1. the practical and average strenght [the abbility to use it consciously] may to be:

Lead > Ignoring > Creative > Demonstrative > PoLR > Activation > Role > Suggestive

where the strenght difference inside strong or weak functions can be said as not significant for the most use

2. Originally Posted by niffer
@ooo One more note, as clarification:

So are you saying that use of the creative function is in effect both repression and integration of the Polr simultaneously?
Yes, the creative function represses the unconscious, it's actually the Polr of our unconscious (??? lol wut did I write, ok delete this part), but it's a necessary thing to create ourselves. In the same time we can't leave the unconscious behind completely and creative is the only key to acess it. The Polr is the dual seeking of our unconscious, but it's even the function that we 'choose' to leave behind in favor of our creative... in extreme cases of divergence it could represent a conflict around the sort of material we produce (creative function) and how hard instead we think of an alternative to that, a different way to whatever we can do (Polr),

I made some confusion in that long post, like yeah a SLI will have similar functions to a LSI, if you go by Model A disposition they're switching the same functions from the bottom up, perfectly inverted in the rings, and similarly they'll be inverted from the bottom for the contrary counterpart, SLE, and then they'll be simply mirrored for their extrovert counterpart LSE. so it's in the confines of J/P - E/I that you can find the most resemblance between functions, or in all the other cases you' switching the functions or the order of strenght.

it's like a continuos flow from one of these types to the others, it could represent a sort of free range that everyone should be allowed to have... hmm, like on one side there's our light (conscious?) and the other part is the shadow (sub), which is exactly what the model A shows anyway... but this is obviously in conflict with the entire quadra theory because the resulting types are all in conflict with each other... which is a funny conclusion of our lives anyway )

i like the idea of giving different weights to the same functions, even for the same type, why not, subtype or not, like when you see the scores from the various personality tests, there won't be equal results for the same type, not two SLIs will have the same precise scores, so why should all SLIs just use the same functions in the same way ? one of them might be better than the other at social things, and they'll both have Fe Polr but managing it differently because of all reasons, so why shouldn't this difference make a difference in the complex system that is personality?

***I'm getting confused..

3. Originally Posted by ooo
Yes, the creative function represses the unconscious, it's actually the Polr of our unconscious (??? lol wut did I write, ok delete this part), but this part is necessary to create ourselves. In the same time we can't leave it behind and creative is the only key to acess it. The Polr is the dual seeking of our unconscious, but it's even the function that we chose to leave behind in favor of our creative... in extreme cases of divergence it could represent a conflict around the sort of material we produce (creative function) and how hard instead we think of an alternative to that, a different way to whatever we can do (Polr),

I made some confusion in that long post, like yeah a SLI will have similar functions to a LSI, if you go by Model A disposition they're inverted from the bottom up, and so they'll be inverted from the bottom up plus mirrored for the contrary counterpart, SLE, and they'll just be simply mirrored for their extrovert counterpart LSE. so it's in the confines of J/P - E/I that you can find the most resemblance between function, while in all the other cases you're either switching the functions or the order...

it's like a continuos flow from one of these types to the others, it could represent a sort of free range that everyone should be allowed to have... hmm, like on one side there's our light (conscious?) and the other part is the shadow (sub), which is exactly what the model A shows anyway... but this is obviously in conflict with the entire quadra theory because the resulting types are all in conflict with each other... which is a funny conclusion of our lives anyway )

i like the idea of giving different weights to the same functions, even for the same type, why not, subtype or not, like when you see the scores from the various personality tests, there won't be equal results for the same type, not two SLIs will have the same precise scores, so why should all SLIs just use the same functions in the same way ? one of them might be better than the other at social things, and they'll both have Fe Polr but managing it differently because of all reasons, so why shouldn't this difference make a difference in the complex system that is personality?

I'm getting confused..
Cool analysis, I agree on all parts.

Or well, as for the different weights part, I think that everybody within a type definitely at least has different weights and/or some kind of different specifics to their processing, because every person is obviously unique. Functions/IEs are supposed to correspond with personality, so the weights of IEs or processing for each individual should reflect that. I do think that could exist at the same time of everybody of a type fitting one basic overarching structure though, and then those differences acting within that.

That's interesting and funny what you brought up about quasis having reversed Model As. I had never thought about that before, but maybe that is why quasis can seem dual-like in a way, and the particular formatting of Model A itself is actually really meaningful in this light.

And it's not your fault for being confused, this topic is confusing. You're doing a great job so far at verbalizing everything, I wouldn't have been able to explain it all out like that myself I think. So thank you for your contributions.

4. Originally Posted by strangeling
Well I disagree that stronger base accentuates polr. Because I was speaking from personal experience. But fine whatever, lol.
Going back to this, I think I agree with this. But at the very least, it kind of makes sense that use of base may not directly repress Polr, or at least not as directly as use of the creative function would. The difference obviously being no +1, only 0 or minus effect upon Polr, with no accentuation vs. no direct repression.

- All functions with the same vertness are linked in a way (all introverted functions, and all extroverted ones in the 'psyche')
In other words if the model is consistent, an LII, even an LII-Ti, should never have stronger Se than an IEI of any subtype. Equal, perhaps...

