Model B functions - what are they called?

[tcaudilllg]

Not the elements themselves, but the actual positions of the functions. I mean, if you've got two base elements, how do you distinguish them by name? (I'm almost afraid to ask.)

[krieger]

I've been using "advancing" and "regressing" to separate the two.

I also interpret "advancing" functions to maintain peace, and "regressing" functions in turn, to speak up against opposition.

Beta ST's, for example, use bursts of violence when this is acceptable in the climate they are in. Delta ST's, on the other hand, use violence to stand up for something that is being neglected in the current climate.

Take us INTj's: "peaceful" violence, like the kind you see supporters of certain sports engage in, repulses us. Violence with a purpose on the other hand...

I am sceptical of the existence of "advancing" functions that are also "non-valued". The concepts "valued" and "advancing" and "non-valued" and "regressing" seem to coincide a lot.

In any case:
Advancing cycle: T+ -S+ -F+ -N+ -T
Regressing cycle: T- +S- +F- +N- +T

Where the block determine what cycle one is dealing with: T+ blocked with -S is advancing, T+ blocked with -N is regressing.

-- I am not aware of any other ways of designating the functions in the model B.

[machintruc]

Not the elements themselves, but the actual positions of the functions. I mean, if you've got two base elements, how do you distinguish them by name? (I'm almost afraid to ask.)

One is more used at foreground, and the other at background.

[tcaudilllg]

Well it appears we've all got our own little views on them, don't we?

I'll use A and B, to distinguish between functions that only appear in Model B. Base-B, Base-A, Creative-A, etc.

Or maybe Creative-F vs Creative-B? F-Creative, B-Creative? R is used by Gulenko for one of the elements, so using "regressive" vs. "advancing" would be cause for confusion. (in my view) But I think I understand where you are coming from on that, labcoat.

I've just use creative foreground vs creative background.

[krieger]

I have the impression that model B is really just a redundant model, the only real contribution to knowledge of which is that the "unvalued" functions have their +/- signs reversed. (which, in turn, is a way of making visual that contrary types and contrary functions oppose eachothers' effect linearly)

Although one of it's saving graces might be that there is truth to the constatation that "background" INTj Ni can complement "foreground" ISTj Se, to name just one case.

Has anyone noticed that the model B claims that INTj's are "regressing" benefactors to ESTps, by the way? (again, stating one case and meaning all)

[tcaudilllg]

I have the impression that model B is really just a redundant model, the only real contribution to knowledge of which is that the "unvalued" functions have their +/- signs reversed. (which, in turn, is a way of making visual that contrary types and contrary functions oppose eachothers' effect linearly)

Although one of it's saving graces might be that there is truth to the constatation that "background" INTj Ni can complement "foreground" ISTj Se, to name just one case.

Has anyone noticed that the model B claims that INTj's are "regressing" benefactors to ESTps, by the way? (again, stating one case and meaning all)

I'd actually look into that if I were you.