Se as a valued function of Delta, and other unexpected conclusions

[Nico1e]

I've become fascinated with the plus-and-minus version of Model A.



This actually seems to be of huge, and underappreciated, significance. Am I misunderstanding something, and getting all excited over nothing? At first it seemed like this was saying that (for instance, with a SLI) their base function was -Si, which I am very well aware of. However, there's also that little thing which we skim over and ignore - the +Se next to it.

The first dozen or so times that I read this chart, I just didn't know what to make of it. Since I don't speak Russian (yet), I only get the tiny scraps of information that people randomly throw at me. So I haven't seen any detailed explanation of why there are two functions in each box, why one of them is the opposite sign and vertedness of the other.

So I'm sort of doing this all by myself. I'm trying to imagine what if I actually have +Se as some part of my base function. Perhaps it is an underdeveloped or underappreciated part or shadow or something. I am remembering many things from my past - for instance, when I was fourteen years old or so, I stumbled upon a book called 'When I Say No I Feel Guilty,' which was a book about assertiveness training. I eagerly read the book and learned the techniques. And in fact I have always been interested in techniques and methods for influencing people through communication, persuading people, and so on, and that's one reason why I'm interested in socionics.

I also was always very interested in free will, very concerned when I didn't have it or when my freedom was taken away, and I also always had the feeling that I had a strong enough will to accomplish whatever I wanted (until a couple disasters happened, such as my becoming sick and then having 'unwanted mental phenomena,' but that was all later in life, not when I was young). I also like music that empowers me in a way that doesn't fit the descriptions of Si music (in Wikisocion), but seems to awaken something that better fits the description of Se.

There are other examples that I'm sure I'll remember later.

So after looking at this + and - chart with +Se as part of my base function somehow, I'm wondering if I actually have that side of me and didn't know what to look for or didn't know how to describe it. I want to know more about what it is, why there is a second function in the box, and whether anybody else can 'relate to' the 'other' function in your box on that chart.

http://forum.socionix.com/topic/51-l..._fromsearch__1
http://forum.socionix.com/topic/52-l..._fromsearch__1
http://forum.socionix.com/topic/53-l..._fromsearch__1

[Nico1e]

Volitional sensorika
************************************************** ***********
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ (short range)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A) the estimation of the external (form, physical force) and volitional qualities of individual person.

B) the skill to defend its personal interests: piercing power, persistence, confidence in itself, hardness.

C) the skill to mobilize itself and near environment to achieving personal of the goal presented, volitional pressure from bottom to top with the achievement of the objective.

D) tendency toward the retention of the authority: defensive tactics - protection, counterattack.

E) leadership (passive) in the small groups, the skill to estimate the arrangement of forces in such groups in the context of the leadership of individual people.

F) tendency toward the possession by material values as to attribute of power.

G) clear sensation itself and objects in the space, the organic nature of their arrangement: orientation in the specific locality (for example, city).

H) tendency toward the journeys (?), lung is overcoming space.

I) personal health as institute, force of will.

J) insubordination to the external superior forces (dispute), the subordination to itself of weak.

K) subordination to internal force.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (distant distance)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01) the estimation of the external (form, physical force) and volitional qualities of man, in the context of the capability of the latter for leadership and control.

02) the skill to defend the collective interests: piercing power, persistence, confidence in itself.

03) the assertion of its interests due to the collective: collective interests prevail and overgrow into the personal.

04) the skill to mobilize the large groups of people for achieving of the goal presented: exactingness, control, volitional pressure from top to bottom, the power methods of achievement of the objective.

05) the assumption of power, leadership: offensive tactics - attack, aggression, attack, initiative.

06) marginal importance to the possession of atributikoy authority.

07) the skill to estimate the arrangement of forces of the opposing groups: subordination to the external superior forces (collaboration), the destruction of weak.

08 ) the clear sensation of space around itself and objects, the sensation of the influence of space on the objects.