5. Originally Posted by Sol
the practical and average strenght [the abbility to use it consciously] may to be:

Lead > Ignoring > Creative > Demonstrative > PoLR > Activation > Role > Suggestive

where the strenght difference inside strong or weak functions can be said as not significant for the most use
I actually really like this in terms of "the ability to use it consciously", Sol. Thanks.

Playing off of this.. I think what most people actually see most and expect out of people (regarding information produced in a non-socionics sense of the term) after getting to know them a bit and without theorizing too much would be this:

Lead > Ignoring > Demonstrative > Creative > Activation > PoLR > Role > Suggestive .

As a sort of blend/compromise between different ways of thinking and seeing things here.

6. Originally Posted by niffer
In other words if the model is consistent, an LII, even an LII-Ti, should never have stronger Se than an IEI of any subtype. Equal, perhaps...
It's Jung's types and it's his model in the essence. The other are extensions of it.
According to Jung the suggestive is the weakest, as it's the opposite to the leading function and hence should be as the most rejected by the conscious.
How is on practice is hard to say clearly, incuding because people may lesser feel problems with suggestive due to its higher unconsciousness. So common functional tests may not show the real situation.

For example, base Te types may not see themselves as rude in common. They try to be good [as it's valued] and think that behave as should, - in borders of morality/good kindness and it suprises them when others point they do something wrong, could to achieve the same or better with lesser hurting. From _formal_ surface side they are polite indeed mostly, the problem is the details. Practically that relations go not the best way and people by fact feel worse than could and this harms the results - they notice badly or think the other ones are morally or emotionally strange [are too touchy]. SLE and ILE when want to be "good" may probably behave better, in more pleasant way, then base Te when want the same.

7. Originally Posted by niffer
Cool analysis, I agree on all parts.

Or well, as for the different weights part, I think that everybody within a type definitely at least has different weights and/or some kind of different specifics to their processing, because every person is obviously unique. Functions/IEs are supposed to correspond with personality, so the weights of IEs or processing for each individual should reflect that. I do think that could exist at the same time of everybody of a type fitting one basic overarching structure though, and then those differences acting within that.

That's interesting and funny what you brought up about quasis having reversed Model As.
@ooo's analysis IS very interesting, @niffer. I looked at the dimensionality of my and my quasi's functions and discovered that we have exactly the same dimensionality for every function, but my valued functions are their unvalued ones, and vice-versa.

Originally Posted by niffer
I had never thought about that before, but maybe that is why quasis can seem dual-like in a way, and the particular formatting of Model A itself is actually really meaningful in this light.

And it's not your fault for being confused, this topic is confusing. You're doing a great job so far at verbalizing everything, I wouldn't have been able to explain it all out like that myself I think. So thank you for your contributions.
Quasi's don't seem dual-like to me. They seem like Identicals who have stepped out of Alice's looking glass. At times, we are completely on the same page. At other times, we clash like we do with no other types. Clash without moderation. Go straight for the jugular.

@ooo's mention of LSI and SLI as quasi's kind of floored me. Maybe it shouldn't have, since the theory and the graphs are out there, but it nevertheless did. I left a long term relationship with an SLI and started a two-year relationship with an LSI. They are as different as night and day, but I nevertheless liked and respected both enough to be in a relationship with them.

Type: SLI ... LSI .....ESI
4D ....Si-v ...Si-uv ..Si-uv
4D ....Ti-uv ..Ti-v ....Fi-v
3D ....Te-v ...Te-uv .Fe-uv
3D ... Se-uv .Se-v ...Se-v
2D ....Fi-v ....Fi-uv ..Ti-uv
2D ... Ni-uv ..Ni-v ... Ni-v
1D ... Ne-v ...Ne-uv .Ne-uv
1D ....Fe-uv ..Fe-v ...Te-v

If that list could be seen as a progression, it looks like I'm getting closer to valuing the things that Socionics predicts I would. I'm discovering that I don't need T nearly as much as I need F. Lol. Some people know what they need right away, and some take longer to figure it out.

8. Originally Posted by Sol
It's Jung's types and it's his model in the essence. The other are extensions of it.
According to Jung the suggestive is the weakest, as it's the opposite to the leading function and hence should be as the most rejected by the conscious.
How is on practice is hard to say clearly, incuding because people may lesser feel problems with suggestive due to its higher unconsciousness. So common functional tests may not show the real situation.

For example, base Te types may not see themselves as rude in common. They try to be good [as it's valued] and think that behave as should, - in borders of morality/good kindness and it suprises them when others point they do something wrong, could to achieve the same or better with lesser hurting. From _formal_ surface side they are polite indeed mostly, the problem is the details. Practically that relations go not the best way and people by fact feel worse than could and this harms the results - they notice badly or think the other ones are morally or emotionally strange [are too touchy]. SLE and ILE when want to be "good" may probably behave better, in more pleasant way, then base Te when want the same.
Alright, but keep in mind Jung isn't socionics. All socionics would be heresy towards Jung in a way, by your working definition of the word heresy apparently lol.

9. Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Quasi's don't seem dual-like to me.
It's interesting to me that you don't perceive it this way Adam, because in my personal life the most quasi-relationships I've known have been between ILE-LIEs.

They seem like Identicals who have stepped out of Alice's looking glass. At times, we are completely on the same page. At other times, we clash like we do with no other types. Clash without moderation. Go straight for the jugular.
That description could be easily used for duality too.

If that list could be seen as a progression, it looks like I'm getting closer to valuing the things that Socionics predicts I would. Some people know what they need right away, and some take longer to figure it out.

10. Originally Posted by niffer
It's interesting to me that you don't perceive it this way Adam, because in my personal life the most quasi-relationships I've known have been between ILE-LIEs.

That description could be easily used for duality too.
Not for me. My Quasi's really do share my interests and seem like Identicals, until we examine our interactions and our motivations. Then, they stepped out of the looking glass.

On the other hand, my Duals seem hard to "reach", hard to instantly mesh with, but the more I interact with them, the greater becomes my appreciation for their talents and their inner construction. They seem like people who are completely different, completely their own persons, but somehow friendly and familiar. Like someone else's very comfortable home.
I also don't seem to clash with duals. Not once that I can ever remember.

In real life, that is. On-line seems to be different.

Originally Posted by niffer
Thanks!

11. Sure, I get what you're saying Adam in terms of the qualitative differences.

I also don't seem to clash with duals. Not once that I can ever remember.
Lol, I am sure your experience here isn't representative of most of ours ... *cough*

"They seem like Identicals who have stepped out of Alice's looking glass. At times, we are completely on the same page. At other times, we clash like we do with no other types. Clash without moderation. Go straight for the jugular."

Lots of different socionics articles and forum posts have described duality as being like this too, or having the potential to be like this. If you know each other well, and have all the same values and your strengths are your dual's weaknesses, you should be extremely vulnerable to them in theory. They have the potential to destroy you, which is part of the allure. Contrast that with those who are in the opposite quadra and opposite club (alpha SFs for LIE), and the wounds inflicted wouldn't be able to be made nearly as deep.

12. Originally Posted by niffer
Alright, but keep in mind Jung isn't socionics.
Socionics is Jung's types! With extensions by Augustinavichiute. Jung's opinion and Augustinavichiute's one are hypotheses, but Jung should to have higher trust as authority in so core questions. Jung's explanation about weakest suggestive I see as better.

The link with Socionics is that weakest can be our suggestive would explain why we seek more the support in suggestive, but not in activation function. We prefer duals (EII) not activators (IEE), semiduals (ESI) not suborderie (ILE).
As the most hurtful and annoying people in my life I remember superego, but not conflictors. Probably superego (EIE) may hurt us more indeed, but we like lesser notice this due to lesser conscious suggestive function. Also other J/P adds the issues.
I do not remember revisors (ILI) as much annoying people. Mb business (ESE) annoyed me little higher with their often looking as not sincere and loudy emotional behavior.

> All socionics would be heresy towards Jung in a way

There are some contradictions or close, but not all.
Socionics uses Jung's types. Where Augustinavichiute says other than Jung - it's an expansion. Or other view on the same. Or an improvement of secondary Jung's texts - where Jung did interpretations of his core definitions. Where Augustinavichiute openly and directly did not reject Jung's opinion - it's acceptable. Where she clearly contradicts to the core theory of Jung indeed - it would need or needs to have better explanation and preferably experimental basis to be used.

Augustinavichiute did several good and reasonable hypotheses which expanded the Jung's texts and can be seen on practice. Like 8 functions available for consciousness, IR theory, partly improved 8 functions descriptions. This does not mean all she said is true or is not doubtful to be used seriously, as it's just muddy hypotheses without good basis.

To strict formally fit to "Socionics", to be able to use this popular term, - it's mostly enough and better to ignore doubtful places like Reinin's bs and some other.
Most of the ones who uses some Augustinavichiute's theory and claims to use Socionics does not reject directly Jung at all, besides where the weakest function is [what as I've explained can be her mistake]. You'll meet in most Socionics sources also Jung's definition of introversion, for example [what is not controversion to Jung anyway, as links can be thought as subjective approach], and do not reject Jung's core definitions of 8 functions - they often use them too, like another description of the same. The relation to Jung among socionists is seen that in the Augustinavichiute's compilation "Socionics" (initially published by "Terra Fantastica") exists Jung's X chapter from his "Psychological Types", and also MBTI alike test which is some translated test used by Augustinavichiute for the typing. Most of socionists will recommend you to read Jung and will not tell about any contradictions to him except where the damn "polr" is actually. In general, they do not pray on what Augustinavichiute wrote as they are adequate enough to understand the degree to trust to that, as they need to use the typology practically and to risk with doubtful bs is not in their interests [though they may tell about that bs in lectures, but will not use it seriously]. The exclusion is Reinin's traits, - sad but true, without good reasons [even Augustinavhichiute did not described many of them as assured, except some of them] they became popular and may reduce typing accuracy.
On practice as "Socionics" today mb called anything. People use own theory and call it as Socionics still. I recently looked at book with the name "Socionics" (by "Black squirrel" publisher) which is claimed to be the compilation of Augustinavichiute's publications. And have seen there Gulenko's bs about cognitive styles on some pages.

