# 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?

5. Originally Posted by Tigerfadder
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. 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

From : The Socion thread
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
direction into the quadra.

8. Originally Posted by Tigerfadder
Share of spins create 4 new groups.

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

From : The Socion thread

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
direction into the quadra.

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.

9. 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?

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

11. Originally Posted by Tigerfadder
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

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. Originally Posted by Tigerfadder
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

15. 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?

16. 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.

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

18. Post if any discoveries.

19. Originally Posted by Tigerfadder
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

From : The Socion thread

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
direction into the quadra.

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

20. Originally Posted by Tigerfadder
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.

21. Originally Posted by Soupman
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.
I do not think you get it, even if your language is so very cool. LII do not base their logic in practicality is not the same as their logic is not consistent or that they create "unworkable systems".

Do you factor it, sociotypes, as .3 important whereas IQ is .9 important?

22. Originally Posted by Tigerfadder
I do not think you get it, even if your language is so very cool. LII do not base their logic in practicality is not the same as their logic is not consistent or that they create "unworkable systems".

Do you factor it, sociotypes, as .3 important whereas IQ is .9 important?
We have subjective differences on the definition of practicality (the term is ambiguous owing to variations in interpretations), if you haven't read it Viktor thinks mathematics is "Te" as well as applied research that he says Gamma NTs are liable to.

Anyway there is nothing wrong with disagreements provided people remain civil, it is not like any of us has got the monopoly on the absolute truth

23. Originally Posted by Soupman
We have subjective differences on the definition of practicality (the term is ambiguous owing to variations in interpretations), if you haven't read it Viktor thinks mathematics is "Te" as well as applied research that he says Gamma NTs are liable to.

Anyway there is nothing wrong with disagreements provided people remain civil, it is not like any of us has got the monopoly on the absolute truth
Well you are the guy jumping into this thread with saying that everything is horseshit, pretty much. Help me understand the arrows in combination with the externalities/internalities. Is it a path in the elements a person take when solving something? Is it a never ending circuit that just goes around?

24. 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.

25. 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

26. Originally Posted by Tigerfadder
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"

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. Originally Posted by Tigerfadder
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.

30. 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?

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
@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.
It is two models and 16 functions however the information elements remain the same. These two models attempt to measure different characteristic of the information metabolism and neither is incompatible with the other.

I think what you've laid out is exactly what Model G and Model A are, the connection points are information elements and not functions.

As far as psychic energy
It is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_(psychological)

This is a very important concept in psycho-dynamic psychology which socionics is part of.

Information preference doesn't say anything about psychic energy, but rather our reaction to information which contains psychic energy, you can say the information produced by ourselves and other individuals contain different levels of psychic energy and these also are measurable.

I also think very important error in socionics that this can help to address and that is the association of function strength with information preference. However this concept of function strength is not necessary for any individual and it's likely just a correlation, this also does not adequately cover many external factors such as culture, education and any such characteristic which do not originate from information preference.

Energy flow within the information metabolism may be one of these characteristics which in Model A is explained under the purview of function strength, but this is too convenient an explanation with the variation that is observed in individuals.

I'm not sure how to explain this properly as my knowledge of Model G is limited, and my focus hasn't been on socionics but psychology in the last 2 years.

34. "Jung regarded the psychic energy as a basic life-force which would manifest itself as needed (eating, moving, thinking, sex, remembering, etc.) not concentrating through childhood in various body zones (oral, anal, genital) as Freud envisaged. The psychic energy resembled physical energy: it could be exchanged with the external world in muscular effort or ingestion of food, but otherwise remained as a reservoir to be used for thought, sexual activity, artistic creation and so on."

---------

http://www.eoht.info/page/Psychic+energy

Psychic energy

In psychodynamics, psychic energy or "psychological energy" refers, generally, to the energy of the mind, mental processes, or psychological phenomena; energy tends to be conceptualized as some type of flow in the psychological system, governed by the principle of conservation of energy, and or the first law of thermodynamics.

Overview
In 1838 to 1842, German physicians Ernst Brücke, Herman Helmholtz, and Emil Du Bois-Reymond, who during the years 1838-42, worked in the laboratory of the German physiologist Johannes Muller, who adherence to the principle of vitalism, a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from physiochemical forces. In reaction to this, the three of them, in the words of Du Bois-Reymond, formulated a desire to validate the basic truth that: [1]
“In an organism no other forces have effect than the common physio-chemical ones.”
This force or kraft, as it is called in German, soon later became synonymous with the newly forming concept of energy.