09) capability for overcoming of elements.

10) health as public institute.

********************************************
http://forum.socionix.com/topic/51-l..._fromsearch__1

That quote comes from that page.

This is still very interesting and important to me and I'm paying attention to it. It explains a lot of things that I valued and admired in myself and others, but could not explain as Si.

For instance, Andy Dufresne breaks out of Shawshank Prison. He uses his sheer will over years and years to break through a vulnerability in the wall. I don't call that Si, I call that Se. And it doesn't make sense to say that he's just using his ignore function, Se, and that he doesn't enjoy using his ignore function, and nobody in Delta admires him for using his ignore function. (By the way, I was imagining that Andy Dufresne was a SLI. Other people might disagree with me on that typing. So let's pretend that I am Andy Dufresne and we can all assume that I'm a SLI doing the same thing he did. Some other people might call him an LSI or something else.)

Instead, I, and other people, admire him for breaking out of jail. He was wrongly imprisoned and he was innocent. The jail was corrupt and they were not giving him a chance. His life was in danger and he was being physically attacked. Another man was killed whenever he gave evidence that Andy was innocent. So it makes sense that Andy would want to get out and run away and hide, to save his own life, and because he didn't deserve to be in jail.

But Andy didn't break through the wall by sitting there and feeling the sensation of hunger in his stomach (Si). He broke through the wall by looking at external physical objects, and noticing how they were vulnerable. And I'm cheering him on. I'm not sitting there going 'Yuck, you're using my ignore function!' Instead I'm going 'Yay! That's what I would want to do too!'

However, I can imagine that maybe there is a slightly different version of Se. Perhaps when Se is used in the way described as Se-, that's my ignore function, and that's the one that I dislike. In fact, the author in the article quoted describes the id functions as part of a 'phobia.' That is, in fact, my phobia, my fear. I don't like the law, I don't like the government, I don't like the idea that large groups of people are going to gang up on me and destroy me (well, nobody likes that idea). And in fact, I can't even talk about these ideas without sounding biased, because socionics is real: we have valued functions, and we have disvalued functions, and yeah, there will be things that I genuinely don't like at all.

So I am starting to make peace with the idea that Se+ is part of my base function, and I'm looking for it and understanding it. It makes so much more sense that way. I can see it in myself and in my past behavior and in my political beliefs. It makes sense to say that I'm able to use Se+ and have it feel natural and enjoyable instead of being an unpleasant, disvalued function that I only use because I have to. It also makes sense to say that there is a 'different kind' or 'different flavor' of Se, which I dislike and disvalue, and that's in my ignore function, alongside Si+.

It's true, however, that I don't use it as much as Si, or that I am not as aware of it, but I'm not sure about this theory or how the plus and minus signs are supposed to work - I get the impression that the one on the right is supposed to 'support' or 'work with' the one on the left. The one on the left is the most valued function, and the one on the right is there to support it and help it get what it needs. It fits so well with my political beliefs.

I only know that it makes me 'feel better' or 'feel more balanced' to view myself as somebody who uses both Si and Se in a particular way. The whole idea works better for me than just saying that I only prefer Si and nothing but that.

[Creepy-Snaps]

I don't think a plus means it's valued.

[Nico1e]

Yeah, I think from what I read, they picked the plus and minus signs just as a way of showing that there were two slightly different types of that function, but you're right, it doesn't mean it's valued, and it doesn't mean 'good' or 'bad.' The plus sign means that something is 'short term' or 'short distance' or something like that, and the minus sign means it's 'long term' or 'long distance' or something. But it didn't have to be plus and minus, it could have been any signs at all.

The only reason that I'm thinking it's valued is because + is in my base function to the right of -. I know that supposedly the SLI, and delta, values Si. But we don't usually say that they value Se at all. So this plus and minus thing is saying there are actually two kinds of Si, two kinds of Se, and all that, and we value one kind and we don't like the other kind. But you can value something that has a minus sign. The way to know if it's valued is if it's in your top row of boxes (the ego block) or the third row down (the super-id block). That was what I meant by valued.

