Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Function +/- signs: which model is correct?

  1. #1
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,105
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Function +/- signs: which model is correct?

    I've seen a couple of different models for functions of signs and am wondering which model you think is more 'correct' if either?

    Sorry, I don't have the specific names for these 'models.'

    Model 1:

    Signs 1.jpg

    Model 2:

    Signs 2.png
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  2. #2
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,238
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is an eternal swim in the greyland of overlaps. What I gathered earlier is ILI who been Ni- and Se+ which kind of work so that it use Ni to the bone and Se is the flesh. Duals share the same spins, at least in lead and suggestive. IEI is the opposite spin from ILI.

  3. #3
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,262
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Is there a difference?
    Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

  4. #4
    Olimpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    IEI So/Sx
    Posts
    7,351
    Mentioned
    630 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't see a difference between the Models themselves.
    They order the functions a bit differently, but signs-wise they are the same.

    I have looked a bit closer at them, and I believe both are half-wrong actually, haha.

    Personally, I go by the signs Gulenko assigns to the IE.

    For example, he says IEI has got: +Ni, +Fe, -Ti, -Se etc.
    In the models above, it says for IEI: -Ni, +Fe, -Ti, +Se .

    As far as I know, there are two different ideas on +/- in Socionics. I cannot remember which is which,
    but it seems like those models represent the first idea, and Gulenko's take on it represents the second idea.

    Having read Gulenko's work on it, and connected the dots to real-life people (including myself ),
    I find Gulenko's take accurate and more valuable.

    Gulenko +:- functions.jpg
    Typing [x] Theory [x] Tumblr [x] Discord [x] Film [x]



  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6,919
    Mentioned
    527 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SisOfNight View Post
    As far as I know, there are two different ideas on +/- in Socionics.
    The only idea Jung's typology and Socionics has - no difference between those + and -. The models above is external and unbased hypothesis.

    I find Gulenko's take accurate and more valuable.
    There are a lot of ones who find wrong even own types, not just tiny hypothetical functions variations.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    TIM
    ILE-Ti
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Personally, this is my point of view:

    Alpha: +(Ne/Si, Te/Fi), -(Se/Ni, Fe/Ti)
    Beta: +(Ne/Si, Fe/Ti), -(Se/Ni, Te/Fe)
    Gamma: +(Se/Ni, Fe/Ti), -(Ne/Si, Te/Fi)
    Delta:+(Se/Ni, Te/Fe), -(Ne/Si, Fe/Ti)

  7. #7
    heretic artificial hyena Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    surrounded by normal people! Help!
    TIM
    ILE-H 7(93?) sp/sx?
    Posts
    2,828
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Gulenko refers to those signs as representing something to public that trumps over quadra values momentarily or just overall way to function?
    extrospection > introspection

    Head type as in being truly head type and probably 7>5. Too divergent, scattered and expressive for typical 5 and that is the preferred way although long term focus usually helps.

  8. #8
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,262
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I prefer the model with the minus sign corresponding to the aristocratic quadras valued perception elements, and the democratic quadras valued judgement elements.
    Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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