Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Just one question, if model B is wrong why does Gulenkos +/-descriptions fit perfect

  1. #1
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Just one question, if model B is wrong why does Gulenkos +/-descriptions fit perfect

    Business logic P (Te in your classification):
    proactive ("+"): savings, economy, careful maintenance
    reactive ("-"): expenses, investments, risks, combination, trial of something new

    Structural logic L (Ti in your classification):
    proactive ("+"): implicative, if-then logic, logic of cause and effect, linear, chain, narrow-directed
    reactive ("-"): disjunctive, or-or logic, widespread, volume, holographic

    Ethics of emotions E (Fe in your classification):
    proactive ("+"): playful emotions, translating of emotional state, entertaining and sound effects
    reactive ("-"): organic emotions, motorial and tactile effects, changes in emotional state

    Ethics of relations R (Fi in your classification):
    proactive ("+"): warm-hearted ethic, homily, moral
    reactive ("-"): ethic of distancing, changing of psychological distance

    Force sensorics F (Se in your classification):
    proactive ("+"): submissiveness, voluntarism, following existing balance of forces, demobilization
    reactive ("-"): submitive force, breaking existing balance of forces, concentration, preponderance in forces in some place

    Sensation sensorics S (Si in your classification):
    proactive ("+"): stable comfort, habitual sensations
    reactive ("-"): thrill, different sensations, change in physical state

    Intuition of possibilities I (Ne in your classification):
    proactive ("+"): intuition of perspectives, possible findings, synthesis of known ideas
    reactive ("-"): intuition of lost alternatives, unnoticed paths, hidden talents

    Intuition of time T (Ni in your classification):
    proactive ("+"): intuition of reflection, waiting, reproducing of old tendencies, past
    reactive ("-"): intuition of suddenness, danger, novelty, future


    These are directly from Gulenko, and they are exactly what I have said. I've posted them before and someone still has rebuttaled this argument. The +/- definitions describe INTps just as I have said.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  2. #2
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Maybe Gulenko's +/- theory is wrong?
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  3. #3
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The problem is that you look at things like this:

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    Force sensorics F (Se in your classification):
    proactive ("+"): submissiveness, voluntarism, following existing balance of forces, demobilization
    reactive ("-"): submitive force, breaking existing balance of forces, concentration, preponderance in forces in some place
    And then you simply take that to mean:

    "ISFjs are very submissive to authority in most cases.", as per your ISFj description, and you say the opposite about ISTjs with "ISTjs are rebellious people".

    It's just -- daft. It's a painfully simplistic extrapolation. The questions that must be raised are:

    1) Did Gulenko really mean those definitiosn to be interpreted in that black-and-white way? "ISTjs have -Se, so they are rebellious; ISFjs have +Se, so they are very submissive?" That is, the +/- thing to make the functions act in directly opposite ways? Gulenko wrote a lot about many things, but I wonder if he ever meant anything like that.

    This is what Gulenko himself wrote about the ISFj sensory subtype:

    Can even be aggressive if people do not agree with them. Dutiful, active and hardy. In conflict situations is never the first to seek reconciliation. Can lead groups well enough, maintain discipline and order, and apply sanctions to those misbehaving.
    He writes similar things about ISFjs generally in socionics.org -- go take a look.

    So how can you even begin to imagine that, from those brief descriptions of +/-, that "ISFjs are generally submissive"? Is it that simple?

    2) Even if Gulenko did change his mind and your simplistic +/- definition is what he thinks (which I doubt), but, anyway -- is Gulenko the end-all of classical socionics now, is he?

    Filatova says about Se in ISFjs:


    For a time she tries to tune, to exhibit delicacy, but eventually develops the tendency towards volitional pressure, especially in terms of putting her principles into practice against encountered obstacles. In such cases are developed the concealed (only at first glance) qualities of exacting demand and persistence. She is confident in her rightness. Finds it necessary to subordinate others to herself – through this she experiences a feeling of satisfaction but she does not openly demonstrate this
    .

    Is that a "submissive" type?

    Or in socioscope.com - Se in ISFjs:

    Second Function: Volitional Sensing
    The ability to vigorously defend their rights and interests. The continuous, enduring drive to convince others to abide by the principles of morality. Persistent and uncompromising struggle against the evils in life. Demanding expectations for themselves and others. Successful resistance of volitional pressure. Readiness to aggressively protect what is theirs; purposefulness, stubborness, obstinacy.
    And on and on and on.

    So:

    - did Gulenko himself even mean those definitions to be interpreted that way? I doubt it, from the other stuff he wrote.
    - even if he did, isn't it fair to acknowledge that other socionics sources say the precise opposite? That's why hitta's understanding of the model is a violation of classical socionics.

    What hitta did was look at that set of simplistic descriptions - probably not grasping what Gulenko really meant - then think that he understood it all better than anyone else, without even taking the trouble to see how it fits with other sources.

    It's just -- absurd. It deserves no further consideration.

    I think the "+/Se = submissive" is just the worst example, not the only one.

    Watch now hitta not address any of the above and just say I'm stupid.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  4. #4
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why is this forum so afraid of radical change and progressive thoughts? This forum is filled with a bunch of fucking idiots. Why does everyone hate me so?
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  5. #5
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Expat said it perfectly. hitta's 'interpretations' aren't interpretations because he doesn't look at context; he simply takes a definition and writes a linear description off of it.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  6. #6
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    indeed
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    The problem is that you look at things like this:



    And then you simply take that to mean:

    "ISFjs are very submissive to authority in most cases.", as per your ISFj description, and you say the opposite about ISTjs with "ISTjs are rebellious people".

    It's just -- daft. It's a painfully simplistic extrapolation. The questions that must be raised are:

    1) Did Gulenko really mean those definitiosn to be interpreted in that black-and-white way? "ISTjs have -Se, so they are rebellious; ISFjs have +Se, so they are very submissive?" That is, the +/- thing to make the functions act in directly opposite ways? Gulenko wrote a lot about many things, but I wonder if he ever meant anything like that.

    This is what Gulenko himself wrote about the ISFj sensory subtype:



    He writes similar things about ISFjs generally in socionics.org -- go take a look.

    So how can you even begin to imagine that, from those brief descriptions of +/-, that "ISFjs are generally submissive"? Is it that simple?

    2) Even if Gulenko did change his mind and your simplistic +/- definition is what he thinks (which I doubt), but, anyway -- is Gulenko the end-all of classical socionics now, is he?

    Filatova says about Se in ISFjs:


    .

    Is that a "submissive" type?

    Or in socioscope.com - Se in ISFjs:



    And on and on and on.

    So:

    - did Gulenko himself even mean those definitions to be interpreted that way? I doubt it, from the other stuff he wrote.
    - even if he did, isn't it fair to acknowledge that other socionics sources say the precise opposite? That's why hitta's understanding of the model is a violation of classical socionics.

    What hitta did was look at that set of simplistic descriptions - probably not grasping what Gulenko really meant - then think that he understood it all better than anyone else, without even taking the trouble to see how it fits with other sources.

    It's just -- absurd. It deserves no further consideration.

    I think the "+/Se = submissive" is just the worst example, not the only one.

    Watch now hitta not address any of the above and just say I'm stupid.
    you know you're wasting your breath, right?

  8. #8
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Um, I never said that an ISFj wouldn't be aggressive if they were pushed into it. I've actually said that they would be. +Se is defensive retaliation minded. Quit putting words into my mouth. By submissive he means a person that conforms or follows.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  9. #9
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17 View Post
    you know you're wasting your breath, right?
    Well, as far as hitta is concerned, yes. But perhaps it's worth writing it anyway, for the sake of others.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    Well, as far as hitta is concerned, yes. But perhaps it's worth writing it anyway, for the sake of others.
    fair enough.

Posting Permissions

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