[InkStrider]

I've not given much thought to how the +/- signs manifest for each function. I saw it simply as a more sophisticated way of saying that Se for instance is valued in Beta and Gamma but not in Delta. Delta for instance values: +Te/-Si/-Ne/+Fi and... -Ti/+Se/-Ni/+Fe according to the chart? I'm not sure how it's supposed to be interpreted.

Anyway, instead of saying that there are two types of Se and two types of Si, the other devalued Se is simply.. valued Si, since the extroverted function is always paired with its introverted counterpart. I'm inclined to dismiss it as unnecessary complicating. YMMV.

[Taknamay]

I think the plus minus signs have to do with means versus ends. And I agree that this seems like complicating a system just to explain very specific behaviors. Model A should already be able to explain which functions are used as mean and ends.

[Nico1e]

I think the plus minus signs have to do with means versus ends. And I agree that this seems like complicating a system just to explain very specific behaviors. Model A should already be able to explain which functions are used as mean and ends.

It's probably fine for everyone else for the time being to just keep doing it the usual way instead of doing it this way. This is just something that I am trying to understand on my own, but was hoping/wondering if anyone else knew anything about it or agreed that it seemed interesting or agreed that it seemed to explain something that they had had trouble understanding. It might not be useful to everyone.

I'm thinking that the function on the right side is somehow a 'support function' that serves the function on the left, and it's only used temporarily, but I'm too exhausted to go read the other threads that have talked about it. I know there are some other threads, I just find them difficult to read.

[EyeSeeCold]

I think the plus minus signs have to do with means versus ends. And I agree that this seems like complicating a system just to explain very specific behaviors. Model A should already be able to explain which functions are used as mean and ends.

I've not given much thought to how the +/- signs manifest for each function. I saw it simply as a more sophisticated way of saying that Se for instance is valued in Beta and Gamma but not in Delta. Delta for instance values: +Te/-Si/-Ne/+Fi and... -Ti/+Se/-Ni/+Fe according to the chart? I'm not sure how it's supposed to be interpreted.

Anyway, instead of saying that there are two types of Se and two types of Si, the other devalued Se is simply.. valued Si, since the extroverted function is always paired with its introverted counterpart. I'm inclined to dismiss it as unnecessary complicating. YMMV.

Due to the nature of the situation, Model A, as it is, is more of a simplification. What +/- implicates could be understood intuitively, but so far it seems the implications have gone largely unnoticed.

[InkStrider]

Due to the nature of the situation, Model A, as it is, is more of a simplification. What +/- implicates could be understood intuitively, but so far it seems the implications have gone largely unnoticed.

What are your observations regarding this? Have you found it to be of any merit?

[EyeSeeCold]

What are your observations regarding this? Have you found it to be of any merit?

It aids in clearing type confusions by unearthing type capabilities. There were similarities I picked up on between unlikely types and to my surprise those happened to be explained with +/-.

For example, ESE, SEI, EII and IEE are all bounded by Judicious(Ne/Si) Ethics(F), or to use the despised stereotype, Infantile Ethics. I won't say they're all infantile by definition, but enough observations of people who represent these types and you can see what I mean.



It's a more comprehensive(and accurate, I would say) function set, to be short. But it works best when you have ample observational information to do some comparisons.

[Jonathan]

Actually, I think the +/- version shown in the OP is called Model B, and it's fundamentally different from Model A.
Hitta was the one who interpreted +/- to mean something somewhat equivalent to valued/unvalued.
As I pointed out back then, that interpretation results in what I called "left-shifting"...e.g., basically in that system, you'd be equivalent to the type to the left of you in Model A. So for example, an ILI in +/- would be an IEI in regular Socionics. Or an IEE in +/- would be an ESI in regular. ...and so forth.

