1. ## Model A Stuff

Not the most captivating title, but anyways...

Is there any attempt to conceptualize model A such as....

LII is

The LII has the Super-Ego of a ESI's Ego
The LII has the Super-Id of a ESE's Ego
The LII has the Id of a LIE's Ego

Hopefully you get the point, I am not even sure I did the correct functional placements for the LII, but I think this approach can lead to valuable insight.

Discuss!

2. Removed at User Request

3. Removed at User Request

4. Alright, well before I comment on everything you've said... what is actually the physical meaning of "Super-Ego" within Model A... is it merely an esoteric construction to help explain social relations in an overly intricate way OR does it have a tangible physical meaning.

For example, borders on map are not real, they are merely imaginary construct which express information, they are not literally lines that appear on the ground, but they do have a tangible meaning as an expression of what a particular group of people feel is a terrority that belongs to them.

I wish to know what the tangible physical meaning of the Super-Ego is and not simply what it is on the model. Just the same, I'd not like to know where the border is on the map, I'd like to know what the border is on the map.

You've explained model A, but not what the Super-Ego actually is in tangible reality.

5. Removed at User Request

6. Originally Posted by Pinocchio
If you want me or someone to think about the physical meaning of the Super-Ego, I think you should tell what's your understanding as physical meaning of the Ego. I've given the cube example, so starting off that I could tell the representation of the other blocks.

Super ego is simply something incompatible, if say Ti would make people soccer player, Fi would assign other people aversion towards soccer. The Ego is the preference of a type for a certain type of information, which is incompatible with others - the ones having this type of information as Super-Ego. Yes, functions conflict in other aspects than soccer taste, much more general and abstract. For example, while Ti means choice using objective reality, Fi chooses what's common and familiar, the connections are internal. They conflict only when someone asks for one and the other offers the other.

If you're a Ti Rational, you'll impose certain things, considering the reality, you'll enter in conflict with Fi irrationals who are not concerned with objective demands, but with what they call "my way". It is very hard to make Fi Irrationals to follow a certain procedure, even in important, urgent or dangerous situations.

Let's take two examples:
- Ti Rational: the army (Ti options). It offers an environment of strict objective rules. There are numerous reasons for them, one of the most important is the danger of using the weapons. Fi Irrationals are the most problematic persons there, they don't want to submit to the rules because they feel the rules attack personal right to expression - their personal way of doing things (Fi requirements).
- Fi Rational: traditional institutions, like the church (Fi options). Even if you're a firm believer, you would not be let inside in your preferred t-shirt with Cannibal Corpse because of ethical reasons, that's how things are going there. Ti Irrationals have a big problem with such institutions because they want logical reasons for doing things in a certain way (Ti requirements).

(Off-topic: Being a Ti Irrational myself, I must confess here that when I see those clowns graduating an university wearing those ridiculous caps, hats and smiles I feel like throwing a grenade among them. Of course, I have no intention to do it as I don't see the point in such action as well, they simply make me sick - that etiquette imposition without any reasonable explanation simply denies my reality. I don't even trust such institutions, how could they teach me what I want while they're able to create such monstrosities?)

We might in the future think for examples for the other functions, in any case, they're basically the same thing, conflict of realities, you got the pairs in my previous post.
No great offenses against socionics and Model A but to me that seems a bit ridiculous at some level. In other words I am not convinced that this is the way that "people work". Being a Ti Rational doesn't mean you are only capable of processing Ti and Fi is like fitting a square peg into a circular one. I still think that being a Ti means I can process Fi information.

Hmm is this really what socionics is? Just taking the 8 psychological functions and using them to label information, then have each person a type with only specific compatable information they can digest.... it all seems a bit robotic and less ummm psychology.

Also what is the connection with the freudian terms and Model A, a lot of socionics sites I have seen promote that Model A is an induction based on three theories, one of which is the jungian functions, the other of which is the idea of freudian ego, super-ego, id etc... and the last being something concerning information metabolism.

Also I am not sure if its solely being an ENTp, I am INTj and also have a distaste for a lot of those kinds of ceremonies and what have you, but just for off topic curosity could you elaborate on your views concerning that?

7. You should think of your Ti as being like the cables on a suspension bridge. Your Fi by comparison also spans the gap but it is carryling little weight.

