Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: DCNH vs Accepting/Producing Subtypes

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    142
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default DCNH vs Accepting/Producing Subtypes

    Which subtype system is better and why? Thus far, it is my opinion that the acc/producing subtype system is superior because I a)can't decide on my dcnh subtype as I feel at least 2 sum what describe me...which makes me suspicious and b) the acc/producing system has worked very well for me.

  2. #2
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Inert/Contact
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    142
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    what is that?

  4. #4
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The only valid way that subtypes could be oriented, if they exist.

    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...rt_and_contact

    It still works on Base/Creative, but the exact functions strengthened as explained by Accepting/Producing is not what happens.

    IEE:


    Inert Subtype:
    Block Inert Contact
    Ego + -
    Super-Ego + -
    Super-Id + -
    Id + -
    Strengthening of NT processing



    Contact Subtype
    Block Inert Contact
    Ego - +
    Super-Ego - +
    Super-Id - +
    Id - +

    Strengthening of SF processing


    For Aristocratic types, it's Abstract/Involved subtype. For Democratic types, it's External/Internal subtype.

    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...mation-Aspects

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    Internal/External
    The existential nature of perceived information - contrived vs. extant

    Internal elements focus on information that arises purely as a result of experiential analysis. Intuition and Ethics do not analyze the concrete aspects of what is perceived, but rather the interpretive nature of whatever information they are exposed to.

    External elements examine information that arises as a direct result of existence, or its direct applicabilities or relations. Sensing and Logic focus on the immediate nature and properties of entities, and how they are relevant to other extant entities.



    Abstract/Involved
    The method of distillation of information - formulation vs. experience

    Abstract functions distill information by way of detached mental process: organizing matter into a functioning whole. Intuition and Logic both make cognitive deductions and take steps away from what is directly perceived in order to make sense of it.

    Involved functions distill information directly, and take it at its experiential face value. Sensing and Ethics do not question their perceptions, but rather experience them directly; their information does not require any analysis beyond the immediate perceptions through which they are received and the comparisons that can be made between them.
    Last edited by EyeSeeCold; 12-09-2011 at 10:42 PM.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  5. #5
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    Inert/Contact
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/149-The-concept-of-vertical-sub-types

    Going to open up this article, I would like some translation if anyone can help!

  6. #6
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    Inert/Contact
    But Inert/Contact itself contradicts the principle of discreetness of Model A. While you inferrence could have been correct, it is based on an existing fallacious premise, an equivocation that takes the accumulation of information as a function development.

    By the way, only with the three function dichotomies found in classical Socionics someone can be sure of. Some later additions are based on a different understanding than originally intended (Aushra's).
    - Accepting/Producing
    - Strong/Weak
    - Mental/Vital
    Last edited by The Ineffable; 12-10-2011 at 03:44 PM.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  7. #7
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The subtypes I know of, including Acc/Prod, are behavioral and fall out of the scope of Socionics per se. The correct understanding of the IEs and IM model excludes them. While the observations they are based on are not dismissed by Socionics, they fall in the category "different ways of development/behavior", which I'm sure they cannot be restricted to precisely 2 sybtypes per type, unless we want to, picking an arbitrary aspect.

    I want to make an analogy, that helps understanding what the IAs and functions are and what they are not. Take this dichotomy: Real/Imaginary [1]. A known object can normally be either real or imaginary, nothing in-between. This corresponds to an Information Aspect [2]. However, there are people who may:
    - never treat other than real as real and imaginary as imaginary (|)
    - only treat real objects as imaginary (->)
    - only treat imaginary objects as real (<-)
    - do both (<->)
    - (could be other possibilities)

    I bolded "may" for a precise reason: we are talking about a type of person, not a predominant behavior. So far, we obtained 4 types. Where is the difference, or can be there people who may treat few or most objects one manner, the rest in different manners? - you may ask. The answer to the latter question is yes, but that is unrelated to the type. If it is not already obvious, I'm pointing it out: a person may fall under only one of the types, it is impossible to mix them (the model already covers all the possibilities) and since one's mindset permits some but forbids others, it is totally irrelevant whether that person actually does do it or to what degree.