[WVBRY]

Smilingeyes interpreted them to mean that they are simply concrete or abstract versions of the elemnts. Ie - is more of a theoretical version of while + is appiled more to specific sitiations.

[EyeSeeCold]

Smilingeyes interpreted them to mean that they are simply concrete or abstract versions of the elemnts. Ie - is more of a theoretical version of while + is appiled more to specific sitiations.

A new thread of awareness and reconciliation might be in order.

- Is the full Model A really the same as Model B?
- Is Smilingeyes' "'cool/distant/ascending/searching/abstract aka -functions' & 'warm/close/descending/asserting aka +functions'" the same as +/- in full Model A?
- Is Hitta discussing the same subject as labocat, re: Taciturn/Narrator functions?

[krieger]

- Is Hitta discussing the same subject as labocat, re: Taciturn/Narrator functions?

my model basically takes the "Model B" that hitta speaks about to it's logical conclusion, creates a compact formulation of the claims and renders the old model obsolete.

my Focal/Diffuse dichotomy does the same thing to the "dominant function" paradigm and the Reinin dichotomies.

the problem with the Model B proper is that, like Model A, it creates all kinds of imaginary, mystical entities of which the postulation has no operational consequences. so you're better off removing them entirely and working with something more compact.

[The Ineffable]

my Focal/Diffuse dichotomy does the same thing to the "dominant function" paradigm and the Reinin dichotomies.

Too bad that Focal/Diffuse is your failed attempt to understand Producing/Accepting. Involving Dynamic/Static made you focus on a certain aspect and loose the grip on the big picture, in the end even the "j" that Ij and Ej IEs have in common is just an analogy, not an concrete property they share.

[Hitta]

Actually, I think the +/- version shown in the OP is called Model B, and it's fundamentally different from Model A.Hitta was the one who interpreted +/- to mean something somewhat equivalent to valued/unvalued.As I pointed out back then, that interpretation results in what I called "left-shifting"...e.g., basically in that system, you'd be equivalent to the type to the left of you in Model A. So for example, an ILI in +/- would be an IEI in regular Socionics. Or an IEE in +/- would be an ESI in regular. ...and so forth.

nope, sorry... never said that

[Hitta]

From my determination of what +/- means in terms of model B is +(immersion) v.s. -(observation). + functions have a direct merging into the functional component. + functions have no layer or boundaries, as they have direct intuitive impact into the function component. - functions sort of have a boundary between self and the functional component which gives them a more complete look into the functional processing. For example, the difference between +Ni and -Ni. +Ni merges directly into the "wave" of society. They are very responsive to the overarching consciousness of society, they change with society, always attempting to find a degree of stability(-Si), direct connection without separation to these interactions. Typically thinks in terms of how they can be more responsible and connect more with people. -Ni on the other hand typically mentally sees the wave of society. They kind of see society as this big network of interactions taking place. Observers of interactions of time, always looking from the outside in. -Ni typically has a liking for "shocks" to the system and usually has a very personalized philosophy of life, typically are iconoclastic to some degree, and are often are proponents of change(+Si) and the unusual.

[mu4]

I'm not sure if that char has anything to do with +/- as far as Gulenko and the +/- hypothesis.

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Plus_and_minus

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/30-plus-minus-by-Victor-Gulenko

I think there may be a different version of +/- using the same terminology. +/- is based on the different expression of a function based on how it is blocked in the Ego/ID/Super-ego/Super-ID + !- + , and so on. I've included the wiki references and the cms reference on this site for any additional research.

[EyeSeeCold]

I'm not sure if that char has anything to do with +/- as far as Gulenko and the +/- hypothesis.

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Plus_and_minus

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/30-plus-minus-by-Victor-Gulenko

I think there may be a different version of +/- using the same terminology. +/- is based on the different expression of a function based on how it is blocked in the Ego/ID/Super-ego/Super-ID + !- + , and so on. I've included the wiki references and the cms reference on this site for any additional research.

