization and anarchy are classical INTj ideologies. With -Se agenda, INTjs have a compulsive need to overthrow systems of rule.

[Hitta]

Supporter of Classical Socionics : no exertion, no subtypes, no VI, no MBTT-influenced typing. - Classical, NOT conservative. I assume that some concepts such as +/-, Model T and Reinin's dichotomies are valid.


Yea that would go over real well with most INTjs and ENTps.

[machintruc]

Supporter of Classical Socionics : no exertion, no subtypes, no VI, no MBTT-influenced typing. - Classical, NOT conservative. I assume that some concepts such as +/-, Model T and Reinin's dichotomies are valid.


Yea that would go over real well with most INTjs and ENTps.

I agree +/- are valid as Classical definitions, not yours or Gulenko's.

[Hitta]

Gulenko's +/- definitions are probably the most accepted +/- definitions there is.

[machintruc]

Gulenko's +/- definitions are probably the most accepted +/- definitions there is.

Gulenko's material should be interpretated with caution. He's probably just trying to build himself some reputation, not to find the truth.

His material is fascinating... at first. I'm not a fan of Gulenko anymore.

[Steve]

hitta is too absorbed in his Ti, so he wants everything to be type-related, specifically +/-.

I echo this LOUDLY. - and I don't even really feel like breaking down why. It should be blatantly obvious. To think that EVERYTHING is type related (everything in the most concrete, ridiculous way - because yes the WAY people do everything is type related, but what they do itself is not), is turning people into robots and saying that they are operating by the program that lies within them. And WTF about certain types being moral and other types not, and certain types not WANTING to be moral. Just WTF.

I don't understand why generally shared human traits start being stripped away from certain types. Like its not just Ti, cause I am Ti, but its faulty Ti that is based off of wrong assumptions. Like I don't even know what to say lol. I'll say this for the 1,000th time, behavior can be traced to functional influence, but there is no 1 to 1 behavioral trait/functional causation. I don't know why that's such a hard concept to understand, and why its not being understood, because to assume otherwise will basically result in inconsistencies and fallaciousness (although I think some pretend the inconsistencies don't exist :\).

And I'm happy to see that most people on this forum have seen the shortcomings of this +/- stuff as well.

What's next, if someone has a + function for a dominant function,will they be more likely to be struck by lightning because lightning is negatively charged?

[Hitta]

I echo this LOUDLY. - and I don't even really feel like breaking down why. It should be blatantly obvious. To think that EVERYTHING is type related (everything in the most concrete, ridiculous way - because yes the WAY people do everything is type related, but what they do itself is not), is turning people into robots and saying that they are operating by the program that lies within them. And WTF about certain types being moral and other types not, and certain types not WANTING to be moral. Just WTF.

I don't understand why generally shared human traits start being stripped away from certain types. Like its not just Ti, cause I am Ti, but its faulty Ti that is based off of wrong assumptions. Like I don't even know what to say lol. I'll say this for the 1,000th time, behavior can be traced to functional influence, but there is no 1 to 1 behavioral trait/functional causation. I don't know why that's such a hard concept to understand, and why its not being understood, because to assume otherwise will basically result in inconsistencies and fallaciousness (although I think some pretend the inconsistencies don't exist .

And I'm happy to see that most people on this forum have seen the shortcomings of this +/- stuff as well.

What's next, if someone has a + function for a dominant function,will they be more likely to be struck by lightning because lightning is negatively charged?

You could keep lying to yourself, but people aren't all that special. Human behavior is reactive. People would be blank without something to react to. Everything is calculated; if you can't see this you are not -Ti. I remember an article by Augustinavichiute that talked about the deterministic analysis of Ti; and seeing things as they were(I'm sure she was referring to Alphas). If you don't see that everything is calculable then you are just lying to yourself. Everything that we attempt to do is a result of what we are. These are traits. Everything that we know is a trait, a function. Its blatantly obvious. There is a 1 to 1 model for everything.

[marooned]

Do you wonder why no one else seems to be able to "see" it except for Labcoat???? I feel you've reduced the complexity of a human being down to that of a vending machine or refridgerator.

[Hitta]

Do you wonder why no one else seems to be able to "see" it except for Labcoat???? I feel you've reduced the complexity of a human being down to that of a vending machine or refridgerator.

Everything is deterministic, everything happens as a result of something else. Personalities of people are calculable whether you want to agree or not. Its a sad truth, but its the truth. Every motive that a person has is a result of a function.

[iAnnAu]

Everything is deterministic, everything happens as a result of something else. Personalities of people are calculable whether you want to agree or not. Its a sad truth, but its the truth. Every motive that a person has is a result of a function.

I guess then we could say that your "type" is the type for whom isolation was created in prisons!

[Expat]

Does anyone actually take hitta seriously?

I will be happily corrected on that, but it seems to me that tcaudilllg and labcoat do.

[Hitta]

I like how people tell me I am dumb and stupid but never have anything to back it up. And if you want to know anything about true human thoughts and how everything in the word is systematic, then by all means take a psychology or philosophy class. They would tell you just what I am telling you. Everything in the world has personality. Now just humans. We are no different than anything else. The idea that we can understand personality means that it is systematic. Thought is systematic, understanding is systematic. If we can think about personality, it is systematic.

[Logos]

Most INTjs are libertarians/anarchists. -Ti/+Te as defined by Gulenko is about disjunction/analysis. Desystematization and anarchy are classical INTj ideologies. With -Se agenda, INTjs have a compulsive need to overthrow systems of rule.

Then what then of your system of rules in Socionics? Does that mean then that I have a legitimate need or reason to overthrow them?

[Hitta]

Then what then of your system of rules in Socionics? Does that mean then that I have a legitimate need or reason to overthrow them?

Sure why not, hack away, thats what I've been promoting. The problem is though that you aren't gonna tell me whats wrong with my model; you are gonna tell me I'm stupid for making a model. So really I don't see the point in your statement.

[Logos]

Sure why not, hack away, thats what I've been promoting. The problem is though that you aren't gonna tell me whats wrong with my model; you are gonna tell me I'm stupid for making a model. So really I don't see the point in your statement.

Your stupidity comes not from making a model, but from the way that you deal with criticism and people. But you have not posted any sort of primer either here or on your site on your system; you have merely posted it as some sort of self-evident truth. I want to learn here hitta, I really do, but you are going to have to help me out here. One of the first things which you are going to have to do is to post a primer, clean up the jargon of your posts to make it more presentable for the layman, and finally being far more receptive to criticism to not only your system but also your character.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I keep running but I always seem to stay in the same place, if that makes any sense.