    A consequence of the above is that the dichotomy itself is not understood the same way by all the types: it is all relative to the type, and a high level of abstractization is required to understand the architectonic of the model.
    ---

    [1] - closer related to External (S, T)/Internal (N, F), than to others Socionics dichotomies, still an arbitrary and unrelated one within the scope of this explanation.
    [2] - though it is not, it is just an easy to understand analogy.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  8. #8
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    But Inert/Contact itself contradicts the principle of discreetness of Model A. While you inferrence could have been correct, it is based on an existing fallacious premise, an equivocation that takes the accumulation of information as a function development.

    By the way, only with the three function dichotomies found in classical Socionics someone can be sure of. Some later additions are based on a different understanding than originally intended (Aushra's).
    - Accepting/Producing
    - Strong/Weak
    - Mental/Vital
    The concept of "subtype" arises from the thought that it's possible a type may emphasize its first or second function. No doubt this could be explained psychologically, but this is typology, therefore "subtypes" must exist within the models of Socionics if there are to be any subtypes.

    Model A fleshes out Jung's theory into a full 8 function pathway of information which provides for 16 unique types. In this 8 function pathway, the divide created by the concept of "subtype" has Model A split between either Accepting/Producing, Inert/Contact, or Bold/Cautious. At the level of the Ego Block, there is a simultaneous split of: Accepting-Bold-Inert / Producing-Cautious-Contact. If the Ego Block is the most important perspective of a type, then the aforementioned split is the lowest common denominator subtypes should be looked at, not Accepting/Producing.

    However, if looked beyond the Ego, it becomes apparent that if functional strengthening is existent, then Accepting(1,3,5,7)/Producing(2,4,6,8) is invalid and not the correct pole of orientation. It is invalid for the fact that it contradicts the most fundamental principle of typology - polarity, that strength in one function equals weakness in its opposite. It is contradictory for a types 1st and 5th function to be strengthened concurrently, and it implies subtypes are oriented along Rational/Irrational or Judging/Perceiving, when it is known that functions of opposite temperaments reside within Rational and Irrational so this is impossible to manifest in a type.

    Bold(1,3,6,8)/Cautious(2,4,5,7) is oriented along Extraverted/Introverted. This would most likely be Jung's subtype system if he ever developed one for it explains a type's relation to its Jungian Consciousness or Unconsciousness(Jung primarily considered only the first function to be conscious). Yet it is also contradictory from both a Socionics and Jungian standpoint for the same reason given previously. Bold/Cautious simultaneously allows for a strengthening of N and S or T and F, which goes against the principle of function polarity.

    DCNH as a static subtype system also contradicts the discreteness of functions and fixed system of types and could only exist as a referential model of energetic social orientation(dominating, creating, normalizing, harmonizing).




    You mentioned the Strong/Weak dichotomy. Indeed it is one of the most important dichotomies and aspects of typology. Whether Jungian typology, MBTI or Socionics, it is undisputedly agreed that the strength of the Ego functions implies an inescapable and simultaneous strength in the respective shadow functions(referred to as the Id). This must be acknowledged for any subtype system derived in Socionics.

    On to the final dichotomy, Inert/Contact, here there is a strengthening of 1,4,6,7/2,3,5,8. It is the only dichotomy, from the listed possible dichotomous subtype splits, that is in concordance with the principle of polarity. A type's Strong functions are 1,2,7,8; if these are split along Inert/Contact we have a divide of 1,7(4,6)/2,8(3,5). In words, what there is left is a Strong 1st and 7th function versus a Strong 2nd and 8th function, this follows the principle of polarity and function strength(e.g. an NT type has Strong Ni and Ne; and Strong Ti and Te). There are no functional nor principal contradictions with the application of this subtype system and therefore must be the valid functional split out of the other two(Bold/Cautious, Accepting/Producing).