They are the same, that's pretty clear. The approaches may not be the same though, Gulenko looks at the individual functions as he can theorize the effects of Process/Result that way. But like labocat stated, containing the functions as Taciturn/Narrator is a much better approach.

[Hitta]

Model B is pretty easy to deduce.

Using LII as an example. If Ti and Ne interact together and create a specialized set of functioning(-Ti and +Ne) the 7th and 8th function in model A would also create the specialized subset -Te and +Ni. The 7th and 8th functions are considered the universalized "shadow" functions of the 1st and 2nd functions. The shadow not only has to exist on the opposite plane(external v.s. internal), but on the same plane(internal v.s. internal or external v.s. external) otherwise the model doesn't make sense or is incomplete. The shadow of -Ti internally would be +Ti and the shadow of +Ne externally would be -Ne.

To sum up what I'm trying to say, Model A isn't mathematically coherent.

The only way that Model A would make sense is if the functions themselves are both introverted and extroverted, in which case the intended notation is horrible. That obviously isn't the case though as the functions are actually defined via information elements, as Augusta basically summed up the functions as being facets of reality by assigning the functions fixed points of reference.

= internal statics of objects (potentiality of object)
= external statics of objects ( outward traits of objects)
= external dynamics of objects (external activity of objects)
= internal dynamics of objects (internal activity of objects)
= internal dynamics of fields(intangible connections between processes separated in time and space)
= external dynamics of fields(tangible connections between processes happening in one place and time)
= external statics of fields(logical relationships between objects)
= internal statics of fields (subjective relationships between objects)



These are valued aspects of reality for every single individual.

can be roughly summed up as how the environment affects ones internal state. Everybody values their senses, as senses are a facet of reality that connects to all the other facets of reality. Everybody basically goes in 1 of 2 directions when it comes to senses(though really it probably is a combination of the 2 on different levels of the psyche). They try to balance their environment and create a sense of homeostasis(-), or they try to experience the new and original experiences(+). You cannot value or devalue completely as it is just a facet of existence.

[tcaudilllg]

internal dynamics of fields is just... fail. Not saying that it's not descriptive, but it suggests that Ni can't be understood. Ni is simply, the effects of Te and Fe.

[Hitta]

internal dynamics of fields is just... fail. Not saying that it's not descriptive, but it suggests that Ni can't be understood. Ni is simply, the effects of Te and Fe.

I didn't write that, I just copy and pasted it. The point I was trying to make is she defined the functions as aspects of reality.

[Jonathan]

You cannot value or devalue completely as it is just a facet of existence.

Actually, Model A deals with this. Models A and B just do it a different way. In Model A, the non-quadra functions aren't completely devalued; they're more de-emphasized. Basically, the valued functions are those one uses confidently oneself in social situations, or seeks in others to complete an essential side of oneself. The non-quadra functions are also used in day-to-day existence.

When you break things down further into +/-, the same basically situation is there....both sides are part of the complete life experience. For example, suppose you're correct that +Si is about experiencing new and original experiences and -Si is creating a sense of homeostasis. Surely a well-balanced, complete person creates homeostasis sometimes and seeks new experiences other times.

So again, just as in model A, the only reasonable explanation that's left is that "well, people emphasize one more than the other"....so the "problem" (if it is a problem) remains, only the number of functions is now doubled.

[Hitta]

Actually, Model A deals with this. Models A and B just do it a different way. In Model A, the non-quadra functions aren't completely devalued; they're more de-emphasized. Basically, the valued functions are those one uses confidently oneself in social situations, or seeks in others to complete an essential side of oneself. The non-quadra functions are also used in day-to-day existence.

When you break things down further into +/-, the same basically situation is there....both sides are part of the complete life experience. For example, suppose you're correct that +Si is about experiencing new and original experiences and -Si is creating a sense of homeostasis. Surely a well-balanced, complete person creates homeostasis sometimes and seeks new experiences other times.

