# Thread: Eliminating the Need for Model B?

1. ## Eliminating the Need for Model B?

Model B proposes that each Information Element can be divided into two versions: a "plus" version (also known as "expanding") and a "minus" version (also known as "reducing"). To hold these sixteen elements, Model B proposes a sixteen-function information metabolism model. In addition to the regular "Model A", it proposes a second layer of personality called the "Shadow". The Shadow is a duplicate of Model A, containing the opposite-polarity versions of the Information Elements.

(Note that the above diagram from Bukalov's website contains an error: the polarities of in the left-most figure should be reversed.)

For example, in Model B an LII has -Ti and +Ne in his Ego, and +Ti and -Ne in his Shadow Ego. He has -Fe and +Si in his Super-Id, and +Fe and -Si in his Shadow Super-Id, etc.

When an element of one polarity is valued, the other polarity is unvalued. Consequently, the Ego contains strong valued functions, while the Shadow Ego contains strong unvalued functions; the Super-Ego contains weak unvalued functions, while the Shadow Super-Ego contains weak valued functions, etc. So an LII would value -Ti, +Ne, -Fe, +Si, +Fi, -Se, +Te, -Ni, and would not value +Ti, -Ne, +Fe, -Si, -Fi, +Se, -Te, +Ni.

The plus and minus versions of the IEs are often dismissed as being another way of saying which element they're blocked with: -Ti being Ti blocked with Ne, and +Ti being Ti blocked with Se, etc. But in Model B, this is not always the case. In the Shadow, -Ti is sometimes blocked with +Se, and +Ti with -Ne. This is sometimes pointed to as evidence that plus/minus is more than just a different way of stating which element is blocked with which, and that it in some way reflects an intrinsic property of the elements themselves.

In my experience, the observable portions of the Model B hypothesis seem to be borne out pretty well. LIIs do seem uncomfortable with strong expressions of +Fe, and do tend to advocate behaviour matching +Fi. SLIs do seem largely uninterested in +Si, and to some degree appreciate -Ti input. And so on. However, recently I have begun to think that there is a way to explain these observations without resorting to a second layer of personality as Model B does.

The idea is pretty simple. We prefer to use our valued functions, and prefer not to use our unvalued functions unless we really have to. An LII prefers to use Ti + Ne, and finds using Fi + Se to be uncomfortable. And we know that Information Elements are used in pairs. So when we are using an unvalued function, it seems to me that we would have a tendancy to pair it with a valued function rather than an unvalued one. After all, why use two unvalued functions when you can get away with using only one?

In the case of an LII, when he finds it necessary to deal with Fi matters, he would tend to find it preferable to pair his unvalued Fi with his valued Ne, rather than his unvalued Se. Or when an LII has to deal with Se matters, he would find it less objectionable to pair his Se with Ti instead of Fi. Conversely, LII values Ti, but prefers to pair it with Ne, finding the pairing of Ti with Se to be strange and less comfortable. In this way, we arrive at a picture of an LII who strongly values Ti+Ne, strongly devalues Fi+Se, and sort of half-values Fi+Ne and Ti+Se. This eliminates the need for Model B's second layer of personality, and in my opinion actually matches the observable behaviour of types more closely, by introducing a level of value between "valued" and "unvalued".

Unless there are additional aspects of Model B that I am not aware of, I believe that my theory fully explains all plus/minus related phenomena without resorting to adding Model B's second layer of personality. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if someone else had proposed this idea before, although if someone has I have not yet seen it anywhere.

I'm interested in your opinions and observations on this matter.

It's obviously not obvious to everyone, or Model B wouldn't exist.