    Whether the type is Base function subtype or Creative function subtype will determine which grouping is strengthened: the 1st and 7th or the 2nd and 8th. In the example of IEE, the conclusion is that Inert IEE subtype directs more energy to NTp processing(resembling INTp) while Contact IEE subtype directs more energy to SFp processing(resembling ISFp). This conclusion is backed by the Reinin quaternion(#33) of Positivist/Negativist + Rational/Irrational + Asking/Declaring.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    142
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    sorry for my ignorance on this subject but...I don't see a huge difference b/w inert/contact and acc/producing. I do with dcnh obviosuly. But in the former, it seems both systems talk of one subtype having a stronger dominant function and the other having a stronger creative..

  10. #10
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gooey View Post
    sorry for my ignorance on this subject but...I don't see a huge difference b/w inert/contact and acc/producing. I do with dcnh obviosuly. But in the former, it seems both systems talk of one subtype having a stronger dominant function and the other having a stronger creative..
    At the level of the Ego Block(Base and Creative), there is a simultaneous split of: Accepting-Bold-Inert / Producing-Cautious-Contact.

    The differences come in when people look beyond the Ego, at the other affected functions and in how function subtypes are interpreted according to a dichotomy(what is Accepting? Producing? Inert? Contact?). If only looking at the Ego, then there is no relevant manifested and observable difference.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    142
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    interesting...and why don't you like dcnh? I don't think i'm a fan myself and am curious

  12. #12
    silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    TIM
    Ni-IEI sx/sp
    Posts
    3,816
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gooey View Post
    Which subtype system is better and why? Thus far, it is my opinion that the acc/producing subtype system is superior because I a)can't decide on my dcnh subtype as I feel at least 2 sum what describe me...which makes me suspicious and b) the acc/producing system has worked very well for me.
    I haven't found DCNH to be any useful so I've discarded it early on. It is not easily observable and doesn't lead anywhere interesting so seems like a dead end and a waste of time to consider. For accounting for differences between people within then same type I use acc/prod subtypes, enneagram type and instinctual stackings (plus some info that goes outside of personality typology) and find that this works well - there are many similarities between individuals who have same socionics type, acc/prod subtype, enneagram type and stacking. So if you're looking into subtyping I'd definitely recommend taking a look at the enneagram + instincts.

    Quote Originally Posted by gooey View Post
    sorry for my ignorance on this subject but...I don't see a huge difference b/w inert/contact and acc/producing. I do with dcnh obviosuly. But in the former, it seems both systems talk of one subtype having a stronger dominant function and the other having a stronger creative..
    It's just a more convoluted way to state that producing subtype will emphasize its dominant and mobilizing functions, and accepting subtype - it's creative and suggestive functions, and consequently all other functions on the functional ladder will be affected by this. All the fancy terminology aside, that's all there is to it.

  13. #13
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by siuntal View Post

    It's just a more convoluted way to state that producing subtype will emphasize its dominant and mobilizing functions, and accepting subtype - it's creative and suggestive functions, and consequently all other functions on the functional ladder will be affected by this. All the fancy terminology aside, that's all there is to it.
    That is an oversimplification.

    From what it looks like, people refer to Accepting/Producing when they are even just looking at the Ego for subtypes, which is misleading. If you adhere to Base/Creating subtypes, calling it Accepting/Producing implies something more than what's being considered, because Accepting/Producing refers to more than the Ego functions.


    At any rate, functional subtypes should be called Inert/Contact.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  14. #14
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    Model A fleshes out Jung's theory into a full 8 function pathway of information which provides for 16 unique types. In this 8 function pathway, the divide created by the concept of "subtype" has Model A split between either Accepting/Producing, Inert/Contact, or Bold/Cautious. At the level of the Ego Block, there is a simultaneous split of: Accepting-Bold-Inert / Producing-Cautious-Contact. If the Ego Block is the most important perspective of a type, then the aforementioned split is the lowest common denominator subtypes should be looked at, not Accepting/Producing.

    However, if looked beyond the Ego, it becomes apparent that if functional strengthening is existent, then Accepting(1,3,5,7)/Producing(2,4,6,8) is invalid and not the correct pole of orientation. It is invalid for the fact that it contradicts the most fundamental principle of typology - polarity, that strength in one function equals weakness in its opposite. It is contradictory for a types 1st and 5th function to be strengthened concurrently, and it implies subtypes are oriented along Rational/Irrational or Judging/Perceiving, when it is known that functions of opposite temperaments reside within Rational and Irrational so this is impossible to manifest in a type.
    But you employ a principle foreign to Socionics, if anything. First, the functions are discreete [1], there's no such thing as "stronger" and "weaker" as in magnitude, we can't have a stronger or weaker same function in the first place, therefore even if we could talk about this alleged inverse-proportionality, a function "strength" would be irrelevant to the psyche in the first place.

    Second, you misunderstand Socionics Weak and Strong are, committing an equivocation in our discussion that render your argument invalid. There is no such thing as actual "strenght", in the general sense. When such convenient term is used, it merely refers the setting of the Strong/Weak dichotomy [2], not a scale. Semantically, it is similar to the weak force and strong force in nuclear physics, which are different things and nothing implies these forces can be stronger and weaker than they fundamentally are. Consequently, you have to use the Socionics nomenclature appropriately in order to be correct, not the terms with their common literal meaning, nor the one assigned to them in other typing systems.
    ---

    FYI, if you don't already know that, all the functions in the psyche are the same thing as the Ego. Fi-Base (Strong) is equivalent to Ti-Role (Weak), equivalent to Te-Suggestive (Weak) and equivalent to Fe-Ignoring (Strong) [3]. These things you acknowledge in your post. However, the necessary logical implication is that if say one's (Strong) Base (1st) function could get stronger, both its (Weak) Role and Suggestive (5th) would get stronger as well, in opposition to your claim.

    The problem here is that you treat the functions behaviorally, using one type of generated information as a scale, arbitrary choice anyway. You look at the Weak functions through a set of cognitive differences between that respective psyche and the ones that would have them as Strong. However, that is incorrect. Even if we simplify [4] and call the Role as "Anti-Base" and the Suggestive as "Non-Base", the stronger the Base is, the stronger the Anti-Base and Non-Base are as well.
    ---

    [1] - that's a Socionics fundamental, above all. Hence it is not a matter of "more/less", but one of "either/or". Read my Real/Imaginary analogy above.
    [2] - the same way one uses "dynamicality" or "dinamicity" for Dynamic/Static, for instance.
    [3] - Same goes for Ne-Creative <=> Se-Vulnerable <=> Si-Mobilizing <=> Ni-Demonstrative.
    [4] - which is in reality not even appropriate. In fact if we look at the aforementioned example, Base and Role have a lot in common, an alleged strengthening of the former would strengthen the latter in its own way (Role), at the same time the acceptance of and the compatibility with the Suggestive IA. The complete set of logical relationships between the Information Aspects is the Model A itself, any attempt to reduce them to simple logical operations and quantifiers that don't work in the whole is erroneous.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    142
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    hmm...didn't gulenko invent both systems? so why say he's wrong about dcnh but not acc/producing...that's the only thing that's bugging me

  16. #16
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    You mentioned the Strong/Weak dichotomy. Indeed it is one of the most important dichotomies and aspects of typology. Whether Jungian typology, MBTI or Socionics, it is undisputedly agreed that the strength of the Ego functions implies an inescapable and simultaneous strength in the respective shadow functions(referred to as the Id). This must be acknowledged for any subtype system derived in Socionics.
    I agree.
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    On to the final dichotomy, Inert/Contact, here there is a strengthening of 1,4,6,7/2,3,5,8. It is the only dichotomy, from the listed possible dichotomous subtype splits, that is in concordance with the principle of polarity. A type's Strong functions are 1,2,7,8; if these are split along Inert/Contact we have a divide of 1,7(4,6)/2,8(3,5). In words, what there is left is a Strong 1st and 7th function versus a Strong 2nd and 8th function, this follows the principle of polarity and function strength(e.g. an NT type has Strong Ni and Ne; and Strong Ti and Te). There are no functional nor principal contradictions with the application of this subtype system and therefore must be the valid functional split out of the other two(Bold/Cautious, Accepting/Producing).
    You made a good observation in that it is not immediately noticeable how strong functions 1 and 7 affect the weak functions 2 and 6 (in one of the two cases). The fact is that this subtype system starts off the Base and Creative, people perhaps inappropriately (as you say) called it Accepting/Producing, however I don't think its renaming to Intert/Contact changes much anyway, since the anayses is based on the Ego functions. This is what I know, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't remember it being demonstrated/explained what the subtype changes along all the Accepting and Producing functions. From my knowledge, the subtype system the OP refers can be called both Accepting/Producing and Inert/Contact.

