Model X
So I repeatedly come across posts in which the writer proposes Model X as a more accurate model than Model A. I have not been able to find a real explanation of Model X anywhere (is there one) and I don't want to have to go through the masses of posts on Socionix to find out.
What exactly is Model X and how does it differ from Model A?
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Good question.
This is what I know: they believe that there are 4 "native" functions, equivalent to model A's Ego and Super Id ("Valued") functions, which are the only functions a type is capable of using; supposedly they perceive all information through the lens of these functions (a preposterous claim if you understand the implications of the cubic model). Also, a type's subtype is what determines his/her "Program" (as they call it) function, which is what they really view as the most used or dominant function, leaving temperament to serve as simply an explanation for external behavioral patterns (and thus nullifying one of the basic premises for naming types "extrovert" or "introvert" aside from simplistic behavioral ques; an ENTj-Ni simply becomes an "extroverted and rational" Ni dominant, an INFp-Fe is reduced to an "introverted and irrational" Fe dominant, etc)
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Who came up with it and came up with the name?
^^^^^^Originally Posted by dolphin
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
Actually, the concept that one does not use at all functions 3,4, 7, 8 is a very major departure from the very foundations of model A.
Model A's functional structure is inseparable from the relationships of each type with all other types. Just by looking at the model A functional structure of a type, it is possible to see how the relationships with all other types work.
And obviously not just because it's a nice way of drawing it - - in model A, all relationships involve all functions.
So, take, for instance, the SLE-LII supervision. It works through all functions, including the unvalued ones:
- the SLE's 7th function is the LII's 6th:. The SLE notices the LII's efforts to use it well, at which he scoffs because (1) he's more confident in it than the LII, and (2) he sees it as something of lesser importance in relation to
- which the LII prefers to avoid altogether. So, it's like "you're pathetic in your efforts to be good in something that isn't really that important!"
- It doesn't work the other way around, because the SLE's "pathetic" 6th function is the LII's dual-seeking 5th: so they both value it, and the SLE at least tries to provide it himself, while the LII expects it from others. So the LII is at a disadvantage also here.
- the SLE's 4th function is the LII's 3rd:(which neither of them values): the SLE prefers to avoid it altogether and thinks nobody should be focused on it. He understands that the LII doesn't really care that much about it (always preferring
), but the LII is "unable to take that to its logical conclusion" and still "pretends" to care about it socially. So it's like, "you're hypocritical in pretending to care for something you know very well is not important!"
- here, again, it doesn't work the other way around: the SLE's 3rd function is the LII's 2nd (), so the LII does notice that the SLE is not "adequate" in it, but the LII can't really say that the SLE shouldn't even try it.
And so on and so forth - for all types, for all functions, for all relationships - including the trickier ones such as request.
In model A, the definitions of IM elements only make sense in the context of this framework of all functions, in all positions, in all relationships. That is why to say that nobody can use functions 3,4,7,8 is a very major departure from the foundations of model A; not a detail.
If anyone wants to read more about that, there is a lot on that in socionics.org, for instance.
Last edited by Expat; 07-23-2009 at 05:58 PM. Reason: even more typos
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Yes, I too thought about the functions 3,4,7,8 being used, although it was in relation to another thread. As I recall, Augusta says that communication occurs through our ego functions.
I think this is true for our strong unconcious functions, the difference is that they are realised through the ego block.
Do demonstrate this part, look at relations of benefit, the beneficiary can apply pressure to the benefactor by way of their strongest unconcious function affecting the benefactors PoLR.
An example of how we use the 3rd and 4th functions, again with inter-type relations, would be super-ego relations.
Model X was initially created by Ganin, as I understand it he created it as a way to show how quadra functions interact. I don't think it was meant to be any more than that.
On the basis of the examples of super ego and beneficiary relations as I mentioned above, can anyone explain to me how Model X explains socionics better than Model A? It seems like Model X fails to explain all inter-type relations, and all the uses of functions, although maybe i've missed something?