Where Augustinavichiute contradicts to core Jung's theory without good base - it's her who is heretic there.

13. fkin hate textwalls

14. Originally Posted by Sol
Socionics is Jung's types! With extensions by Augustinavichiute. Jung's opinion and Augustinavichiute's one are hypotheses, but Jung should to have higher trust as authority in so core questions. Jung's explanation about weakest suggestive I see as better.

The link with Socionics is that weakest can be our suggestive would explain why we seek more the support in suggestive, but not in activation function. We prefer duals (EII) not activators (IEE), semiduals (ESI) not suborderie (ILE).
As the most hurtful and annoying people in my life I remember superego, but not conflictors. Probably superego (EIE) may hurt us more indeed, but we like lesser notice this due to lesser conscious suggestive function. Also other J/P adds the issues.
I do not remember revisors (ILI) as much annoying people. Mb business (ESE) annoyed me little higher with their often looking as not sincere and loudy emotional behavior.

> All socionics would be heresy towards Jung in a way

There are some contradictions or close, but not all.
Socionics uses Jung's types. Where Augustinavichiute says other than Jung - it's an expansion. Or other view on the same. Or an improvement of secondary Jung's texts - where Jung did interpretations of his core definitions. Where Augustinavichiute openly and directly did not reject Jung's opinion - it's acceptable. Where she clearly contradicts to the core theory of Jung indeed - it would need or needs to have better explanation and preferably experimental basis to be used.

Augustinavichiute did several good and reasonable hypotheses which expanded the Jung's texts and can be seen on practice. Like 8 functions available for consciousness, IR theory, partly improved 8 functions descriptions. This does not mean all she said is true or is not doubtful to be used seriously, as it's just muddy hypotheses without good basis.

To strict formally fit to "Socionics", to be able to use this popular term, - it's mostly enough and better to ignore doubtful places like Reinin's bs and some other.
Most of the ones who uses some Augustinavichiute's theory and claims to use Socionics does not reject directly Jung at all, besides where the weakest function is [what as I've explained can be her mistake]. You'll meet in most Socionics sources also Jung's definition of introversion, for example [what is not controversion to Jung anyway, as links can be thought as subjective approach], and do not reject Jung's core definitions of 8 functions - they often use them too, like another description of the same. The relation to Jung among socionists is seen that in the Augustinavichiute's compilation "Socionics" (initially published by "Terra Fantastica") exists Jung's X chapter from his "Psychological Types", and also MBTI alike test which is some translated test used by Augustinavichiute for the typing.
Most of socionists will recommend you to read Jung and will not tell about any contradictions to him except where the damn "polr" is actually. In general, they do not pray on what Augustinavichiute wrote as they are adequate enough to understand the degree to trust to that, as they need to use the typology practically and to risk with doubtful bs is not in their interests [though they may tell about that bs in lectures, but will not use it seriously]. The exclusion is Reinin's traits, - sad but true, without good reasons [even Augustinavhichiute did not described many of them as assured, except some of them] they became popular and may reduce typing accuracy.
On practice as "Socionics" today mb called anything. People use own theory and call it as Socionics still. I recently looked at book with the name "Socionics" (by "Black squirrel" publisher) which is claimed to be the compilation of Augustinavichiute's publications. And have seen there Gulenko's bs about cognitive styles on some pages.

Where Augustinavichiute contradicts to core Jung's theory without good base - it's her who is heretic there.
I will read this later. In the meantime, I rainbow color coded it to make it easier to read for myself and others. You're welcome.

15. Originally Posted by Sol
Jung's opinion and Augustinavichiute's one are hypotheses, but Jung should to have higher trust as authority in so core questions. Jung's explanation about weakest suggestive I see as better.
I don't need to look further than your fourth sentence to pick all this apart. This is your own opinion, first of all.

Second of all, Jung has also implied that the 'suggestive' has an equally strong impact on the psyche as the dominant function. If you like his work so much, do find and quote where he's explicitly stated that the equivalent to the suggestive in socionics would be the weakest function. While you're at it, find for me where it's stated or implied that 'dominant' also means 'strongest'.

Prove me wrong and I'll give you a cookie.

16. Originally Posted by niffer
- All functions with the same vertness are linked in a way (all introverted functions, and all extroverted ones in the 'psyche')
1st - What are you trying to do? What is your goal or objective?
2nd - This is not correct. The conscious/unconscious axis splits the psyche in half. Introversion/Extraversion splits the psyche in half. Thus there are at least 4 distinct sections.
3rd- The flow of information between the blocks isn't proven. All we know is how the blocks work.

