# Thread: The energy model. (Model G)

1. ## The energy model. (Model G)

So it basically describe how we divide our energy, you know the thing we need food and sleep to regain (or being alone as some introverts is being referred to being a 'battery'). Two elements gets the "maximal energy", we just do this element as much as we can. Then we get the two elements that use "optimal energy", we use as much energy on this as we need to get to our goal. Than we have two elements in our "minimum energy", we do not really spend as much energy here as we should or need to really get where we want. Than we have two elements at "pessimism energy" which we just do not want to spend any energy on at all. It is too draining.

The element hierarchy does not line up with model A, which does not mean they are not compatible. They describe different aspects of the elements in the types.

Does someone "gets it"?

2. I would say "I don't know" like the statisticians walking into a bar but people probably don't get that so I'll say no.

3. "The element hierarchy does not line up with model A, which does not mean they are not compatible. They describe different aspects of the elements in the types."

Well, they are compatible insofar as the + and - spins are just aspects of the normal IM elements.

4. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
"The element hierarchy does not line up with model A, which does not mean they are not compatible. They describe different aspects of the elements in the types."

Well, they are compatible insofar as the + and - spins are just aspects of the normal IM elements.
The spins are not relevant for this thread. Do you understand the difference in what Model A and Model G try to explain?

The spins are not relevant for this thread.
How are they not relevant? They're an integral part of Model G.

Do you understand the difference in what Model A and Model G try to explain?
Tbh, I haven't bothered delving deeply into Model G except for the spins. There are some good ideas in it but it seems to be drifting quite far from classical socionics.

6. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
How are they not relevant? They're an integral part of Model G.

Tbh, I haven't bothered delving deeply into Model G except for the spins. There are some good ideas in it but it seems to be drifting quite far from classical socionics.
The spins for all the types.

7. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
How are they not relevant? They're an integral part of Model G.

Tbh, I haven't bothered delving deeply into Model G except for the spins. There are some good ideas in it but it seems to be drifting quite far from classical socionics.
From what I can tell and my reading, Model G is not a new paradigm but rather a different measurement? model(on the basis of energy), but the model for information processing seems the same. The element pairs are still the same as well as the Model A intertype relations.

The diffrence in Model A is that this is a measurement model for information preference. Not sure the exact right term to call this difference but I think it's measurement model.

From this standpoint Model A inter-type relations still apply but the new measurement model allows for a new viewpoint on the information dynamics within information metabolism but does not invalidate the original observations of Model A.

This new look at information metabolism is certainly significant, and it also highlights his own holographic-panoramic thinking as this form of thinking is particularly suited to such observations.

Model A informs about the informational processes but does not really deal with this energy aspect Gulenko has observed.

8. Originally Posted by Petter
Yeah...whatever that is.

Are you saying that Ne should not be included in Model G?
No.

@mu4 whatever you call it, it seems a bit strange to make a new model without trying to integrate it or reconcile it with the existing one. If you don't do so they are inevitably going to diverge. This can be done very easily at the structural level: simply have 16 functions. That way you get both the "information-flow" (supervision) rings and the "energy-flow" (benefit) rings.

The spins are not relevant for this thread. Do you understand the difference in what Model A and Model G try to explain?
It's just Gulenko trying to align Socionics to his own opinion of himself. LII in Socionics is not considered a good type. It's almost like Gulenko spent years of his life increasing the solidity of Socionics only to realize that he sealed his own self into negative stigma and now has to find a way to completely alter the structure of Socionics so he doesn't look bad.

10. Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
It's just Gulenko trying to align Socionics to his own opinion of himself. LII in Socionics is not considered a good type. It's almost like Gulenko spent years of his life increasing the solidity of Socionics only to realize that he sealed his own self into negative stigma and now has to find a way to completely alter the structure of Socionics so he doesn't look bad.
No all types are equal by value. LII is superficial the most intelligent of the types. Model G add the energybar to the elements.

No all types are equal by value. LII is superficial the most intelligent of the types. Model G add the energybar to the elements.
Well, you asked a question and I gave you the answer. It doesn't take me long to look at something and get the reasons and motivations behind it.

Model G started as an inversion of sorts, mixing things around here and there. When it had no "buy-in," he retrospectively made it so that it could be used in conjunction with Model A without disregarding Model A. However, you can't tack something onto Model A without changing the semantics of Model A. So while he says, well I'm adding this on but it doesn't change Model A, everyone else is scratching their head in the Kiev/Russian Socionics community saying yeah but it does change Model A...

