Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Some (interesting) points about socionics models

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    SLE/LSE sx/sp
    Posts
    2,489
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Some (interesting) points about socionics models

    This is just a summary of some thoughts, I hope I have typed enough to get my jist across without having to write expansively. Thank you reading and commenting if you do.

    Model A

    I'm not entirely sure why Ashura arranged the functions in the way she did. For instance the 'role' function is defined as used more and more 'developed' than the 4th function. I don't think this particularly stands up to real life evidence. Take for instance an SLE - they use by their Fe more than either their Fi - or even their Ne, how many SLEs have people known who are laughing and jovial for instance. People infact place importance on their ego functions (conscious) and seeking functions which are opposite but not opposing to their ego functions (buried further into the consciousness). That is therefore, in dual types, what you really see happening is the ego functions being used only. EG in SLE-IEI it is SeTiNiFe in their interactions.

    That is how you get Model X (when I say Model X I don't know if this is socionix's Model X, I am only speaking of Model X as the 4 functions that are valued by all types are placed at the end of each of the line of the X). It is therefore in dual types only 4 functions are being focused and used, which makes the communication so good, under other required circumstances (such as things in common, even both being able to speak a common language if they are from different places)

    -------

    Moving on to Reinin Dichotomies,

    Now, taking into account that Model A doesn't quite represent types as always how they actually are - it is infact a representative, a model, Reinin traits have been developed from this Model A. Now why 15 traits? Who knows considering you could have thousands developed from Model A. But ultimately, with the 15, I would say this is in part why Reinin dichotomies are so difficult to type from, because they are built from a model which is flawed in it's representations of the types.

    -------------------------

    Model T

    Same problem as it apparently uses Reinin dichotomies..

    ----------------

    Model B

    The idea of plus and minus functions is kind of a strange one, and interesting. Model B proposes that the same function eg Te will have a reducing function when in gamma and an expansive function when in delta - that is - and +, that it is the function itself which has these properties.

    Of course the reality is that functions are just functions. I would say that the 'traits' associated with the functions is better explained by functional grouping, eg Te pairs with Ni in gamma and Te pairs with Si in delta.

    On that, -ve Te in Gamma, as it is paired with Ni it apppears to having a reducing quality as N functions are associated with reducing something to it's whole - whether an external wholeness or an internal wholeness. Te with Si is expansive due to the nature of the S functions in comparison to being paired with N.

    -----

    Well I am not saying that Model A is wrong, I am just saying that it is flawed, ie not perfect, and if we try to use this model when typing ourselves, or explaining people using it going by the book, along with some of it's off-shoots (I am reluctant to say all but heh ), there will be most likely additional issues and confusions, - I know from experience

    BTW I also thought this was interesting:

    Quote Originally Posted by wili
    A lack of concern for small aesthetic details is more visible in the LIE; in the case of the EIE, the low focus on Si is more noticeable as a dislike for low-level practical details, such as filling up forms, signing documents, or filling tax returns.
    I'm pretty sure most people would agree that filling out tax returns or filling up forms is not Si? I thought I would post this to give an example of trying to fit everything into Model A, hence the apparent in difficulty in wikisocion trying to explain what Si PoLR is.

    I think it can also have an impact on trying to understand what the functions are (hence why after all this time there is still debate over it).

    I don't expect significant changes and change the world as we know it in socionics and the universe lol, but I thought this was a good thing for me to write to bring some clarity to everyone including myself.

  2. #2
    ഗന᎕ᒹ ±ᗉᚔXᙂഗ woofwoofl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern Arizona
    TIM
    x s x p s p s x
    Posts
    1,908
    Mentioned
    227 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default accidentally cleaned up Model B along the way

    Quote Originally Posted by Words View Post
    Model A

    I'm not entirely sure why Ashura arranged the functions in the way she did. For instance the 'role' function is defined as used more and more 'developed' than the 4th function. I don't think this particularly stands up to real life evidence. Take for instance an SLE - they use by their Fe more than either their Fi - or even their Ne, how many SLEs have people known who are laughing and jovial for instance. People infact place importance on their ego functions (conscious) and seeking functions which are opposite but not opposing to their ego functions (buried further into the consciousness). That is therefore, in dual types, what you really see happening is the ego functions being used only. EG in SLE-IEI it is SeTiNiFe in their interactions.

    That is how you get Model X (when I say Model X I don't know if this is socionix's Model X, I am only speaking of Model X as the 4 functions that are valued by all types are placed at the end of each of the line of the X). It is therefore in dual types only 4 functions are being focused and used, which makes the communication so good, under other required circumstances (such as things in common, even both being able to speak a common language if they are from different places)
    Role is presumed stronger than vulnerable, as the former is bold/accepting, and the latter is cautious/producing. I have it as variable; I made this a while back; strong/weak covers strength. All producing will be more of a sore spot than accepting; furthermore, producing is cautious, and accepting is bold in the mental/conscious ring.

