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
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
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.
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.
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
The only idea Jung's typology and Socionics has - no difference between those + and -. The models above is external and unbased hypothesis.Originally Posted by SisOfNight
There are a lot of ones who find wrong even own types, not just tiny hypothetical functions variations.I find Gulenko's take accurate and more valuable.
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)
Gulenko refers to those signs as representing something to public that trumps over quadra values momentarily or just overall way to function?
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote