Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: +Ne and "perceiving" behavior

  1. #1
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default +Ne and "perceiving" behavior

    A while ago I read about how Gulenko associated +Ne (Ne in alpha NTs and in beta NFs' background blocks) with behaviors that are ordinarily linked to the perceiving types. Does anyone know more on this subject? Does anyone know where Gulenko's writings on the various functions and their +/- sign can be found?

  2. #2
    kensi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Edmonton, Ab, Canada
    Posts
    567
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    A while ago I read about how Gulenko associated +Ne (Ne in alpha NTs and in beta NFs' background blocks) with behaviors that are ordinarily linked to the perceiving types. Does anyone know more on this subject? Does anyone know where Gulenko's writings on the various functions and their +/- sign can be found?
    Everytime i ask a similar question to this one...noone ever replies.

    Good luck.
    ENTP:wink:ALPHA

  3. #3
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    We'll get a response when Hitta reads this. He's hooked on those materials.

  4. #4
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    He's been posting in bursts lately. Suddenly popping up, causing a major ruckus, then going low-profile again...

    Any one else want to wish me luck? I'm building a reserve here.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    A while ago I read about how Gulenko associated +Ne (Ne in alpha NTs and in beta NFs' background blocks) with behaviors that are ordinarily linked to the perceiving types. Does anyone know more on this subject? Does anyone know where Gulenko's writings on the various functions and their +/- sign can be found?
    I had posted links to some of Gulenko's articles on +/- awhile back. I think I got them from the library section at http://www.socioniko.net/, but that doesn't seem to be working on the English site; perhaps it works in one of the other languages.

    Nevertheless, I saved the links http://66.163.168.225/babelfish/translate_url_content?lp=ru_en&trurl=http%3A%2F%2F socioniko.net%2Fru%2Farticles%2Fgul-znaki.html&fr=avbbf-us&.intl=us (works) and http://66.196.80.202/babelfish/trans...bf-us&.intl=us (doesn't seem to work anymore).

    I've never heard that Gulenko ever wrote anything supporting the idea of +Ne in "beta NFs' background blocks." Hugo's model, which he got from pages by Jimmy Carrette, postulates +Ne in all Betas and Alphas. I think Hugo attributes this to Bukalov's "Model B", but I never found the reference.

    From the little I've read, I would guess that if Gulenko saw "+Ne" as "more perceiving than "-Ne," he might be saying basically that ILEs are a little more "out there" (preferring less structure, more out of the box.) than IEEs. But that doesn't make IEEs ultra-conservative. Rather, on the spectrum, ILEs would be most "out there" and ESIs most likely to follow social norms.

    (By the way, although the version of +/- that's popular here is the one based on the process/result dichotomy, Gulenko's writings are inconsistent and sometimes use different dichotomies with the +/- notation.)

    Anyhow, saying that +Ne types (by Hugo's model) have perceiving behaviors is equivalent to saying that objectivist/subjectivist (merry/serious) dichotomy is related to "J vs. P" behaviors. While I can see how the "wild and crazy" side of Fe may be confused by some with "perceiving" behaviors, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that EIEs, for example, are in any way "perceiving" types.

    Most EIEs I know, despite seeming "fun," "wild and crazy," expressive, etc., are nevertheless obviously "J" types in the MBTI sense, and clearly rational types in Socionics. Being rational, dynamic, and resolute (to mention the three dichotomies that are usually sometimes hypothesized as being related to "J/P"), it seems to be pushing things a little to say that their Fe would make them seem as "perceiving" types (although from the perspective of various types, I could see that; SEIs might see LIEs as more obtrusively dynamic-rational because of the conflict relationship).

    As to Hugo's contention that EIE's are what one might call more Ne-like (and hence, you seem to be deducing, more P-like) than IEEs because the former's Ne is "+" and the later's is "-," that doesn't seem to fit well with a lot of IEEs I know, although in individual cases one could certainly find IEEs who seem closed to other people's ideas.

    Personally, I think the source of any confusion is that the objectivists, with their Te-valuing, are more likely to criticize something based on its lack of feasibility, and that may seem to some as being "anti idea." In contrast, Beta NFs may talk more about "changing the world" and doing what seems to others to be impossible. If that seems "perceiving," then I guess that's really just a shifting of the definition of "perceiving." I guess you could say that "judging" and "perceiving" have become such vague terms in people's minds that maybe you could relate them to any Socionics dichtomy, and, again, how one sees this has a bit to do with intertype relationships.