SEI
Code:
```    Introversion | Extraversion
Ni-2 | Te-1 [Super-Ego]
Conscious   Si-4 | Fe-3 [Ego]
-----------------|-----------------
Unconscious Fi-4 | Se-3 [Id]
Ti-2 | Ne-1 [Super Id]```
Originally Posted by niffer
Alright, but keep in mind Jung isn't socionics. All socionics would be heresy towards Jung in a way, by your working definition of the word heresy apparently lol.
You need to do your own research and think for yourself. Both systems have problems. With that said, I would say that Socionics fixes and improved quite a lot of Jung's original work.

Originally Posted by Sol
According to Jung the suggestive is the weakest, as it's the opposite to the leading function and hence should be as the most rejected by the conscious.
This is correct. With that said, you can make argument for the vulnerable function. It's the most rejected by the unconscious.

Originally Posted by Sol
For example, base Te types may not see themselves as rude in common. They try to be good [as it's valued] and think that behave as should, - in borders of morality/good kindness and it suprises them when others point they do something wrong, could to achieve the same or better with lesser hurting. From _formal_ surface side they are polite indeed mostly, the problem is the details. Practically that relations go not the best way and people by fact feel worse than could and this harms the results - they notice badly or think the other ones are morally or emotionally strange [are too touchy]. SLE and ILE when want to be "good" may probably behave better, in more pleasant way, then base Te when want the same.
Te Base doesn't see themselves as rude in general because they use 2D Fe and their 1D Fi means they have trouble realizing that they should have enemies and not everyone will like them.

17. Originally Posted by ooo
Yes, the creative function represses the unconscious, it's actually the Polr of our unconscious (??? lol wut did I write, ok delete this part), but it's a necessary thing to create ourselves. In the same time we can't leave the unconscious behind completely and creative is the only key to acess it. The Polr is the dual seeking of our unconscious, but it's even the function that we 'choose' to leave behind in favor of our creative... in extreme cases of divergence it could represent a conflict around the sort of material we produce (creative function) and how hard instead we think of an alternative to that, a different way to whatever we can do (Polr),
Where are you getting this from? Did you think of this yourself?

You are correct about the vulnerable function being the dual-seeking of our unconscious. But it's not the creative function that represses our unconscious, it's the base function. When you notice your demonstrative function, it's precisely because it's overriding your base function.

18. @domr If you are wanting to refute those things then you should provide some sources related to your claims, because these are ideas that have been repeated by several different members throughout this thread. They seem to be common understanding of these topics.

19. Originally Posted by niffer
@domr If you are wanting to refute those things then you should provide some sources related to your claims, because these are ideas that have been repeated by several different members throughout this thread. They seem to be common understanding of these topics.
Most people here are just regurgitating info that someone else created.
I am thinking for myself, i.e. doing real research.

20. Do you just not have any, or you don't feel like looking

Either way I'll take it as a clear no.

21. Originally Posted by domr
Where are you getting this from? Did you think of this yourself?

You are correct about the vulnerable function being the dual-seeking of our unconscious. But it's not the creative function that represses our unconscious, it's the base function. When you notice your demonstrative function, it's precisely because it's overriding your base function.
Jung gives a particular property to the auxiliary-creative function, that's where I got this from. He says that it's the creative to allow us to connect with our unconscious, I've reported the quote from Jung earlier. Anyway, if this is the case, we can say that since it's the superego the standard brake to unconscious (going by psychology definition), and the creative being the key to access it, then it's a matter of realizing that you're a product of dualistic exclusion of 2 things. The only way to access the unconscious means to recognize that we're one, and this means to reintegrate the Polr as an unsuppressed creative... in this light you can say that the creative really represses the unconscious, because it's the sum of what we're containing.

22. Dimentionality doesn't exist

23. Originally Posted by ooo
Jung gives a particular property to the auxiliary-creative function, that's where I got this from. He says that it's the creative to allow us to connect with our unconscious, I've reported the quote from Jung earlier. Anyway, if this is the case, we can say that since it's the superego the standard brake to unconscious (going by psychology definition), and the creative being the key to access it, then it's a matter of realizing that you're a product of dualistic exclusion of 2 things. The only way to access the unconscious means to recognize that we're one, and this means to reintegrate the Polr as an unsuppressed creative... in this light you can say that the creative really represses the unconscious, because it's the sum of what we're containing.

24. @domr
Yes yes I agree, and don't get me wrong please, I enjoy thinking of these details and trying to make sense out of the Model A, the problem is that I think it is built fairly well. I don't think it contains the entire truth or that reality can be described by it in the best possible way, yet the job it does is perfectly in line with what is a dualistic conception of the world, expressed by Jung but by many others before him too. You can get lost in time if you try to track who was the first to separate Fire/Water etc, I tried and discovered that all religions had similar ideas... but there's another important theory that is left out of socionics, and that's gone in parallel to dualism for millennia, it's the tri-folded division of the world, like the particles of matter made by a proton, a neutron and an electron. 3 elements, instead of 2. How would that be? I see too that some parts of the socion are redundant, maybe some different construction should be sought.