Yes, there is a rather large departure there, however, the types themselves stay almost entirely the same.
Here's how Model X works, in short:
-You have/use the four functions in your quadra. The functions are psychological screens, so trying to "utilize" one at any one time is impossible. This should be self-evident (the inability of selected use, that is), due to the fact that the mind and the workings of the mind are hidden from the self. Anyone who says that they are using a given function at a given time at will is only describing things like they think someone with that element would. You dummies.
-There are 32 types. 16 types with 2 subtypes each. Each type keeps its temperament (and this is important).
-There are fancy new names for each element now:
--"Mode" is the element you operate in most of the time. It is one of your two "ego" functions; this element is your subtype. It has top, left position.
--"Utility" is the other "ego" function. The name is pretty self-explanatory. It has the top, right position.
--"Agenda" is the function you emulate, and aim toward using. The agenda is what you try to force your mode to act as. The agenda is determined by element-components as well as whether the type is "perceiving" or "judging" in temperament. "j" agendas are the dualizing functions with their modes. "p" agendas cross over so that their agenda dualizes with their utility. The introduction of the agenda is the (possibly) most important part of Model X. It explains the difference between "p" and "j" types as a difference in constant switch between object and field (j) or no switch (p). It has the bottom, left position.
--"Activation" is the name of the final element. (whoops lol; edited)It is the remaining element of your quadra and takes the bottom, right position. The activation is the dualizing element of perceiving types, though judging types dualize with their agenda subtype duals. We call this "perfect duality" (though you'll almost never heat that term), though you obviously still dualize with your dual of the opposite subtype. For example, Ni ILI "perfectly" dualizes with Se SEE, as does Ni LIE and Se ESI, though they are still duals to the other subtype.
-The system is called "Model X" for linguistic reasons, but also because when you diagram a percieving type, it forms an X.
--Judging example (Ni ENTj):
-ll--ll-
--Perceiving example (Te INTp):
---X---
And that's pretty much basically it.
*Edit: Those division lines are only there so the connectors stay in place.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
No I don't think you've missed anything. I see model X as, hmm, "I'm too lazy/stubborn/intellectually limited to really understand model A and all its implications, and I don't really care about understanding how others interact, so I will just go lol @ model A and invent my own simplistic model, as well as see how people's eyebrows and chins resemble those of movie stars. It's far more fun than trying to understand something I don't".
I don't remember my account. It's not tempting enough to make a new account.
It sounds rather trite;a cheesily rebellious title. Something that wasn't created out of necessity but rather for the flair of being "different" or "original".-The system is called "Model X" for linguistic reasons, but also because when you diagram a percieving type, it forms an X.
Yeah, it's pretty silly.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
So in other words, we cannot really know ourselves and we can't even trust our own insights into ourselves because those things are just us trying to be some other way than we are because everything about our minds will forever be a deep mystery that we have no hope of ever truly knowing anything about? For this reason only external things about us must be focused on, and their underlying processes divined from observation, as our own insights into ourselves are irrelevant. To pay attention to such self-understanding or to trust it would be dumb?
I know I'm exaggerating this, but it is I think what I feel most wary about.
Right?
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Could someone provide an example in which I two different types use the functions at their disposal without access to the other ones?
How is Model X more useful than Model A?
In what way does Model X allow faster and more reliable typing?
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Faster typing, I can answer: they rely solely on vague impressions of external manifestations of the functions that are allegedly 100% correlated to internal thought processes.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Aside from the glaring fact that Te and Ti are completely different, there aren't 8 types of information. There are 8 ways to process all information. These "screens" as it were are intangible, and can only be seen in manifestation. Quadral and personal vision is about compliments, not which elements you use the most.
Glam, Ashton is talking about people who say that Model X is other than it is, not people who have no understanding of the system.
Loki, that's a basic psychological principle; I really don't know how to explain why succinctly and without evidence.