In Socionics, the LII is not an objectivist. It is not a constructivist. It is not a positivist. Each of these things means something, and the LII does not like these thing when they become aware of them, due to their own 1D functions.

Viktor, for whatever reason, eventually realized the map he helped complete, had what it was reeeeallllyyyy saying sink in, and didn't like it. It's basically his own version of the J/P flip, letting him partially flip LII into positives associated with ILI on the objective front, while relinquishing some of LIIs negatives.

Heck, petters/tellus has been doing the same thing for several years now, trying to holograph the LII so that its reeeaaallllyyyy a positive, constructive, and objective type, only he started in the reverse order and slapped an ILI sticker on himself and is now trying to rewrite all the elements to make the ILI use the elements he uses and in that order while trying to keep the positive stigmas of ILI.

The whole thing is goofy and transparent as heck.

12. Share of spins create new groups.

+ NeTi SeFi, - TeSi FeNi
ILE
SEI
EIE
LSI
LSE
EII
SEE
ILI

+ FeSi TeNi, - SeTi NeFi
ESE
LII
SLE
IEI
LIE
ESI
IEE
SLI

When using same spins and than divide them by "base element +" and "base element -" we get the supervision rings.

NeTiSeFi+ and + : ILE, LSI, SEE, EII
NeTiSeFi+ and - : SEI, EIE, ILI, LSE
FiTeNiFe+ and - : ESE, IEI, LIE, SLI
FiTeNiFe+ and + : LII, SLE, ESI, IEE

To get to the Socion, divide them by I and E type. We get the benefit rings.

ESE, SLE, LIE, IEE = implementer/organizer
SEI, LSI, ILI,
EII = stabilizer
LII, IEI, ESI, SLI = corrector/perfector

Originally Posted by silke
IEI passes things over to SEE not LIE (unless it's a typo). Under this formulation, it is either the semi-dual or the mirage partner of left introverted type that takes over.

Gulenko doesn't go over quadra reversal in detail, but he does mention that preceding quadra can take over at the point in time when reign of following quadra is coming to an end in which case it is left introvert's mirage partner that gets involved. Though some think that quadra reversal isn't possible. This is what I posted in the old thread:

n his interpretation of it, the result/process types alternate as the quadra progresses (link). So it goes:
a: ILE-ESE-SEI-LII
b: EIE-SLE-LSI-IEI
g: SEE-LIE-ILI-ESI
d: LSE-IEE-EII-SLI

Maybe "energy" goes from alpha to delta and "direction" goes from delta to alpha. In that case in each quadra the leader/linker always force the energy into the quadra and the corrector always force the

Share of spins create 4 new groups.

ESE, SLE, LIE, IEE = implementer/organizer
SEI, LSI, ILI,
EII = stabilizer
LII, IEI, ESI, SLI = corrector/perfector

Maybe "energy" goes from alpha to delta and "direction" goes from delta to alpha. In that case in each quadra the leader/linker always force the energy into the quadra and the corrector always force the

Amusing read but Viktor doesn't understand the IP temperament philosophy - it's not about perpetual stability always being modified, being free to adapt to the world as it may ever be. I'm inclined to move from system to system although my systems are always stable, things do get boring so I feel I should always be prepared to try something different.

I don't understand his ILI views and they don't describe me. Perhaps I'm just not a Gamma type but rather the missing IP Alpha NT, given my own obsession with ideas.

When he talks about ideas for the sake of ideas - I believe that is rubbish, all ideas aren't created equal only great ideas change the world. If the ideas aren't practicable it just means the person isn't a great thinker, the person isn't worthy of the term scientist. I think he likes to cut himself some slack for indulging in impracticable ideas.

To be honest, I do too, but I know there is a difference in intellect between romanticised ideas and the level of intelligence required to cross the bridge from dreams to the real world. It calls for a superior understanding of one's reality.

14. Originally Posted by Soupman
Amusing read but Viktor doesn't understand the IP temperament philosophy - it's not about perpetual stability always being changed being free to adapt to the world as it may ever be. I don't understand his ILI views and they don't describe me. Perhaps I'm just not a Gamma type but rather the missing IP Alpha NT, given my own obsession with ideas.