    But like shown in my previous post, this assumption that Inert/Contact subtypes can exist would still break the discreetness principle and the consistency of the Model A as well. None of your arguments make it more acceptable that Accepting/Producing.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  17. #17
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @gooey: it should be noted than I'm not defending the DCNH, if such interpretation is the purpose of the OP, then it is a false dilemma fallacy. I'm not currently acknowledging its validity and I think that, if the DCNH subtypes were real, they can't have any justification within the Model A, they should be based on additional dichotomies instead.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    142
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "I'm not currently acknowledging its validity and I think that, if the DCNH subtypes were real, they can't have any justification within the Model A, they should be based on additional dichotomies instead."

    Yeah, I agree with this. I'm just confused at to why the same guy that invented acc/producing went way far out with his other theory (dcnh)

  19. #19
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    But you employ a principle foreign to Socionics, if anything. First, the functions are discreete [1], there's no such thing as "stronger" and "weaker" as in magnitude, we can't have a stronger or weaker same function in the first place, therefore even if we could talk about this alleged inverse-proportionality, a function "strength" would be irrelevant to the psyche in the first place.

    Second, you misunderstand Socionics Weak and Strong are, committing an equivocation in our discussion that render your argument invalid. There is no such thing as actual "strenght", in the general sense. When such convenient term is used, it merely refers the setting of the Strong/Weak dichotomy [2], not a scale. Semantically, it is similar to the weak force and strong force in nuclear physics, which are different things and nothing implies these forces can be stronger and weaker than they fundamentally are. Consequently, you have to use the Socionics nomenclature appropriately in order to be correct, not the terms with their common literal meaning, nor the one assigned to them in other typing systems.
    ---

    FYI, if you don't already know that, all the functions in the psyche are the same thing as the Ego. Fi-Base (Strong) is equivalent to Ti-Role (Weak), equivalent to Te-Suggestive (Weak) and equivalent to Fe-Ignoring (Strong) [3]. These things you acknowledge in your post. However, the necessary logical implication is that if say one's (Strong) Base (1st) function could get stronger, both its (Weak) Role and Suggestive (5th) would get stronger as well, in opposition to your claim.

    The problem here is that you treat the functions behaviorally, using one type of generated information as a scale, arbitrary choice anyway. You look at the Weak functions through a set of cognitive differences between that respective psyche and the ones that would have them as Strong. However, that is incorrect. Even if we simplify [4] and call the Role as "Anti-Base" and the Suggestive as "Non-Base", the stronger the Base is, the stronger the Anti-Base and Non-Base are as well.
    ---

    [1] - that's a Socionics fundamental, above all. Hence it is not a matter of "more/less", but one of "either/or". Read my Real/Imaginary analogy above.
    [2] - the same way one uses "dynamicality" or "dinamicity" for Dynamic/Static, for instance.
    [3] - Same goes for Ne-Creative <=> Se-Vulnerable <=> Si-Mobilizing <=> Ni-Demonstrative.
    [4] - which is in reality not even appropriate. In fact if we look at the aforementioned example, Base and Role have a lot in common, an alleged strengthening of the former would strengthen the latter in its own way (Role), at the same time the acceptance of and the compatibility with the Suggestive IA. The complete set of logical relationships between the Information Aspects is the Model A itself, any attempt to reduce them to simple logical operations and quantifiers that don't work in the whole is erroneous.
    I thought about it and I suppose magnitudinous strength/weakness is the inaccurate way to describe the functional effect of subtypes. A more appropriate conclusion is that information and energy pathway access is functionally restricted or allowed amongst 16 configurations; and Weak functions interpret information and energy with limited capacity, while Strong functions with greater capacity(dimension theory).