UDP... "X, Y, Z" is a certain section of the alphabet with slightly different connotations as to which mathematical type of variable is represented which differs from both "A, B, C" and "P, R, S". "A" is taken, so constants are out of the picture (the likely preferred variable); general variable data comes next. Maybe you've never heard of that, but please don't make vagrant assumptions.
As to how Model X is more useful than Model A: It makes more sense and is more observable. The only way that typing becomes faster objectively is that only 4 elements are shown. Other than that, the users of Model X are generally "faster" typers because we do it very often and VI all day long. That may change when some, less interested person starts using Model X, but in general, the people who end up using this model are people who are very interested and have taken the time to work it all out in their heads to make sure it makes more sense than Model A, which is not to say that those who don't are stupid, but only that they either don't care enough to try or are to blind to look. This also doesn't mean that we're inexorably correct, but that generally people who try to see if it makes more sense find out that it does.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
Tom, what would be an example of function use by an IEE vs. an SLE? How does it manifest that some functions are not "accessible" in these types?
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Ok, sure; makes sense. But why do you need to process any bit of information outside of those that you value? Each element isn't limited to a certain spectrum of things. You can see the entire world through 4 elements, and Model X says you do. Your quadra's perceiving elements create content and the judging elements create context. It's for this reason that people generally feel like they live in the same world as the quarda with the same "P" elements, but with a different view of it. And vice-versa for the quadra with the same "J" elements. It makes sense when you think about your interactions with people in other quadras and the discrepancies you have.
IEE and SLE are totally different functionally, but have the same temperament. Here's the chart for each (if you look to my previous post it'll say how to read it):
Ne IEE:
Fi IEE:
Se SLE:
Ti SLE:
As you can see, the functions lay out in the same way, but are entirely different. IEEs see the world in Ne/Si and Fi/Te. SLEs see the world in Se/Ni and Ti/Fe. They live in a different world, which they see in a different way. They still both have a S.O./S.F. (Static Object/Static Field) mode with a D.O./D.F. (Dynamic Object/Dynamic Field) agenda, so they function in much the same way. As role's they're like two sides of the same coin.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
Here's some general argument about problems with socionics as a whole and usual reasoning fallacies that Ashton has written(it'll clear some things up, he hopes): Ashton on Socionics Malreasoning
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
So can you give me a real life example in which these differences and similarities manifest?IEE and SLE are totally different functionally, but have the same temperament. Here's the chart for each (if you look to my previous post it'll say how to read it):
Ne IEE:
Fi IEE:
Se SLE:
Ti SLE:
As you can see, the functions lay out in the same way, but are entirely different. IEEs see the world in Ne/Si and Fi/Te. SLEs see the world in Se/Ni and Ti/Fe. They live in a different world, which they see in a different way. They still both have a S.O./S.F. (Static Object/Static Field) mode with a D.O./D.F. (Dynamic Object/Dynamic Field) agenda, so they function in much the same way. As role's they're like two sides of the same coin.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Model A never claims that there are 8 types of information; it claims 8 ways of digesting information. I think the main reason that people don't understand Model X is because they don't understand Model A to begin with, at least not to the point of being able to see the flaws.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
...what?
It's both, silly. Imagine it like enzymes and substrate. There are eight enzymes that act on eight discrete sets of substrate. Some people also produce faulty enzymes that SHOOT LASERS INTO THEIR KIDNEYS. LASERS OF PAIN.
I don't feel like fleshing the analogy out.
It think that is generally understood...?
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
I can try
But perhaps an explanation is needed first as to why this is difficult. Socionics doesn't come into play except when there is interaction with other humans or their products (because that's when discrepancies arise). As to the individual differences in type, this doesn't come quite as easily. People can perform the same acts with different motives and types due to similar backgrounds, areas of interest, two outcomes from the same action, etc. The only way to really tell you the difference is in a non-specific manner (because there are many of the same type out there), or in how the two would react to a specific person of another type. And even this becomes general and vague.