8. Removed at User Request

9. Originally Posted by Subterranean
You should think of your Ti as being like the cables on a suspension bridge. Your Fi by comparison also spans the gap but it is carryling little weight.
Yea this is a reasonable idea, I can accept the fact that people differ in emphasis on different functions

10. Originally Posted by Pinocchio
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH ETC ETC ETC
lol don't take offense to the quote, but I'll respond to your post tommorow, there is a lot to take in so I'll edit this tommorow with a response.

11. Techincally you can only ever "think" using the conscious functions. Anything in your thought is conscious, anything in your conscious would not be in your unconscious.

So, no matter how hard you try you can never be conscious of your unconscious and if you are, it's not your unconscious.

Further, I don't believe you can use the super ego (Something toally alien to how you perceive and judge information. Seeing this way somehow would probably be the most unsettling experience, ever) so that leaves two conscious functions for everyone to use, and two that are working behind the scenes in the unconscious. Remember that whatever info is being processed can be broad and can include any information. The elements are functions, that is, processes with tasks. I also don't believe consciousness is black and white. The dimensionality of the functions (1D, 2D, 3D, 4D) provides a more gradual scale.

12. Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
Techincally you can only ever "think" using the conscious functions. Anything in your thought is conscious, anything in your conscious would not be in your unconscious.

So, no matter how hard you try you can never be conscious of your unconscious and if you are, it's not your unconscious.

Further, I don't believe you can use the super ego (Something toally alien to how you perceive and judge information. Seeing this way somehow would probably be the most unsettling experience, ever) so that leaves two conscious functions for everyone to use, and two that are working behind the scenes in the unconscious. Remember that whatever info is being processed can be broad and can include any information. The elements are functions, that is, processes with tasks. I also don't believe consciousness is black and white. The dimensionality of the functions (1D, 2D, 3D, 4D) provides a more gradual scale.
So Functions are Psychological Processes that take in information correct?

If thats true then what is the defining difference between say Ti acting in a ego slot and Ti acting in a super-ego slot. There has to be some difference in the result these processes have when they are placed in a particular section.

13. Removed at User Request

14. Originally Posted by Pinocchio
That is not true, actually. The Ego is the valued and used type of information, one has to choose, of course this is not done consciously in the determination of the type.
So why even characterize stuff outside the ego if it is not "used", that makes no sense.

If its not used then how does one distinguish the super-ego from the id from the super-id?

15. Removed at User Request

16. To add to Pinocchios post, this is one of the better things from socionics.com
in my opinion

The Wheel of Kalinauskas (Interactive)

My take on it is that, our super-ego functions clash with our ego functions and are fundamentally incompatable with them, therefore they are on the whole undesirable.

However there are circumstances where it is necessary to think and act in a way that is contrary to our ego functions.

For example an Fi creative type may be in a situation where he or she is required to solve a Ti type puzzle, for example on a n IQ test. It may be difficult, annoying etc. however the individual will usually be able to think in that manner for a short time.

However the individual may have have a tendency to anthropomorphize.
Again I imagine a Ti creative may require to understand or act in a way that is related to Fi, I imagine (maybe you could tell me Pinocchio?) that the conscious mind would still justify this decision in a logical manner.

The world is fillled with many challenges and many different types of people and atmospheres and although we have are own preferences and strengths, we still need to be somewhat adaptable to our external environment

17. Originally Posted by Pinocchio
Why you didn't understand already? :| Super-Ego is something you don't use, you don't want, you refuse, which harms what you've "chosen" for your ego. If you don't want something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it's something you refuse, this is the relationship of that with you and this is its reason of existence in the model.
To put it in other words: Ego is what you have, Super-Ego is what's harmful for what you have, Super-Id is something what you need and Id is what you don't need but isn't harmful.
Ego is you, Super-Id is a friend, Super-Ego is a foe and Id is a stranger.

Edit: these ^ are the differences. But it was told already.
Maybe its cause you an ENTp but I find it odd to define yourself in terms of relationships with other people. I mean the inter-type theory is useful but it doesn't seem like a sturdy first principle to base a model on...

for example intertype theory fails to explain any reason for the source of the differences in people, it doesn't begin to explain what it is about a LII that conflicts with the SEE, it just asserts "hey they conflict, accept this, its common knowledge and it just makes sense".

Thats what you didn't include if I am not mistaken, and further, I had assumed that was pretty obvious given the fact its not nessicary to state redundant information. Of course experience has proven it wasn't obvious so now I am telling you explicitly in hope that this will be more helpful for communicative purposes.

18. Removed at User Request

19. Removed at User Request

#### Posting Permissions

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