In 1895, Austrian psychologist Sigmund Freud, Brücke’s medical school student, in his "A Project for Scientific Psychology" began theorizing about bound energy and free energy in psychological terms.

In 1898, Russian psychologist Nicolas von Grot stated: [2]
“The concept of psychic energy is as much justified in science as that of physical energy, and psychic energy has just as many quantitative measurements and different forms as has physical energy.”
Into the early 20th century, Freud’s protégé Swiss psychologist Carl Jung began discussing and using psychic energy, in his theories.

In 1976, American psychiatrist Robert Galatzer-Levy, in his article "Psychic Energy: A Historical Perspective", summarized that: [3]
“Much criticism of the concept of psychic energy is based on its apparent failure to live up to the paradigm on which it is modeled, the concept of energy conservation in physics.”

35. Originally Posted by mu4
This is a very important concept in psycho-dynamic psychology which socionics is part of.
Information preference doesn't say anything about psychic energy, but rather our reaction to information which contains psychic energy, you can say the information produced by ourselves and other individuals contain different levels of psychic energy and these also are measurable.
If there is a psychic energy, how can information contain this energy? I think psychic energy corresponds to a general attitude towards certain information, which seems to be very similar to function strength and/or "valued" function (or mental vs. vital) in my view.

I also think very important error in socionics that this can help to address and that is the association of function strength with information preference. However this concept of function strength is not necessary for any individual and it's likely just a correlation, this also does not adequately cover many external factors such as culture, education and any such characteristic which do not originate from information preference.
What is the difference between function strength and information preference in your view?

36. Originally Posted by Petter
If there is a psychic energy, how can information contain this energy? I think psychic energy corresponds to a general attitude towards certain information, which seems to be very similar to function strength and/or "valued" function (or mental vs. vital) in my view.
It might be as such that energy -> produce -> information which is no longer just data.
So when people make sense of the world and later communicate the result of that "making sense of" energy have been spend in the mental process. It might correlate with being "bored" or "tired" reading heavy books, mentally. Also that some find some topics interesting while others get mentally drained and "bored" when researching the same things.

37. Originally Posted by Petter
If there is a psychic energy, how can information contain this energy? I think psychic energy corresponds to a general attitude towards certain information, which seems to be very similar to function strength and/or "valued" function (or mental vs. vital) in my view.

What is the difference between function strength and information preference in your view?
Function strength I believe has to do with the amount of psychic energy that can be directed towards an information element. On the basis of function strength in model A, ENTj and ENTp are the same. I see preference in a different way that's governed by how information enters into the system and how information is output from the system and the sequential flow of information within the metabolism.

However my view is that Model A function strength is mutable in a way that information preference is not. The flow of information in Model A is very specific and unable to be altered for any individual, any change even minor change to this structure would create mental instability, fragmentation or collapse. Something like dissociation identity disorder or major dissociation can likely present different information preference schemes if there is enough fragmentation.

So a ENTp and a ENTj have completely different and incompatible information processing mechanisms, but their function strength are the same per model A.

However this is not a necessary truth in individuals of these types, because psychic energy may be influenced quite differently than information preference, and there is no hard rule in socionics or reality that would prevent a imbalance of psychic energy within a system, and the effects of this imbalance would not bring about immediate instability, fragmentation or collapse.

There should be a correlation between function strength and preference in the ego due to what one does naturally to cope with environmental pressures, but what if these uses of one's natural capabilities were to be punished by not just informational means but material consequences, what if the intrinsic capacity to perform cognitive tasks related to one's information preference is disturbed by physical or mental ailments. There are many situations where this development can be disturbed and interrupted without altering information preference enough to cause a collapse, but there would be a misalignment between function strength and information preference. It's probable that enough difference in alignment in these factor can likely cause a mental collapse but this is not necessary for small misalignment.

It's also likely quite useful for these difference in alignment to occur, as they provide diversity and the opportunity to develop other coping mechanisms.

I also want to note it's entirely possible that for some individuals one ego function is heavily favored and the other subdued.

Also much of this is unknown and there may be many areas where alignment can somewhat different between various parts of the mind even if some concerns are the same.

38. 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?

39. Originally Posted by Tigerfadder
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

40. 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.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

#### Posting Permissions

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