    So with that in mind, functions are opposed to each other: 1-3, 2-4, 5-7, 6-8. As stated on WikiSocion, "When a person is actively using his base function, the role function is essentially turned off. The two cannot both be 'on' at the same time, because they represent two opposing approaches to similar things...", and continuing, "Because of this opposition, the more one gets carried away with one's base function, the more the role function is ignored or suppressed" (Role Functions, WikiSocion).

    Looking at LII, functions 1-3(Ti-Fi), 2-4(Ne-Se), 5-7(Fe-Te), and 6-8(Si-Fi) are opposed to each other, and only one side can be activated at a time. As TiNe, the following functions are activated: Ti and not Fi, Te and not Fe; Ne and not Se, Ni and not Si.


    Mental: Ti-Fi, Ne-Se
    Vital: Te-Fe, Ni-Si


    If subtype is split along Base/Creative, then the only logical conclusion is:


    Base subtype : Ti, Te, Si, Se
    Creative subtype : Fe, Fi, Ne, Ni


    This is the functional layout of Inert/Contact. It is the direction of the unbroken flow of information and energy[1]. It can be basically interpreted as environmental energy and information Separation/Integration. Base subtype separates from the influx of the environment and processes the Inert functions(Inert Logic, Sensing), whereas Creative subtype integrates with the environment and processes the Contact functions(Contact Ethics, Intuition). This makes Base subtype LII emphatically Emotivist-Obstinate, and Creative subtype LII emphatically Strategic-Farsighted.

    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post811449

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    I agree.

    You made a good observation in that it is not immediately noticeable how strong functions 1 and 7 affect the weak functions 2 and 6 (in one of the two cases). The fact is that this subtype system starts off the Base and Creative, people perhaps inappropriately (as you say) called it Accepting/Producing, however I don't think its renaming to Intert/Contact changes much anyway, since the anayses is based on the Ego functions. This is what I know, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't remember it being demonstrated/explained what the subtype changes along all the Accepting and Producing functions. From my knowledge, the subtype system the OP refers can be called both Accepting/Producing and Inert/Contact.
    As I put before, the lowest common denominator would be Accepting-Bold-Inert / Producing-Cautious-Contact. When I said Inert/Contact is appropriate, I meant, if we're going to have a systemic subtype system, and not just the two Ego functions, then that is the right terminology.

    But like shown in my previous post, this assumption that Inert/Contact subtypes can exist would still break the discreetness principle and the consistency of the Model A as well. None of your arguments make it more acceptable that Accepting/Producing.
    See first section of response, of this post.


    ___________________________________
    [1] - Evaluatory/Situational has a similar effect of Inert/Contact and I would not be surprised if something was majorly overlooked in my thoughts when considering the implications of the functions. They are both peculiar dichotomies, the most obscure, and produce the Reinin dichotomies of Yielding/Obstinate, Constructivist/Emotivist, Tactical/Strategic, Care-free/Far-sighted. These four Reinin dichotomies are the only ones unaccounted for by the original four Jungian dichotomies.
    Last edited by EyeSeeCold; 12-12-2011 at 10:45 AM.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  20. #20
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    So with that in mind, functions are opposed to each other: 1-3, 2-4, 5-7, 6-8. As stated on WikiSocion, "When a person is actively using his base function, the role function is essentially turned off. The two cannot both be 'on' at the same time, because they represent two opposing approaches to similar things...", and continuing, "Because of this opposition, the more one gets carried away with one's base function, the more the role function is ignored or suppressed" (Role Functions, WikiSocion).