When he talks about ideas for the sake of ideas - I believe that is rubbish, all ideas aren't created equal only great ideas change the world. If the ideas aren't practicable it just means the person isn't a great thinker, the person isn't worthy of the term scientist. I think he likes to cut himself some slack for indulging in impracticable ideas.

To be honest, I do too, but I know there is a difference in intellect between romanticised ideas and the level of intelligence required to cross the bridge from dreams to the real world. It calls for a superior understanding of one's reality.
Aint it the curse of LII that their thinking does not too often have practical purposes?

Aint it the curse of LII that their thinking does not too often have practical purposes?
No it is just him, it is a matter of intellect, he knows how to dream like many of us but simply isn't smart enough to construct the bridge.

Viktor thinks hard science is "Te" and very shallow as evidenced in his perception of ILI as people interested in light science

16. The High IQ LII create profound models of reality owing to a superior abstraction of the world which makes their models worth it in science. After I did more research I later discovered that IQ and creative thinking genes factor more than sociotypes.

17. Originally Posted by Soupman
The High IQ LII create profound models of reality owing to a superior abstraction of the world which makes their models worth it in science. After I did more research I later discovered that IQ and creative thinking genes factor more than sociotypes.
How do you factor sociotypes?

How do you factor sociotypes?
Partially by the stereotypes which can be reliable as a heuristic guess, however, I have an LII friend from university with a very high IQ and he defies Viktor's assertion that LII create impractical and unworkable systems. He wouldn't be a supercomputer programmer and researcher if he wasn't intelligent enough to devise workable systems, which are also logically consistent and elegant.

In modern science and engineering, models are supposed to be both workable and logically consistent. Theoretical research is supposed to pave the way to practice - everything must be reinforced empirically.

Share of spins create new groups.

+ NeTi SeFi, - TeSi FeNi
ILE
SEI
EIE
LSI
LSE
EII
SEE
ILI

+ FeSi TeNi, - SeTi NeFi
ESE
LII
SLE
IEI
LIE
ESI
IEE
SLI

When using same spins and than divide them by "base element +" and "base element -" we get the supervision rings.

NeTiSeFi+ and + : ILE, LSI, SEE, EII
NeTiSeFi+ and - : SEI, EIE, ILI, LSE
FiTeNiFe+ and - : ESE, IEI, LIE, SLI
FiTeNiFe+ and + : LII, SLE, ESI, IEE

To get to the Socion, divide them by I and E type. We get the benefit rings.

ESE, SLE, LIE, IEE = implementer/organizer
SEI, LSI, ILI,
EII = stabilizer
LII, IEI, ESI, SLI = corrector/perfector

Maybe "energy" goes from alpha to delta and "direction" goes from delta to alpha. In that case in each quadra the leader/linker always force the energy into the quadra and the corrector always force the

Energy decreases with age (Alpha -> Delta) while information (knowledge) increases with it. It's quite logical if you think about it.

20. The trouble with socionics is its strict pseudo-science foundation - endless claims being made without a paradigm for verification and falsification.

21. Originally Posted by Soupman
The trouble with socionics is its strict pseudo-science foundation - endless claims being made without a paradigm for verification and falsification.
Originally Posted by Soupman
No it is just him, it is a matter of intellect, he knows how to dream like many of us but simply isn't smart enough to construct the bridge
You seem awful bitter today. Well I am not going to defend any theory, and I believe the thing about LII does usually not base their theories on real world practicality is just, part of the theory in a way.

You seem awful bitter today. Well I am not going to defend any theory, and I believe the thing about LII does usually not base their theories on real world practicality is just, part of the theory in a way.
I'm just venting my frustration with socionics and the pain I'm hiding underneath - it hurts me that it is seen as rubbish yet I feel it has so much potential to be a corner-stone of society. Negative energy personally can motivate me passionately either into action or to bitterly accept my reality and inadequacy

23. Originally Posted by Soupman
I'm just venting my frustration with socionics and the pain I'm hiding underneath - it hurts me that it is seen as rubbish yet I feel it has so much potential to be a corner-stone of society. Negative energy personally can motivate me passionately either into action or to bitterly accept my reality and inadequacy
I wonder if, and if was common knowledge how to identify all the relations, we could make directions for them. For example, when a supervisor you must not give direct orders to your supervisee. If you are mentally ill, you are advised to connect with your dual. When a country divide what path to take, what rules to make, it should consider the spirit of all the Quadra. It could be 4 parties in a country which each contains the values of one Quadra.