    Going into subtypes, the inert/contact/vertical subtype system at least implies subtype relation, with the "PoLR" effect being much lesser for inert subs than contact subs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Words View Post
    Moving on to Reinin Dichotomies,

    Now, taking into account that Model A doesn't quite represent types as always how they actually are - it is infact a representative, a model, Reinin traits have been developed from this Model A. Now why 15 traits? Who knows considering you could have thousands developed from Model A. But ultimately, with the 15, I would say this is in part why Reinin dichotomies are so difficult to type from, because they are built from a model which is flawed in it's representations of the types.[/url]
    15 is the number of total dichotomies; four of them are Jungian, three of them draw the quadra boundaries, and one of them draws the mental/vital rings. Two of them handle the cog styles, another one handles the benefit/energy rings. Four long-block dichotomies remain; I renotated them with focal/diffuse, still have no idea what to do with them. Grigory Reinin came with the structure of the post-Jungian dichotomies mathematically, paying strong regard to symmetry; rough drafts were made later, and most of the meat of the descriptions came a full eighteen years after that. Why should those written descriptions be the final point? Anyone can add to these, clarify, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Words View Post
    Model T

    Same problem as it apparently uses Reinin dichotomies..
    Model T chops out the vital/unconscious ring, shits up -/+, and makes far-flung, desperate guesses based on intertypes.

    -/+ has been an absolute nightmare to clean up, mostly due to external inconsistency; different people were running it through the entire Model A in entirely different ways, and it was impossible to determine whether anything beyond the ego block was being handled in terms of what was there, or what wasn't there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Words View Post
    Model B

    The idea of plus and minus functions is kind of a strange one, and interesting. Model B proposes that the same function eg Te will have a reducing function when in gamma and an expansive function when in delta - that is - and +, that it is the function itself which has these properties.

    Of course the reality is that functions are just functions. I would say that the 'traits' associated with the functions is better explained by functional grouping, eg Te pairs with Ni in gamma and Te pairs with Si in delta.

    On that, -ve Te in Gamma, as it is paired with Ni it apppears to having a reducing quality as N functions are associated with reducing something to it's whole - whether an external wholeness or an internal wholeness. Te with Si is expansive due to the nature of the S functions in comparison to being paired with N.
    This thread is the most comprehensive real-Model-B thread I know of. -/+ initially came from Bukalov, who also made Model B. Gulenko did/does stuff with -/+ moreso than the actual Model B.

    I couldn't get Model B at first, due to it being enormous, but if I run taciturn/narrator through the model instead of -/+, it cleans up (a is for taciturn, k is for narrator):

    tim .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8
    ILE aN aT aS aF kS kF kN kT
    SEI kS kF kN kT aN aT aS aF
    ESE kF kS kT kN aT aN aF aS
    LII aT aN aF aS kF kS kT kN

    EIE aF aN aT aS kT kS kF kN
    LSI kT kS kF kN aF aN aT aS
    SLE kS kT kN kF aN aF aS aT
    IEI aN aF aS aT kS kT kN kF

    SEE aS aF aN aT kN kT kS kF
    ILI kN kT kS kF aS aF aN aT
    LIE kT kN kF kS aF aN aT aS
    ESI aF aS aT aN kT kN kF kS

    LSE aT aS aF aN kF kN kT kS
    EII kF kN kT kS aT aS aF aN
    IEE kN kF kS kT aS aT aN aF
    SLI aS aT aN aF kN kF kS kT


    Just made this, about to hop in the shower; may be a while before I go further, but it seems taciturn (-I, +E)/narrator (+I, -E) cleans up -/+ every time I use it. I couldn't work with the originally-notated Model B, but this looks doable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Words View Post
    Well I am not saying that Model A is wrong, I am just saying that it is flawed, ie not perfect, and if we try to use this model when typing ourselves, or explaining people using it going by the book, along with some of it's off-shoots (I am reluctant to say all but heh ), there will be most likely additional issues and confusions, - I know from experience

    BTW I also thought this was interesting:

    A lack of concern for small aesthetic details is more visible in the LIE; in the case of the EIE, the low focus on Si is more noticeable as a dislike for low-level practical details, such as filling up forms, signing documents, or filling tax returns.

    I'm pretty sure most people would agree that filling out tax returns or filling up forms is not Si? I thought I would post this to give an example of trying to fit everything into Model A, hence the apparent in difficulty in wikisocion trying to explain what Si PoLR is.

    I think it can also have an impact on trying to understand what the functions are (hence why after all this time there is still debate over it).
    This works great as super-ego (weak, unvalued) taciturn-concreteness (δST), which Model B gives to EIE and IEI. Everything checks out. I'll handle the widespread obsessions with "PoLR" and functional isolation later, because it's gonna require a tremendous post; this runs really deep, and it may take months until I'm there.

  3. #3
    Mega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    France
    Posts
    426
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What do you propose that we should use then Words?

Posting Permissions

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