Yes, we can say that the entire ego is what keeps out the unconscious, actually the entire conscious blocks do that. To put order in this we have to understand how the evaluation of functions work, we don't value the ego because we value it. That's no reason. The mirror of valued and unvalued functions revolves around what you lack and what you have, that is dualism, the greatest you lack (DS), the greatest you can be yourself (base), it's the core exclusion= the lack of DS allows the base to take shape; this is how all functions work, they'll need their complementary. Now, from this fundamental core, that will be made of 4 elements (the dual pair, and the following excluded one, eg. Ne base - Si DS; Se role - Ni ignoring), you can add the other 4 particles that make you what you are: an auxiliary, and then a mobilizing, a Polr and a demonstrative. Each pair is made of complementary functions. Each pair excludes the others. From this second addition you see that it's the creative to sort of tame our unconscious, the demonstrative. They exclude each other, as your creative even exclude the Polr and the mobilizing. You can say that dimensionally the demonstrative is stronger, but that's why it's called demonstrative; the unconscious is so strong to escape the confines, sometimes; and the limits, in this case, are the use of creative, to which demonstrative is but another kind of complementary. We have more freedom in the demonstrative because base is not directly in its way through it, so maybe that's why we access the unconscious through the creative, because the unconscious is a result of what we keep out thanks to creative. Remove it, and you'll realize that it's the lack of Polr to feed on your unconscious...

As a matter of facts though, we can't just bring to the surface all the potent forces that we keep tamed in us without changing ourselves, if we do this switch we'd change our nature, that is the sum of everything we keep in a certain way. That's why the order of functions in the unconscious of an IEE must be different from the conscious of an EIE, they can resemble each other when you switch the order of their natural flow, but if that happens then that will be another type, operating in its new specific modus. The unconscious of a normal IEE will always operate with the functions of a EIE, but that's why they're a IEE, so if you bring the unconscious to take control over your total conscious, you'll become your quasi type.

It makes sense to say that all the16 pair functions operate in a way in the conscious, and in another in the unconscious, but how does that exactly work? You can't expect 2 quasis to use functions in the same way, but you can't expect a contrary and a mirror to use functions the same as you, either. Not to mention that you shouldn't expect that your identicals will work exactly like you. Anyway. Each type has their own way to go through functions that won't be of the same kind of the types who use those functions in their ego. Eg., you're an IEE, you won't become an IEI when you use Ni and Fe, Ni and Fe will be elaborated by your own base functions, so you'll be a mix of all those functions when you process through ID. It will be a good mix, an inspired state, but you won't use those functions like a IEI, you'll still be your type. Same if you use Se and Ti, you won't become a SLE, but mix those functions to your core ego functions. And it's the same for the functions of your quasi, you'll still elaborate Fe and Ni through Ne and Fi, which again should be stimulating. In all these cases it's the original value order to dictate, as you said, the base always wins. But now we know why.

Simply, if you let the unconscious take over, you'll invert the order of values and this implies to change the nature of the type. It's not the same as being of the previous type and use all the 8 functions, all types use all the functions in a way or the other. As you said before, fe., a NiFe can have all the possible sort of ways to be translated, for all the types that use it that are not IEI.

You can access the flow of your unconscious by letting the creative recognize itself as weaker in front of the demonstrative, an exclusion that can't be hidden. But if you do this, you'll become your quasi type. At that point the Fe/Ni pair won't work as it did in your IEE unconscious, but will control your processes, your nature, so it will be another interpretation of reality, you'll be a FeNi.

Going through this papyri, you're right, the accepting/producing dichotomy doesn't seem to come in help. I think though that it comes in help when comparing quasis, the content flow otherwise would be the same, while in this way we know that the base function is sort of unchangeable, and the demonstrative is a product of something else.

(I'm not sure this makes any sense at all, but basically I'm saying that, for the current states of dichotomies, it makes sense that there are 16 different kinds... you're proposing to erase some dichotomies, but doing that should change some types too... like the quasis could effectively switch from valued to unvalued functions, if there's no further element to keep them but the total strength of their core functions, that is that by dimensionaity they're the same... so what else can make a difference? How we use them, aka accepting/producing.)*

* edited because nonsense.

25. Originally Posted by niffer
I don't need to look further than your fourth sentence to pick all this apart. This is your own opinion, first of all.
You need, as there also were logical arguments which influence on my opinion and hence they are needed to understand my opinion.

That suggestive is weakest is Jung's opinion, the creator of the typology. He gave good logical explanation and practically used the typology for psychotherapy for many years to help people to understand themselves. Augustinavichiute said and did nothing more meaningful to trust her blindly in this. You should doubt in every her word which contradicts [or looks such] to Jung's core model as there are no objective reasons for other. I'm not sure in this question as this needs more experimental data, but incline, have more trust to Jung's opinion and this not only because of his higher authority in the typology he created.

Augustinavichiute's opinion has not better basis to be sure in it. As I explained before - besides a mistake of one of them, the difference mb due to different understanding what to think as weakest here. Even functional tests may to do not show correctly the weakest function by the same reasons - people do not understand themselves correctly. The problems in suggestive may be lesser noticed.