    Another way to look at this, though, is that perhaps Te-valuing types express rationality differently from Fe-valuing types. Typically, it seems to me that the Te way of "cutting things off" (being dynamic-rational) is to say that something isn't feasible, doesn't make sense, is absurd, etc. The Fe way of "cutting things off" is to say "we're not doing that" or "this is the way we're going." But it seems to me that EIEs are just as firm in displaying their dynamic-rational behavior in a subjective sense as LIEs are in an objective sense.

    I guess that to merry-subjectivist type, subjectivist dynamic rationality may seem "softer" than objectivist dynamic rationality because it is usually expressed in a more "sensitive" way (being F-based). But from an objectivist point of view, it may seem all the more "judging" because one can't argue with "this is just the way we're doing it."

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    +Ne says "look at me I've got a great idea! Now that I've made it, you should accept it as your own." -Ne says, "what makes your idea any better than mine?"

    From Gulenko's article, it is apparent that he believed the fourth dimension existed due to mathematical necessity alone. When he sought to identify the implied dimension, he understood it as meaning life vs death.

    If you look closer at the question of how one determines for themselves what is the course of life, or what brings about death, then it can be observed that supersocion theory's perception of +/- as conflict between the subject (that which lives) and the object (that which brings death) fits right on top of Gulenko's observations.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 06-27-2008 at 09:26 PM.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yes im also very interested to read more about this.

  8. #8
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Labcoat, do me a a favor and find that article. Thats exactly what I've been saying for the last year and a half.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    Labcoat, do me a a favor and find that article. Thats exactly what I've been saying for the last year and a half.
    There is an article by another person (not Gulenko) that was linked to by Rocky at socionix, which also discussed +/-.

    Dude, are you just wanting to prove yourself right, or do you really want to walk with us down the road +/- appears to imply? Like ya know, people who identify with life/death and how to deal with that?

  10. #10
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Dude, are you just wanting to prove yourself right, or do you really want to walk with us down the road +/- appears to imply? Like ya know, people who identify with life/death and how to deal with that?
    It's this kind of stuff that made me think you an ENFj back in the days...

    Quote Originally Posted by Hitta
    Labcoat, do me a a favor and find that article. Thats exactly what I've been saying for the last year and a half.
    I was talking about one of your posts, the contents of which seemed to imply they were based on the writings of Gulenko.

    I'm interested in knowing how much of what you write is of your own creation, and how much of it borrows from Gulenko.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i think the links jonathan posted don't work. I am interested in the material if ppl want to talk about that.

  12. #12
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The upper link works on my machine. The lower one does not.

    See if this helps:
    http://66.163.168.225/babelfish/tran...bf-us&.intl=us

    Personally... I think the level of abstraction involved here makes it difficult, if not impossible, to discuss the signs at the level of detail Gulenko tries to...

    What is more interesting is the fact that synergy between people of the same function axis but of different quadras is NOT OPTIMAL according to this addition. Add in foreground and background functions, and you get all kinds of new ways to understand relations between types. For example:

    INTj has background Creating Ni-, ESTp has foreground Accepting Se-

    So, an alternative to the relation of supervision, is that of the INTj acting as something of a "benefactor" to the ESTp.

    What is exciting is that I have been looking for instances of such synergy between myself and ESTps.....and in some (not all!) cases found it. A particular case comeing to mind, is that of a young (6 YO?) ESTp that LOVED relating stories about computer games, television shows and other toys to me.....which sort of bored me, but was still mildly fun to lend an ear to.

    As to what would determine the difference between bad relations (ESTp/INTj supervision) and good relations (INTj/ESTp benefit)... I think tcaudilllg's theories on political orientation may be involved there.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    USA.
    TIM
    INTj
    Posts
    4,497
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    As to what would determine the difference between bad relations (ESTp/INTj supervision) and good relations (INTj/ESTp benefit)... I think tcaudilllg's theories on political orientation may be involved there.
    the link did work, thanks.

    he might kill me but would you link or tell me which thread his political orientation theories are in? Just don't want to repeat some questions that would be easily answered on my own.

  14. #14
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t..._domain_theory

    Good luck reading that.

    Relevant bits:
    There are 4 information domains. Every person belongs to one of them. Any domain is opposed to one of the three others: universalism vs. specialism, adaptism vs. traditionalism. That they are opposed means that the members of one domain don't get along well with those of the one opposing it.

    Within the domains there is a subdivision between object- and field orients. Each of these has a name for each of the domains that you can read in the diagram in the article. (for example: object orient universalist = liberal, field orient universalist = progressive).

    I say the whole thing is just a "third type" (upper type layer) with domains for quadras.

    There, now tcaudilllg is going to want to kill me and you go homefree.

Posting Permissions

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