24. Originally Posted by Soupman
The trouble with socionics is its strict pseudo-science foundation - endless claims being made without a paradigm for verification and falsification.
I recently heard that what differ pseudo-science from science is that it can be observed with at least one of the senses. We can view a star and than calculate with estimations and equations and learn a great deal about the object. If VI was accepted than I see no reason why Socionics would not be just science?

I recently heard that what differ pseudo-science from science is that it can be observed with at least one of the senses. We can view a star and than calculate with estimations and equations and learn a great deal about the object. If VI was accepted than I see no reason why Socionics would not be just science?
have you looked at epistemology and critical thinking paradigms? these are what"s used to demonstrate the shakey foundations of socionics

26. Originally Posted by Soupman
have you looked at epistemology and critical thinking paradigms? these are what"s used to demonstrate the shakey foundations of socionics
I guess, if we want to call it science. Yet, technological and scientific methods could be used to explore socionics futhermore.

27. Ok that's something to digest, but it seems useful.

28. Post if any discoveries.

29. I got to the conclusion that the arrows does not have any meaning. Maybe a chart or something made to connect this model to some other model but they do not hold any valuable information by their own. Thus, the model G is fully explored.

I got to the conclusion that the arrows does not have any meaning. Maybe a chart or something made to connect this model to some other model but they do not hold any valuable information by their own. Thus, the model G is fully explored.
"horizontal arrows show activation, vertical arrows - inhibition"

31. Viktor needs to explain some aspects of this model.

1) What kind of psychic energy is he referring to?

2) How do we know his dichotomies are accurate?

3) What is the connection between the dichotomies and the model?

4) How can ILI's Ni belong to externalities while Te belongs to internalities?

5) "-T intuition of the past [MBTI: -Ni] : thinking of the past, remembering past errors and trying to prevent them from happening again, extrapolating (looking for signs of the past repeating itself). That's how ILI (TL) [INTJ] operate" (+/- is only related to the positivist/negativist dichotomy)

Okay, so the vast majority of socionists are wrong about Ni+? (+/- is related to both process/result and positivist/negativist dichotomies)

If you are really interested in this model then you should join Ben David's Model G Facebook group, and/or watch Model G Youtube videos.

model G dichotomies.jpg

32. Originally Posted by Petter
Viktor needs to explain some aspects of this model.

1) What kind of psychic energy is he referring to?
I think, to understand this we need to view this model as what we are producing while model A is what we are using. To produce something it take energy. We can not produce more than to a limit right. That is how much energy you have to produce.

I think, to understand this we need to view this model as what we are producing while model A is what we are using. To produce something it take energy. We can not produce more than to a limit right. That is how much energy you have to produce.
This seems more like physical energy.

34. The way I understand "energy" (this may be totally different from Gulenko's view) is that it comprises all of the non-reusable resources available to the psyche (possibly also including physical energy and effort). Information itself is a kind of resource but it is a reusable/copyable one: if you send someone a piece of information you can keep your copy of it. This is not true about money, for example, or time and space. At the meta-level generally deals with reusable resources while deals with non-reusable resources. So in a sense this completes the picture initially painted by Augusta.

35. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
(possibly also including physical energy and effort).

Information itself is a kind of resource but it is a reusable/copyable one: if you send someone a piece of information you can keep your copy of it. This is not true about money, for example, or time and space. At the meta-level Ne generally deals with reusable resources while Se deals with non-reusable resources. So in a sense this completes the picture initially painted by Augusta.
Are you saying that Ne should not be included in Model G?

36. Model G seems to give good explanation of things but isn't it a bit too "social" ? Meaning it being a bit more about "social presentation of types" while the "truth/depth of a type" would be more like model A.

37. So this is what it looks like when merged with Model A
https://ibb.co/b5zfXa

So this is what it looks like when merged with Model A
https://ibb.co/b5zfXa
What's with the green and red dots, just quantity?

39. Originally Posted by Chae
What's with the green and red dots, just quantity?
Green dots made it 4D = 4 dots and 1D = 1 dot.
Red is the energy. High equals 4 dots and low equals 1 dot.