So would you like more general description or would you prefer me to try and make a specific situation?
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
Let's have both!
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
It isn't a question of need. It's just the way things are!
No one uses Te or Ti 100% of the time...Ego block Te is complemented by Id block Ti and vice versa.
Regarding "The concept that one does not use at all functions 3, 4, 7, 8 is a very major departure from the very foundations of model A." and similar statements:
It's not too long ago that a number of *ahem* "knowledgeable" people on here kept referring to the polr as something a person was unable or incapable of. As well as saying that the polr was something that a person would avoid at all costs.
Enough that if a person showed even a slight ability with the polr or weren't completely avoidant of it (referenced it under unfortunate necessity), then the person would be retyped as it being part of their ego or valued function.
I would think that if these "knowledgeable" people were capable of making that mistake then they would perhaps be more lenient and understanding if/when others make a similar mistake. That these people would remember just how adamant they themselves were when they strayed from "the very foundations of model A", then these same people would, again, be more understanding and lenient when someone else is just as adamant as they once were.
With that said, what very very little understanding I have of model X, it was meant as a way of typing people basically by
* attempting to figure out what their quadra values are
* attempting to figure out their primary element focus (labeled as "subtype"?)
* attempting to figure out what's equivalent to their temperament (I don't remember if the term "temperament" was used in the two sentence quick description given me.)
This typing method isn't all that different from what's commonly used on this forum for typing people.
Sometimes we (the forum members in general) notice quadra values first...and type someone based on that.
Or primary element...and type someone based on that.
Or temperament...and type someone based on that.
Over time we (the forum members in general) fill in more and more of the blanks, noticing role, polr, etc.
Sometimes our initial impressions and our further observations actually fit a model A type, but many many times it doesn't.
Some people will retract their initial typing of another....some people will stick to it like glue.
To claim superiority when one utilizes the same basic methods (just using different term for the 'model') is...well...I'm not sure what term to use, just that it makes me smile and go "heh".
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
It claims that there are 8 kinds of information, and consequently 8 ways of processing information. It works from the outside in, top down, etc. (alpha NT thinking), and makes the error of assuming that the categories which information produced by certain functions can be generally subsumed under, are somehow the fundamental starting point -- intrinsic divisions in reality that illustrate how information "is." The divergence, is that Ashton, etc. agree that functions are the starting point -- peoples' cognitive processes -- and thus, when looked at as the psychological lenses that they are, they cannot all be utilized, due to the contradictory and diametric nature of doing so. It's like, information doesn't exist in any form; it's the mind that molds it; we don't have this magical ability to mold ourselves to different "kinds" of information "out there" -- if you observe something that seems like "Te information," it may have been likely produced by a Te-valuing individual, but "factual information" doesn't constitute. Also, some idiots like to take O/F S/D and I/E and assume that they are the ultimate delineations for functions. Bodily processes are observable, continuous and interconnected = Si, i.e. this kind of shitty reasoning. Ashton, myself and a few others recognize the more fundamental nature of these dichotomies, and the fact that they can't be hypostatized into silly things like ^.
Sure, think of functions as enzymes -- things that work within the person, digesting information according to their own pattern. When a beta presents information to another beta, the digestion process will require no translation; a delta to a beta will be different. These "enzymes" are what they are, and there's a reason that functions work in inextricable feedback loops; you can't just maneuver in and out of apparent psycho-behavioral states, and convince yourself that you're actually processing things via different functions (i.e. wistfully contemplating past and future trends = Ni).
4w3-5w6-8w7
Ok, could everyone please stop the personal attacks? I posted the question because people were talking about something about which I was not fully informed. I don't mind if you are discussing the merits/disadvantages of both, but quit being bitches about it...
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Did you even read it or try to comprehend it?
The most important sentence in there, as well as the one you seem to have skipped, is bolded.