3. the way hitta explained it to me way, way back when, Te+ is in a sense "the same function" as Ti-, the same going for any pair of functions sharing the T/F/N/S aspect and being opposite in i/e and +/-. Something similar was always shown in the "model B updated Model A" diagrams that were posted at times. Gulenko has also repeatedly confirmed in his writings that this is the assumption he works from (trevor posted about this a while ago).

the implication of this would be that the INTj doesn't use Ne and Fi combinedly as shown in your diagram. that is closer to the standard model A assumption of how "similar" types and ways of thinking of types are, and how micro-type-changes could conceivably happen between types in a temporary manner. the model B assumption is that Fi+ is what an INTj expects from it's dual, not what it uses itself.

instead, the INTj has the option of using Te+ and/or Ni-, thus leading to a behavioral pattern akin to those of ESTj and ENFj. these types could then be hypothesized to be more like semi-identicals than like semi-duals to the type.

i formalized hitta's explanation (1st line in this post) by introducing the taciturn/narrator functions (taciturn/narrator is always constant between the two quadra-clubs using the functions, so it can conveniently be used to designate the pairs):
Tt: Te+/Ti- (Taciturn Logic; Reasonable)
Tn: Te-/Ti+ (Narrative Logic; Resolute)
Nt: Ne+/Ni- (Taciturn Intuition; Merry)
Nn: Ne-/Ni+ (Narrative Intuition; Serious)
Ft: Fe+/Fi- (Taciturn Ethics; Resolute)
Fn: Fe-/Fi+ (Narrative Ethics; Reasonable)
St: Se+/Si- (Taciturn Sensing; Serious)
Sn: Se-/Si+ (Narrative Sensing; Merry)

4. I actually disagree with it. It's been my impression for a while now that blocked functions tend to work together, as pressure on Role evinces response from PoLR. At least that's my experience with most types.

Also, I find your static representation lacking. Information pathways are what makes it work - ↻. Or:

Code:
```→ Ti → Ne →
↑     ↓
← Se ← Fi ←```
The mental ring is directly related to cognitive style (much more than positivist/negativist and involution/evolution dichotomies, IMO).

@labcoat: So Krig's theory is actually far from model A.

5. @labcoat: So Krig's theory is actually far from model A.
the fact that we define a function shared between Kindred and Comparative types is itself a symbolization of the belief that there is some "link" between the two types, i.e. something that makes it easy to bridge the difference between the two. without this assumption, the need to define such functions completely dissipates. the functions have no real substance beyond this notion.

6. Originally Posted by Aiss
I actually disagree with it. It's been my impression for a while now that blocked functions tend to work together, as pressure on Role evinces response from PoLR. At least that's my experience with most types.

Also, I find your static representation lacking. Information pathways are what makes it work - ↻. Or:

Code:
```→ Ti → Ne →
↑     ↓
← Se ← Fi ←```
The mental ring is directly related to cognitive style (much more than positivist/negativist and involution/evolution dichotomies, IMO).

@labcoat: So Krig's theory is actually far from model A.
So Aiss, the Static Mental ring has the same elements. Yet the Supervisory ring of Statics includes two sets of types: Positivists and Negativists. That dichotomy is just as important. Or else we are looking at a 8-8 division of the types across the Socion. Statics vs Dynamics.

Yet you say Cognitive Style is directly related to Static-Dynamic(Mental Ring). Well which cognitive styles are closer? Static-Dynamic or Process-Result? It's one or the other.

7. The pattern of making an observation, observing that observation, & then observing your observation of that observation is always what's responsible for increasing dimensionality. What you've shown is the connection between model A & B, but it does not dismiss model B. Increased specificity allows for more precise modeling.

8. Originally Posted by Aiss
I actually disagree with it. It's been my impression for a while now that blocked functions tend to work together, as pressure on Role evinces response from PoLR. At least that's my experience with most types.

Also, I find your static representation lacking. Information pathways are what makes it work - ↻. Or:

Code:
```→ Ti → Ne →
↑     ↓
← Se ← Fi ←```
The mental ring is directly related to cognitive style (much more than positivist/negativist and involution/evolution dichotomies, IMO).
The impression that I've been getting from my observation and contemplation on the subject is that the direction of the information pathways is the preferred mode of thinking, but not the only one accessible to the consciousness. Just like we can use our weak functions if we so choose (albeit in a somewhat slow and clumsy fashion), we can also think in "the reverse direction", although it may be somewhat less comfortable or natural than our preferred direction of information flow. I would say that this is the primary way in which we are able to comprehend how other types think.

That said, what I'm talking about with the pairing of functions isn't really directly related to information flow, which is why I didn't include the arrows on my diagram. An LII dealing with Fi matters could do so by emulating an IEE's Ne-->Fi cognition style, and would find that less stressful than emulating the ESI's Fi-->Se style (i.e., the LII Super-Ego).

In your observations of how people respond to pressure on the Role function, did you take into account whether that pressure was of a "plus" or "minus" nature? For example, have you observed whether an LII responds to Fi pressure from an ESI in the same way that he responds to Fi pressure from an EII?

Anyway, what I'm saying is not so much that the Role function is not linked to the Vulnerable, but that types prefer it when the Role function is linked to the Creative, and the Vulnerable to the Base. Obviously the cycle of information flow still occurs, and Fi still influences Se, etc.

Originally Posted by Ashton
I just read it twice over again, and I'm still not seeing how this isn't a recapitulation of the patently obvious. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the crux of your 'theory' here boils down to:

"The idea is pretty simple. We prefer to use our valued functions, and prefer not to use our unvalued functions unless we really have to."

Yet this was already denoted by the nomenclature 'valued' to begin with. From there, it makes intuitive sense that a type might be less bothered by unvalued IEs of an adjacent quadra in comparison to their opposing quadra.
Well yeah, that's obvious. My point is that it's this tendency which could explain why for example an LIE can be said to value +Fe, but not -Fe, rather than having to resort to having a whole extra layer of personality as Model B proposes.

What's your opinion on Model B, by the way?

Originally Posted by labcoat
the way hitta explained it to me way, way back when, Te+ is in a sense "the same function" as Ti-, the same going for any pair of functions sharing the T/F/N/S aspect and being opposite in i/e and +/-. Something similar was always shown in the "model B updated Model A" diagrams that were posted at times. Gulenko has also repeatedly confirmed in his writings that this is the assumption he works from (trevor posted about this a while ago).
I can see how +Te and -Ti could be considered "the same function" in a figurative sense of being "the flip side of the coin", i.e., when you have one, you always have the other as well. But if what you're saying is that they're literally the same function, then I don't think that makes much sense. They deal with quite distinct types of information, for one thing (accurate categorization on the one hand, and productive action on the other). They also always have different strengths -- in an LII, Ti is 4-dimensional, and Te is 3-dimensional. You could just as easily say that +Te and +Fi are "the same function", since they always occur together, and in an LII they're also only one level of dimensionality apart (3d Te and 2d Fi).

Originally Posted by labcoat
the implication of this would be that the INTj doesn't use Ne and Fi combinedly as shown in your diagram. that is closer to the standard model A assumption of how "similar" types and ways of thinking of types are, and how micro-type-changes could conceivably happen between types in a temporary manner. the model B assumption is that Fi+ is what an INTj expects from it's dual, not what it uses itself.

instead, the INTj has the option of using Te+ and/or Ni-, thus leading to a behavioral pattern akin to those of ESTj and ENFj. these types could then be hypothesized to be more like semi-identicals than like semi-duals to the type.
I would say that LII prefers to use Te in conjunction with Si, and when doing so can appear similar to an LSE or SLI (using "+Te"). Likewise, an LII prefers to use Ni in conjunction with Fe, and when doing so can appear similar to an EIE or IEI (using "-Ni"). But given the normal direction of information flow in an LII, I would say that LII would actually tend to be more often similar to SLI and IEI than LSE and EIE, which is borne out in the frequency of mistypings -- people much more readily mistype LII as SLI or IEI than LSE or EIE.

9. I can see how +Te and -Ti could be considered "the same function" in a figurative sense of being "the flip side of the coin", i.e., when you have one, you always have the other as well. But if what you're saying is that they're literally the same function, then I don't think that makes much sense. They deal with quite distinct types of information, for one thing (accurate categorization on the one hand, and productive action on the other). They also always have different strengths -- in an LII, Ti is 4-dimensional, and Te is 3-dimensional. You could just as easily say that +Te and +Fi are "the same function", since they always occur together, and in an LII they're also only one level of dimensionality apart (3d Te and 2d Fi).
the addition of a new postulate can change theories as a whole. it is not a change to reality that we are discussing, but a change to our way of modeling reality. with this in mind, i don't find anything shocking about discarding one or two tenets in another obscure theory such as dimensionality in order to examine whether the new postulate can bring clarity. mix and match and see what you end up with. none of the postulates are unchallengeable absolutes.

and yes, the new way of looking at the functions changes our understanding of what a function is in the first place. this understanding is also not locked down to empirical absolutes, so it can be changed.

I would say that LII prefers to use Te in conjunction with Si, and when doing so can appear similar to an LSE or SLI (using "+Te"). Likewise, an LII prefers to use Ni in conjunction with Fe, and when doing so can appear similar to an EIE or IEI (using "-Ni"). But given the normal direction of information flow in an LII, I would say that LII would actually tend to be more often similar to SLI and IEI than LSE and EIE, which is borne out in the frequency of mistypings -- people much more readily mistype LII as SLI or IEI than LSE or EIE.
this is something that has been discussed by both me and Gulenko in earlier posts. the key to the issue is that Rational/Irrational is a "deep" trait, while Introvert/Extrovert is a "shallow" one. the latter interferes more with the typing process, but has less of an effect on intertype relations, which are a better benchmark of what is going on on a fundamental rather than shallowly apparent level. in addition to this i don't share the intuition that the J types are "similar" to their benefit counterpart P types in anything more than a really superficial sense. as far as i'm concerned the J/P trait is the one that remains stable beyond the faintest doubt.

another thing: the i/e and +/- inverted (or, as we might as well call them, ID) functions provide the means for an introverted type to behave extrovertedly (and vice versa) under the J/P stabilization assumption. this is something i find highly agreeable to observation. a change in rational/irrational requires way, way too much of an identity warp to be tenable. again: rational/irrational is the deep, structural trait. introvert/extrovert is just a surface aspect.

also: Gulenko unequivocally agrees with me on this. J/P stabilization it is.

10. Originally Posted by Ashton
Right.

I've always seen +/- IE distinctions as a redundant construct. For instance, '+Fe' is the same as saying "Fe paired with valued Se" or simply 'FeSe'. While '-Fi' would be equivalent to 'FiNi', etc.

That's how I prefer to think of these anyway, instead of introducing +/- into the picture. Neither conception being right or wrong per se, more a matter of taste than anything.

Naturally, it would follow that an LIE would tend to experience 'FeSe' (≈β) > 'FeNe' (≈α) as the more tolerable variant of Fe overall.
Model B doesn't show that -Fe with +Si is Alpha and +Fe with -Ni is Beta.... it shows that Alpha also uses +Fi and -Se and Beta also uses -Fi and +Ne

11. Basically the gist of it is to show that the functions both inhale and exhale. Basically what model b says is that the person has to value one preference of a function over another. Pretend that you are sitting down not speaking to anyone. The person is still within visible view meaning that the person has to exist in a dichotomy created around visible behavior(Volatile expressive behavior v.s. Reserved isolated behavior). Basically Model B states that it is impossible to escape the valuing of a certain dichotomy of a function and doing so would be paradoxical. Therefore each function has to have both an extroverted and an introverted valuation that fills out the perceptive awareness.

12. Originally Posted by labcoat
this is something that has been discussed by both me and Gulenko in earlier posts. the key to the issue is that Rational/Irrational is a "deep" trait, while Introvert/Extrovert is a "shallow" one. the latter interferes more with the typing process, but has less of an effect on intertype relations, which are a better benchmark of what is going on on a fundamental rather than shallowly apparent level. in addition to this i don't share the intuition that the J types are "similar" to their benefit counterpart P types in anything more than a really superficial sense. as far as i'm concerned the J/P trait is the one that remains stable beyond the faintest doubt.

also: Gulenko unequivocally agrees with me on this. J/P stabilization it is.
Really? That sounds soundly sound as some of my private observation, being that ie. ILE and LII are considerably different types yet both have similar introverted tendencies, while other I/E tendencies are often unclear and vary. This must be why Gulenko's descriptions don't weigh heavily on that dichotomy.