So again, just as in model A, the only reasonable explanation that's left is that "well, people emphasize one more than the other"....so the "problem" (if it is a problem) remains, only the number of functions is now doubled.

Actually no, Model A hasn't ever been represented in that way. The whole concept of "Day to Day" crap that you are throwing out here is incompatible with the model of information metabolism. Model A is an external/internal and conscious/unconscious model that depicts how the human psyche takes in information and converts it into different forms across different layers of the psyche. You don't sweep floors with your POLR or jack off with your Role Function.The model is a depiction of information goes in and comes out.

[Jonathan]

The whole concept of "Day to Day" crap that you are throwing out here is incompatible with the model of information metabolism.

The idea that people use non-quadra functions privately in day-to-day life comes from Augusta. I forgot the quote, but I'll look for it if I have the time.

[Jonathan]

The whole concept of "Day to Day" crap that you are throwing out here is incompatible with the model of information metabolism.

I think I found the Augusta quote again, or at least one of them:

To satisfy his own needs, a person needs to have an idea of the entire reality around him. People cooperate in serving the needs of society; individuals communicate to the community their impressions of only certain aspects of reality. The mechanism for this phenomenon, in our present understanding, is quite simple: various aspects of reality are reflected in the human brain with differing degrees of differentiation and awareness. Aspects that the individual only uses for himself are reflected in general, composite form and are remembered as images, experience, and skills. Other aspects, which the individual communicates information about to society, are perceived in well-differentiated form with an accuracy that allows the individual to relate information verbally.

(Source: http://www.socionics.us/works/socion.shtml)

The idea here is that Augusta believed that people use for themselves all aspects of reality (which in this context means all information aspects), and that what differentiates the "strong" functions is that they're perceived with a greater accuracy and used socially and productively in society.

The idea of non-quadra functions as "not existing" for the individual is an alteration of Augusta's Model A, and it's the alteration that makes Model B or other such solutions appear necessary.

I'm not commenting here on the overall accuracy of one system or the other. Clearly, your interpretation of Model B results in different typings, as the more intellectual Gammas would need to be moved to Alpha, for example, compared to Augusta's model. But they're just two systems, and one or the other may eventually be found preferable. However, the argument that Augusta's model just doesn't work because it suggests a complete disregard of essential aspects of reality seems at odds with various things Augusta has written.

[Hitta]

I think I found the Augusta quote again, or at least one of them:



(Source: http://www.socionics.us/works/socion.shtml)

The idea here is that Augusta believed that people use for themselves all aspects of reality (which in this context means all information aspects), and that what differentiates the "strong" functions is that they're perceived with a greater accuracy and used socially and productively in society.

The idea of non-quadra functions as "not existing" for the individual is an alteration of Augusta's Model A, and it's the alteration that makes Model B or other such solutions appear necessary.

I'm not commenting here on the overall accuracy of one system or the other. Clearly, your interpretation of Model B results in different typings, as the more intellectual Gammas would need to be moved to Alpha, for example, compared to Augusta's model. But they're just two systems, and one or the other may eventually be found preferable. However, the argument that Augusta's model just doesn't work because it suggests a complete disregard of essential aspects of reality seems at odds with various things Augusta has written.

Actually no, that has nothing to do with the point you were making. Augusta actually made it well stated in several articles about how socionics models were only theoretical models. The idea that she had with types was that they were kind of like the things that stood out on a dominate level. This has nothing to do with the point I'm making and is actually entirely different than what Augusta is stating. Model A has nothing to do with that, as model A is just a cycle of information metabolism that leads up to the dominant functions. Model A doesn't even attempt to make any light about using devalued functions in a valued role. Model A is just a idealized model of information metabolism, it doesn't attempt to make any calculations of degrees of influence passed the metabolism protocol.