For example, LSE do not see themselves as rude (Fi) - we hold formally correctly and want be liked (Fi valued), but we hurt people. When people do not say about this - we much underestimate the degree we make people feeling badly. It's what ESI said to me - you insult people, but not directly. I'm really did not understood why she became angry on me many times. So on own experience I may admit that my Fi is weaker than I see myself and hence mb it's weaker than 4th function. Meanwhile though it's hard for me to feel Ni, I regularly came after time to many places [I need to add significant additional time to overcome this as any distraction from the plan - and I loose the feeling how much it took to distract me], it's hard for me to be sure in a concrete outcome [mostly I concetrate on what I do reasonably now for the good outcome and then try do not think about future at all], but I succesfully messed with Ni practice for years, - it's hard, it's not pleasant, mb it exhausted me (as weak unvalued) - but it's not what I can't to do. To deal with Fi stuff mb harder for me indeed, - it never was developed by me, it more could be insired by others or copied from what other ones do. I'm very dependent on what feelings people have to me, - it's very hard for me to control the relations so I prefer either ignore people [to protect myself from negative of them] or when it would be a friend - I'll try to establish very close psychic distance and be very conformistic to get the most from the warmness of the rare relations and to reduce the risks to worsen this relations in which I feel good. You may notice some E-9 stuff in me here, being E-1 probably E-9 is my unconscious shadow, like suggestive function in Jung's types.
I remember that the most significant psyche complications were from base Fe types, EIE. They hurted me the deepest and it took sometimes years to restore and partly I'm still not restored. It's not always felt as strong harm - you like without reasons get the problems and do not understand clearly what was the reason, do not feel this clearly in the process, do not understand why it hurted you so much - the degree of your reactions is rather unexpected for you.

We seek for duality, not for activation - as we need the support of suggestive the most to feel good. Most probably suggestive is the weakest function, but mb in other sense than Augustinavichiute noticed that and then tried to explain what she felt, what other people reported to her - on what she made and checked the model later. She ignored that the weakest function should be also the least conscious to understand the degree of problems in it. Conflictors were called as the worst IR by her based on her assumption, but in my life EIE had more conflicts with me, not IEI. Filatova (EII) in one of her books described LSI as the weirdest people, not SLE.
So I have not only Jung's words [which have higher authority] and his logical argument for them [which is better than at Augustinavichiute], but also the personal experience which points more to suggestive as real "polr". So I can't be sure that 4th function is weakest and blindly accept this because Augustinavichiute said this. From the beginning I doubt in this, as analysed my IR since the 1st year of the typology study and knew which people hurted me more.
I'm also closer to Jung understanding of what types are - the disorder, which needs be reduced by the improving of weak regions. I got this opinion in the first years after the communication with Jung's followers. I changed from Augustinavichiute's approach to that.

> Second of all, Jung has also implied that the 'suggestive' has an equally strong impact on the psyche as the dominant function.

Jung ranged the functions by _consciousness_ presence. Though he did not said weak functions have lesser energy, he said they are more archaic, primitive, lesser noticed, lesser separated and hence also harder to be used consciously.

> do find and quote where he's explicitly stated that the equivalent to the suggestive in socionics would be the weakest function.

It's such for the consciousness as the most isolated from it, hence can't be used consciously good what fits to weak in Socionics [note: in trance mind state the weak functions should become more conscious, as ego lesser supresses them]. He called his 4th (suggestive function) as "inferior", said it should be the least conscious and the traits following from this. It's also clear which function for every type he called such. You should find the needed easily in PT - do the search by "inferior" in PT. It's the base work for Socionics and you need to know it yourself.

> While you're at it, find for me where it's stated or implied that 'dominant' also means 'strongest'.

the most conscious

> Prove me wrong and I'll give you a cookie.

I'm tired. You ask what should to know before starting such discussion or avoid to do simple summary.

26. @ooo Modal A/Socionics isn't good enough.

1) Specification - Most important issue. Modal A/Socionics lacks solid definitions for the cognitive functions. This causes a lot of debate and stops the model from being taken seriously by scholars.
2) Comprehensibility - It's very difficult to explain how Modal A works.
3) Legibility - There is a lot of junk in the system like like the triangles/squares/circles that confuse people.
3) Credibility- Modal A has a lot of assumptions that aren't necessarily true. Concepts like informational metabolism are highly speculative and they aren't used in analysis (ITR).
4) Explanation - Socionics doesn't explain very important concepts that are part of the model like the unconscious and it's relationship to the conscious.

I would describe Jung's work as Alpha and Socionics as Beta but neither is release candidate ready. It seems that a lot of people don't realize this so they aren't doing the proper research to fix the system. I am.

To put order in this we have to understand how the evaluation of functions work, we don't value the ego because we value it. That's no reason
Axiom. I say that we do value the ego block because I define the ego block as valued. It's an axiom.

An axiom is a proposition regarded as self-evidently true without proof.