I also have a tendency to get typed ILE around here and part of the reasoning that I'm introverted, nonenergetic, unlike an MBTI ENTP, does not seem to weigh very much into account, because I'm seen as indisputably Ne and irrational. I easily relate to how ILEs are portrayed in descriptions, probably the most, except when they speak of most of their extroversions. Though yours and others opinions will unfailingly differ on the matter.

13. OK the different signs in Model B mean a difference in approach. Might as well work them out... basically to understand it you need to understand that the subfunctions are being used for a different purpose.

I've been doing some research, and that I can tell, until you pass the first stage of individuation, the inner track is locked out for your fear of being against your type. When you come to terms with your shadow, you get the ability to use the id functions as a reference point for your ego functions, the super-id as a reference for your superego, etc. This gives you a much stronger sense of reality that makes you much more self-confident, the idea being that you "know" that the state of one function signifies the state of the other, thus you're able to process the concept of "evidence". For Te there is Ti, for Si Se, for Fi Fe, and so on.

You can also access the inner track directly, by sublimating the outer track (your model A) in your subconscious. When you get "very serious" about something, this is what you do. Because the inner track uses different functions, it's very difficult to analyze yourself while using it... it essentially takes you over in a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde kind of way. Because of this it's more difficult to study than Model A.

14. Originally Posted by hitta
Model B doesn't show that -Fe with +Si is Alpha and +Fe with -Ni is Beta.... it shows that Alpha also uses +Fi and -Se and Beta also uses -Fi and +Ne
Model A also shows us that, although without the arrows diagramming the ring, it's not easy to see it among the claims.

15. Consider Fe as an example. Beta Fe observes anger, rage. It recognizes it and asks "why?" The answer is always frustration of a kind, which can be expressed as being unable to attain a desired goal. So Fe is anchored by Fi. Beta NFs will prod people for their motives and desires... this is why they are so very perceptive.

16. Another thing, Model B means whatever you want it to... it's a system with 16 functions that involve all the information elements in one capacity or another. So it can also be used to model attitudes as well, by contrasting positive and negative forms of the elements (not to confused with "+" and "-").

17. Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
In my experience, the observable portions of the Model B hypothesis seem to be borne out pretty well. LIIs do seem uncomfortable with strong expressions of +Fe, and do tend to advocate behaviour matching +Fi. SLIs do seem largely uninterested in +Si, and to some degree appreciate -Ti input. And so on. However, recently I have begun to think that there is a way to explain these observations without resorting to a second layer of personality as Model B does.
Could you please explain those? What observations - therefore excluding the Model B assertions - confirm those interactions happening? Using really +/- to justify them, one performs circular reasoning, otherwise the interactions are explained through Model A: eg LII and EIE are Semi-Duals. So the question is: what is this "strong expressions of +Fe" LIIs are uncomfortable with, how is it differentiated from "strong expressions of Fe" without relying on Model B?

18. Originally Posted by The Ineffable
Could you please explain those? What observations - therefore excluding the Model B assertions - confirm those interactions happening? Using really +/- to justify them, one performs circular reasoning, otherwise the interactions are explained through Model A: eg LII and EIE are Semi-Duals. So the question is: what is this "strong expressions of +Fe" LIIs are uncomfortable with, how is it differentiated from "strong expressions of Fe" without relying on Model B?
LIIs tend to be somewhat uncomfortable around strong expressions of anger, for example, but respond positively to strong expressions of happiness. LSIs, who value +Fe, are comfortable with both anger and happiness.

The best example of the difference between -Si and +Si that I've noticed is with the weather. When it's raining, Deltas invariably complain about how miserable the weather is. Alphas, on the other hand, often enjoy the rain. Deltas are thinking about how the rain is affecting them practically speaking (Si+Te), because they can't get outside and mow the lawn/plant crops/etc., while Alphas are thinking about how the rain is affecting them emotionally (Si+Fe), how the rain creates a certain peaceful mood, etc. So Delta -Si ends up being concerned with reducing negative Si, while Alpha +Si winds up being concerned with maximizing positive Si.

19. i love the rain

20. Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
LIIs tend to be somewhat uncomfortable around strong expressions of anger, for example, but respond positively to strong expressions of happiness. LSIs, who value +Fe, are comfortable with both anger and happiness.