Also note, when you actually use those functions in the "day to day" capacity, they are in a conscious/valued vector, meaning you are actually metabolizing information in a way that is similar to another type.

[Jonathan]

Actually no, that has nothing to do with the point you were making. Augusta actually made it well stated in several articles about how socionics models were only theoretical models. The idea that she had with types was that they were kind of like the things that stood out on a dominate level. This has nothing to do with the point I'm making ....

Well, perhaps I'm not understanding you then. Let's take a step back and see if what I think you're saying is what you meant. You seem to agree with me that Augusta takes the "reasonable" approach of recognizing that people aren't locked into just using their Ego block functions and that they probably use all functions somewhat. But you seem to think that Model A, as an isolated thing apart from the larger context of Augusta's viewpoint, is more rigid and only allows people to make use of their ego block functions, or at least only their valued functions. And so you see Model B as the solution, because it puts some additional functions into the ego block, and also puts additional functions into the super id, so that all functions are "valued," albeit with different "signs." Is that kind of what you're saying, or are you saying something completely different?

[Hitta]

Well, perhaps I'm not understanding you then. Let's take a step back and see if what I think you're saying is what you meant. You seem to agree with me that Augusta takes the "reasonable" approach of recognizing that people aren't locked into just using their Ego block functions and that they probably use all functions somewhat. But you seem to think that Model A, as an isolated thing apart from the larger context of Augusta's viewpoint, is more rigid and only allows people to make use of their ego block functions, or at least only their valued functions. And so you see Model B as the solution, because it puts some additional functions into the ego block, and also puts additional functions into the super id, so that all functions are "valued," albeit with different "signs." Is that kind of what you're saying, or are you saying something completely different?

No, Model B doesn't solve that problem either, Model B solves a flaw in the actual process of the metabolism. If model A were a fluctuating stack blocks that said, "this works dominantly, this works somewhat dominantly, this works some and that works some", then I'd agree entirely that that you use all of your model A functions in day to day capacity. That is not what model A represents though, Model A represents information metabolism, it doesn't even have to deal with people. It just represents a function on different layers of the psyche. Ti ego is Fi Superego is Fe Super Id is Te Id. Model A is based on kempinski's information metabolism and shows how a function goes in and out the unconscious, and the conscious.... kind of like breathing. Model A is bound to information metabolism. When people use the day to day functions(as you were saying) they don't pull from the Super Ego or the Super Id, they actually metabolize information in another way. That was the point I was making with the binary model that I posted.

[Beautiful sky]

Anyway, instead of saying that there are two types of Se and two types of Si, the other devalued Se is simply.. valued Si, since the extroverted function is always paired with its introverted counterpart. I'm inclined to dismiss it as unnecessary complicating. YMMV.

Type this in the plus and minus

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Type this in the plus and minus

Values:
+ intelligence
- overcomplicated junk that can be better and more simply explained by existing concepts

[noid]

Hi all I take this thread because I found some mismatching information on plus and minus stuff... For example here : http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...lation-Model-A
At the end of the text there is the example of ILE wich have +Ne ego -Ni ID.
Just after, the table say that function of same type have same sign in individual, eg +Fe ego +Fi ID, +Te super ID +Ti super ego, ect.
Ive seen many other place where this conflicting information arise.

where is the truth ?

[SyrupDeGem]

I was reading the socionics definition and discussing last night with another fairly new to socionics person.... this may mean i could do with extra input. I was looking into the assertive/aggressive aspect. I understand it's not only this and do contribute to my understanding if you care to.

As far as i can tell i have a pretty good grasp of Se, it's not a natural state for me but i can be plenty assertive when i deem it necessary. I am naturally conflict avoidant but when in conflict....when i believe something is worth fighting for, I ardently stick to my assertive guns...and really ...you may want to take cover when this happens as I'm pretty unstoppable. It's not something i give much time/thought to, i know i am capable but i prefer not to go there (there are many preferable methods i would employ first) unless i deem it absolutely necessary.