    Looking at LII, functions 1-3(Ti-Fi), 2-4(Ne-Se), 5-7(Fe-Te), and 6-8(Si-Fi) are opposed to each other, and only one side can be activated at a time. As TiNe, the following functions are activated: Ti and not Fi, Te and not Fe; Ne and not Se, Ni and not Si.
    You're deluding yourself when you believe to conform to the principle of discreetness just because the Role is described as intermittent. It just *sounds* like it does! That's yet another equivocation of behavior or reasoning for function, talking again of different things as if they were the same. When the subject's attitude focuses on the Role aspect of info, the Role does not become Base, it still remains Role, the digression from the Base does not change its value, precisely what determines the type. The Base itself is the prerequisite for the Role and vice-versa, the psyche means exactly using all 8 aspects of information in different manner each, one of them is Fi-Role, as a necessary consequence of the LXI type.

    I remind you that all the settings of the 8 functions in the psyche denote the same thing, namely the sociotype, not just some with others. You found no breach here, all you're doing is neglecting the principles of the Model.
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    If subtype is split along Base/Creative, then the only logical conclusion is:


    Base subtype : Ti, Te, Si, Se
    Creative subtype : Fe, Fi, Ne, Ni
    ...

    As I put before, the lowest common denominator would be Accepting-Bold-Inert / Producing-Cautious-Contact. When I said Inert/Contact is appropriate, I meant, if we're going to have a systemic subtype system, and not just the two Ego functions, then that is the right terminology.
    To the scope of the OP (IMO) and the Base/Creative subtype system that would be irrelevant. Of couse, if you were right in your explanation, it would be worth correcting. I understand that your point is that the Base/Creative subtype system, seen as Inert/Contact, is consistent with the Model.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  21. #21
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ineffable View Post
    To the scope of the OP (IMO) and the Base/Creative subtype system that would be irrelevant. Of couse, if you were right in your explanation, it would be worth correcting. I understand that your point is that the Base/Creative subtype system, seen as Inert/Contact, is consistent with the Model.
    Wow, this coming from Pinocchio - someone who has a notorious and stubborn history of socionics application and interpretation.

    Jesus F-ing christ... get off your high horse.

  22. #22
    not a bumblebee octo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    TIM
    IEI 4-6-9 apparently
    Posts
    2,744
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Recently I've been finding that enneatype makes a much bigger impact on my relations with various types than subtype does.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agee The Great View Post
    Nobody here...besides me, seems to know what SLE is except for maybe Maritsa.

  23. #23
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,451
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by octo View Post
    Recently I've been finding that enneatype makes a much bigger impact on my relations with various types than subtype does.
    It seems to me that enneatype has a two-up on Socionics intertype relations. First off is simply that Enneagram tends to take the person's emotional well-being into account. If you look at pretty much any major Enneagram site, you'll find levels of heath descriptions alongside the type descriptions themselves. Secondly, and more importantly, I've always found instinct stacking to be greater determining factor in how well two people get along.


    RE: inert/contact
    As much as I like the notion of the inert/contact dichotomy, I haven't seen it naturally show itself in reality. I only see it from a strictly theoretical standpoint and not so much in its practical application for type diagnosis. I've talked with friends about it, and they all seem to have the same conceptions as me about it, but we only talk about it from a personal perspective, not from using other people as points of observation.

    I do get what ESC says about contact/producing ENFps having a more pronounced S+F valuing: the way I see it, Fi-ENFps have Si as somewhat more of a HA than a dual-seeking. I definitely see this mechanism working within myself, at least. We're probably looking at the same phenomenon, but applying it to different frameworks we've already picked up for understanding it.

  24. #24
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,195
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BionicElmo View Post
    Wow, this coming from Pinocchio - someone who has a notorious and stubborn history of socionics application and interpretation.

    Jesus F-ing christ... get off your high horse.
    That's not an argument against his position, it is a separate matter. In fact I think it is very appropriate that he used rigor for the purpose of finding what sybtype system would be consistent with Model A. But he broke the same principles that invalidate Accepting/Producing, just less visibly.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

Posting Permissions

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