The best example of the difference between -Si and +Si that I've noticed is with the weather. When it's raining, Deltas invariably complain about how miserable the weather is. Alphas, on the other hand, often enjoy the rain. Deltas are thinking about how the rain is affecting them practically speaking (Si+Te), because they can't get outside and mow the lawn/plant crops/etc., while Alphas are thinking about how the rain is affecting them emotionally (Si+Fe), how the rain creates a certain peaceful mood, etc. So Delta -Si ends up being concerned with reducing negative Si, while Alpha +Si winds up being concerned with maximizing positive Si.
Good observations. I think we're just about ready to create a theory of the "function" proper, but the problem is the means of diagramming the relationship. My instinct is that only a 3-D model can be an effective illustration.

I find it interesting that the general bent of the functions is to maintain or produce a positive state, but liberals and conservatives disagree on the method by which to achieve the function's end. It's a matter of exalting one subelement, while minimizing attention to the opposite subelement as such.

Compare, for example, Obama's approach to effective government and resource allocation, to the approach of Scott Walker in Wisconsin. Both are SLI as evidenced by their beta Fe catastrophes and obsession with reforming government, but they seem to go into two very different directions in terms of their delta Te manipulations. Walker seems to believe that decreasing delta Te will improve delta Si, where Obama believes that increasing it will create the most improvement.

21. Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
Model B proposes that each Information Element can be divided into two versions: a "plus" version (also known as "expanding") and a "minus" version (also known as "reducing"). To hold these sixteen elements, Model B proposes a sixteen-function information metabolism model. In addition to the regular "Model A", it proposes a second layer of personality called the "Shadow". The Shadow is a duplicate of Model A, containing the opposite-polarity versions of the Information Elements.

(Note that the above diagram from Bukalov's website contains an error: the polarities of in the left-most figure should be reversed.)

For example, in Model B an LII has -Ti and +Ne in his Ego, and +Ti and -Ne in his Shadow Ego. He has -Fe and +Si in his Super-Id, and +Fe and -Si in his Shadow Super-Id, etc.

When an element of one polarity is valued, the other polarity is unvalued. Consequently, the Ego contains strong valued functions, while the Shadow Ego contains strong unvalued functions; the Super-Ego contains weak unvalued functions, while the Shadow Super-Ego contains weak valued functions, etc. So an LII would value -Ti, +Ne, -Fe, +Si, +Fi, -Se, +Te, -Ni, and would not value +Ti, -Ne, +Fe, -Si, -Fi, +Se, -Te, +Ni.

The plus and minus versions of the IEs are often dismissed as being another way of saying which element they're blocked with: -Ti being Ti blocked with Ne, and +Ti being Ti blocked with Se, etc. But in Model B, this is not always the case. In the Shadow, -Ti is sometimes blocked with +Se, and +Ti with -Ne. This is sometimes pointed to as evidence that plus/minus is more than just a different way of stating which element is blocked with which, and that it in some way reflects an intrinsic property of the elements themselves.

In my experience, the observable portions of the Model B hypothesis seem to be borne out pretty well. LIIs do seem uncomfortable with strong expressions of +Fe, and do tend to advocate behaviour matching +Fi. SLIs do seem largely uninterested in +Si, and to some degree appreciate -Ti input. And so on. However, recently I have begun to think that there is a way to explain these observations without resorting to a second layer of personality as Model B does.

The idea is pretty simple. We prefer to use our valued functions, and prefer not to use our unvalued functions unless we really have to. An LII prefers to use Ti + Ne, and finds using Fi + Se to be uncomfortable. And we know that Information Elements are used in pairs. So when we are using an unvalued function, it seems to me that we would have a tendancy to pair it with a valued function rather than an unvalued one. After all, why use two unvalued functions when you can get away with using only one?

In the case of an LII, when he finds it necessary to deal with Fi matters, he would tend to find it preferable to pair his unvalued Fi with his valued Ne, rather than his unvalued Se. Or when an LII has to deal with Se matters, he would find it less objectionable to pair his Se with Ti instead of Fi. Conversely, LII values Ti, but prefers to pair it with Ne, finding the pairing of Ti with Se to be strange and less comfortable. In this way, we arrive at a picture of an LII who strongly values Ti+Ne, strongly devalues Fi+Se, and sort of half-values Fi+Ne and Ti+Se. This eliminates the need for Model B's second layer of personality, and in my opinion actually matches the observable behaviour of types more closely, by introducing a level of value between "valued" and "unvalued".