ALL INFORMATION is divided into 8 kinds. Not 8 sections. Not 8 factions. The wording here is a bit fishy, which is one reason why the wiki blows, but the meaning is obvious if you stop to think of the context. ALL INFORMATION IS PERCEIVABLE IN 8 WAYS, it what it should blatantly say, though I assume something is either lost in translation or the writer simply assumes the reader can think.
If all information was divided into 8 types, then this is how things would work:
Type A can only perceive with any clarity info. types X,Y,x, and y, but hates info. types x and y and thus avoids thinking about them. Thus, type A only ever sees information types X and Y. 1/4 of all information reserved to type A, who doesn't really see the rest? Really? That's all? So how do INFjs see color, if that's an Se thing? Does any of that come across as odd to you?
I'm sorry if any of that sounds cruel, etc., btw; I'm really not trying to be... :frown:
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
You're getting confused between functions and information aspects.
lol sorry kim
also ann<3
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
No. He's just referring to functions as what they are -- far greater precedents for information's constitution than some abstractified delineations termed "information aspects" that attempt to concretize it into observable, overly-behavioral crap.
4w3-5w6-8w7
I'm somehow..frightened to post in this thread again, because I think there's going to be big posts with little useful content, or I just suspect it, but I could be wrong and hope I am.
That aside, i'd like to get this clarified so i'll post anyway! Tom, would you mind addressing my post earlier in this thread? It's looking at inter-type relations and Model A's superiority to Model X, as I understand it. Oh, if you could answer Expats too, I think it could be quite useful to read your response.
er, no...functions and their position in Model A refer to how a person generally behaves, while the information aspects are eight ways of categorising the information that we perceive.
Uh, what? So, now you're assuming functions are only qualified by their position in some model. And a consequent result of their necessitative influence on behavior somehow renders categories to describe the information we perceive under? And this information is somehow existent outside of a human mind's creation?? What kind of backwards reasoning is this?
4w3-5w6-8w7
erm no...there is also a distinction between a function and an information element.
Socionics recognises that we are all subjective beings who process the same information, but perceive and utilise it in different ways. There is no way to definitively prove that there is such a thing as Objective Information and that we all perceive things different ways, but Socionics attempts an useful explanation of how things are.
I know the difference, as per classical socionics literature. My intention isn't to harp on these semantics. If by function, you are referring to a position of an information element in the psyche, and by information element, you are referring to a facet of information which we are able to perceive, there are no issues?
Regardless, I am referring to functions as psychological lenses -- things that exist 'mentally' which process information accordingly. I don't bother with too many definitions like information elements, information aspects, etc., cause they all tie back to a more fundamental thing, i.e. functions. Although, I can see the usefulness of a term like information element, to reference general conceptual aspects of internal psychic processes (i.e. talking about Se in terms of ESO).
It recognizes that information exists, in itself, in different forms, outside of a human mind. It then postulates that the human mind is capable of attuning itself to all of the information's forms, to varying degrees. This is where Model A comes in.Socionics recognises that we are all subjective beings who process the same information, but perceive and utilise it in different ways.
If there is no way to prove that information exists objectively, then basing a model on that very premise -- that reality is divided up into 8 aspects of information -- is foolish -- just as foolish, in fact, as your and others' claims about basing a theory on the notion that functions are internal psychic processes (i.e. model X).There is no way to definitively prove that there is such a thing as Objective Information and that we all perceive things different ways, but Socionics attempts an useful explanation of how things are.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Model X is soo 2008. There's a new fucking model out, it's called model rat, and ill be publishing shit on it soon. so watch for it bitches
I saw model rat in action the other night. It's pretty accurate.
lol!
Seriously though, Model X is "so two years ago" or whatever you want to call it. People really need to stop exalting it as some secret occult theory that some rogue individualists contrived to start a socionics revolution. It's a name for a general idea -- the nuances of which have been improved to such a degree since its inception, that attempting to speak of any "base model" at this point, is foolish.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Reply With Quote