Unless there are additional aspects of Model B that I am not aware of, I believe that my theory fully explains all plus/minus related phenomena without resorting to adding Model B's second layer of personality. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if someone else had proposed this idea before, although if someone has I have not yet seen it anywhere.

I'm interested in your opinions and observations on this matter.
plus and minus covered here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=28365

rest of the stuff also goes without saying, of course you would rather use your valued functions..I dont see how any of this is new stuff?

22. Originally Posted by labcoat
the addition of a new postulate can change theories as a whole. it is not a change to reality that we are discussing, but a change to our way of modeling reality. with this in mind, i don't find anything shocking about discarding one or two tenets in another obscure theory such as dimensionality in order to examine whether the new postulate can bring clarity. mix and match and see what you end up with. none of the postulates are unchallengeable absolutes.

and yes, the new way of looking at the functions changes our understanding of what a function is in the first place. this understanding is also not locked down to empirical absolutes, so it can be changed.
The thing about discarding theoretical tenets is that you've got to come up with a new way to explain the evidence that those tenets were created to explain in the first place. How does your theory explain the observable differences in functions' frequency of use, which Dimensionality used to explain? For example, LIIs observably use Te less frequently than Ni, and Ne less frequently than Ti, whereas ILEs are the reverse. Does your theory have an explanation for that, or does it simply deny that there is an observable difference at all?

Originally Posted by labcoat
this is something that has been discussed by both me and Gulenko in earlier posts. the key to the issue is that Rational/Irrational is a "deep" trait, while Introvert/Extrovert is a "shallow" one. the latter interferes more with the typing process, but has less of an effect on intertype relations, which are a better benchmark of what is going on on a fundamental rather than shallowly apparent level. in addition to this i don't share the intuition that the J types are "similar" to their benefit counterpart P types in anything more than a really superficial sense. as far as i'm concerned the J/P trait is the one that remains stable beyond the faintest doubt.
I would agree that Introvert/Extravert is not a particularly "deep" trait, as it merely reflects the order of the two functions in the Ego. However, I'm not entirely sure how J/P could be said to be any "deeper" than I/E -- it's also merely a reflection of the order of the two Ego functions. From what I can see, Static/Dynamic and Evolutory/Involutory are much "deeper" traits, as they're what determines the nature and order of the Ego functions, respectively. Quadra values also seem deeper than J/P, and have a much stronger effect on intertype relations.

Do you have a link to the article in which Gulenko talked about this? I don't necessarily take everything he says as gospel, mind you, but he usually has an interesting perspective on things.

Originally Posted by labcoat
another thing: the i/e and +/- inverted (or, as we might as well call them, ID) functions provide the means for an introverted type to behave extrovertedly (and vice versa) under the J/P stabilization assumption. this is something i find highly agreeable to observation. a change in rational/irrational requires way, way too much of an identity warp to be tenable. again: rational/irrational is the deep, structural trait. introvert/extrovert is just a surface aspect.

also: Gulenko unequivocally agrees with me on this. J/P stabilization it is.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that an LII, when behaving extravertedly, will rely on Te to do so rather than Ne? In my experience, this depends to a great extent on the setting and the individual person. It's more related to the Persona and type masks than anything else, which can use any functions in the psyche to try to project a certain type of behaviour for a certain type of situation.

Again, if you have a link to Gulenko's discussion of this topic, I'd be interested to see it.

Originally Posted by Ashton
I've always seen +/- IE distinctions as a redundant construct. For instance, '+Fe' is the same as saying "Fe paired with valued Se" or simply 'FeSe'. While '-Fi' would be equivalent to 'FiNi', etc.

That's how I prefer to think of these anyway, instead of introducing +/- into the picture. Neither conception being right or wrong per se, more a matter of taste than anything.

Naturally, it would follow that an LIE would tend to experience 'FeSe' (≈β) > 'FeNe' (≈α) as the more tolerable variant of Fe overall.
Ah, ok. I guess the difference is that I find that explanation to be too general to be satisfying. It immediately raises questions such as "Why should having valued Se/Ni have any effect on how one uses Fe? Aren't they separate functions?" and "Why should a Gamma type prefer Fe from an Se-valuing type over Fe from an Ne-valuing type? Aren't they both Fe?"

Model B attempts to answer those questions by proposing that +Fe and -Fe are not a consequence of which elements they're blocked with, but are in fact separate elements unto themselves, eight of which reside in the conscious psyche, and eight of which reside in the Shadow. But to me that just raises further questions, such as "Why is +Fe always blocked with -Ni in the Ego? Why are there no types with +Fe and -Si in the Ego, as occurs in the Shadow Ego?"

So essentially my big long post up there is an attempt to answer the question "Why should having valued Se/Ni have any effect on how one uses Fe," without resorting to using Model B, i.e., "Information Elements can't function on their own, but must work in conjunction with adjacent elements. Fe working in conjunction with Ni works differently from Fe working in conjunction with Si, and we prefer to use IE pairs with at least one valued element in them, rather than two unvalued elements."

You may see that level of detail as being unecessary or irrelevent; you're free to do so. Obviously, I disagree.

Originally Posted by thePirate
plus and minus covered here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=28365

rest of the stuff also goes without saying, of course you would rather use your valued functions..I dont see how any of this is new stuff?

23. Originally Posted by Krig
The thing about discarding theoretical tenets is that you've got to come up with a new way to explain the evidence that those tenets were created to explain in the first place. How does your theory explain the observable differences in functions' frequency of use, which Dimensionality used to explain? For example, LIIs observably use Te less frequently than Ni, and Ne less frequently than Ti, whereas ILEs are the reverse. Does your theory have an explanation for that, or does it simply deny that there is an observable difference at all?
it does exactly that. i have not personally detected any observable difference of the kind you mention. that part of dimensionality theory could be entirely fictional. it's one of the reason why i have always rejected that theory, or rather, dismissed it as irrelevant because it's claim is interchangeable to the postulation of such an observability when i see no real evidence of it in my own experiences.

dimensionality theory basically claims that INTjs' understanding and operation of Ni and Te is more similar to that of INTps than to that of ENTjs. my experiences have been the complete opposite. ENTjs' claims are in a sense contrary to my way of thinking, but easy to follow and understand. INTp thoughts are more like unguided projectiles that i have no business trying to anticipate or connect with.

Originally Posted by Krig
I would agree that Introvert/Extravert is not a particularly "deep" trait, as it merely reflects the order of the two functions in the Ego. However, I'm not entirely sure how J/P could be said to be any "deeper" than I/E -- it's also merely a reflection of the order of the two Ego functions. From what I can see, Static/Dynamic and Evolutory/Involutory are much "deeper" traits, as they're what determines the nature and order of the Ego functions, respectively. Quadra values also seem deeper than J/P, and have a much stronger effect on intertype relations.

Do you have a link to the article in which Gulenko talked about this? I don't necessarily take everything he says as gospel, mind you, but he usually has an interesting perspective on things.
i prefer to define extroversion/introversion of types as follows, but the conclusion is largely the same:
Extrovert Type: Focal J, Diffuse P
Introvert Type: Focal P, Diffuse J
(Focal = Accepting/Dynamic, Creating/Static; Diffuse = Accepting/Static, Creating/Dynamic)

Evolution/Involution and the Quadra Values are also changed upon cross-over under the regular model (i.e. INTj being pitched between INFj and ISTj), so arguing about their degree of fixation won't help the case for such a model any more than it helps the case of the kind i propose.

i held similar views about Static/Dynamic at one point, but upon evaluation it makes perfect sense for a person to have access to both a mentality with attention to static models and maps of reality on one hand and dynamic observation patterns on the other. the everyday succession between action and thought tends to draw on a healthy balance of both these things.

Originally Posted by Krig
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that an LII, when behaving extravertedly, will rely on Te to do so rather than Ne? In my experience, this depends to a great extent on the setting and the individual person. It's more related to the Persona and type masks than anything else, which can use any functions in the psyche to try to project a certain type of behaviour for a certain type of situation.
for one thing i'm personally not a fan of associating the i/e aspect of functions with extroverted or introverted behavior. for another, both the adjacent ESTj and the adjacent ENFj mode of thinking would provide an avenue for extroverted behavior. the extroversion inherent to these types rather than their functions are what brings about extroverted behavior.

about Gulenko; here's one of Trevor's posts on a blog entry in which Gulenko discusses the issue:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...59&postcount=4