The mirror of valued and unvalued functions revolves around what you lack and what you have, that is dualism, the greatest you lack (DS), the greatest you can be yourself (base), it's the core exclusion= the lack of DS allows the base to take shape; this is how all functions work, they'll need their complementary. Now, from this fundamental core, that will be made of 4 elements (the dual pair, and the following excluded one, eg. Ne base - Si DS; Se role - Ni ignoring), you can add the other 4 particles that make you what you are: an auxiliary, and then a mobilizing, a Polr and a demonstrative. Each pair is made of complementary functions. Each pair excludes the others. From this second addition you see that it's the creative to sort of tame our unconscious, the demonstrative. They exclude each other, as your creative even exclude the Polr and the mobilizing. You can say that dimensionally the demonstrative is stronger, but that's why it's called demonstrative; the unconscious is so strong to escape the confines, sometimes; and the limits, in this case, are the use of creative, to which demonstrative is but another kind of complementary. We have more freedom in the demonstrative because base is not directly in its way through it, so maybe that's why we access the unconscious through the creative, because the unconscious is a result of what we keep out thanks to creative. Remove it, and you'll realize that it's the lack of Polr to feed on your unconscious...
I have no clue what you are saying and this is not how the model works. In addition, this isn't any better than valuing the ego block because you are simply substituted that for your new concept of dualism. And your rational is circular logic.

As a matter of facts though, we can't just bring to the surface all the potent forces that we keep tamed in us without changing ourselves, if we do this switch we'd change our nature, that is the sum of everything we keep in a certain way. That's why the order of functions in the unconscious of an IEE must be different from the conscious of an EIE, they can resemble each other when you switch the order of their natural flow, but if that happens then that will be another type, operating in its new specific modus. The unconscious of a normal IEE will always operate with the functions of a EIE, but that's why they're a IEE, so if you bring the unconscious to take control over your total conscious, you'll become your quasi type.
I don't have a problem with speculation or you making new insights but they have to do rigorous and this is not. Your explanation boils down to "well quasi-identical has to be different unconsciously because I say think it has to be different." And yes when you let your unconscious take control you do start acting more like your Quasi-identical. That's why Quasi-identical can be such a difficult relationship to manage because they force you to repress your ego.

It makes sense to say that all the16 pair functions operate in a way in the conscious, and in another in the unconscious, but how does that exactly work? You can't expect 2 quasis to use functions in the same way, but you can't expect a contrary and a mirror to use functions the same as you, either. Not to mention that you shouldn't expect that your identicals will work exactly like you. Anyway. Each type has their own way to go through functions that won't be of the same kind of the types who use those functions in their ego. Eg., you're an IEE, you won't become an IEI when you use Ni and Fe, Ni and Fe will be elaborated by your own base functions, so you'll be a mix of all those functions when you process through ID. It will be a good mix, an inspired state, but you won't use those functions like a IEI, you'll still be your type. Same if you use Se and Ti, you won't become a SLE, but mix those functions to your core ego functions. And it's the same for the functions of your quasi, you'll still elaborate Fe and Ni through Ne and Fi, which again should be stimulating. In all these cases it's the original value order to dictate, as you said, the base always wins. But now we know why.
Again, not rigorous thought. When I use NiFe, I become an EIE, not an IEI. When I use SeTi, I become a half-assed SLE. Your inability to connect the dots here and realize that yes you do become those types is really holding you back because that is the insight that you need to analyze socionics.

Simply, if you let the unconscious take over, you'll invert the order of values and this implies to change the nature of the type.
Not exactly because your Quasi identical is still from the same family as you NF/ST or NT/SF so at the highest level, you have the same goals and same values. You have to go above the Quadra level to the aristrocatic/democratic level to realize this. Also it helps if you've experienced being forced to work for a Quasi-identical boss.

27. Hmm ok, I see where you're going and I find it interesting but I think you're getting lost in the process, first of all you have to give an explanation to the value and unvalued functions, if you want to switch with your quasi, because you will have to switch your valued and unvalued blocks when switching, so how would that be possible? It's possible in the way that your creative allows you to reach the borders of your unconscious, but if you make that value switch you'll trespass the type limits... now it's cool maybe you want to erase the borders between quasis and whatelse, but that means you'll remove values too, accepting/producing, and what else, I think you've already mentioned that dimensionality is bunk?

28. Dimensionality is just some voodoo hocus pocus, there's no such thing. There's no such thing as "deeper" logic, "deeper" ethics, or even worse, some sort of "deeper" facts or objectivity, whatever that means. It makes things more mystical than Socionics already is.

I see no evidence of "Fi" types having some sort of "deep", nuanced, brilliant ethics. The so-called "Ti" types have crap logic. And don't get me started on "deeper" objectivity or whatever, as if citing facts is going to be "objective", when objectivity is a difficult and continuously evolving process of uncovering reality. The "Ni" types can somehow predict the future by looking into a magic crystal ball? Give me a break. Predictions of the future are often chock full of errors and cognitive blind spots. Can "Si" types just magically know what's good for their health, without even consulting a doctor? Dangerous myth at a best.

Now, it's obvious that some people going to be better at this or that, but it's not the way in that people think, as in "dimensionality". Why is this such a thing even taken seriously, I have no idea. I'd say people are just gullible, and buy into whatever that sounds "scientific-y".

29. At the end of the day, having taken all that's been said into account, what squark and ooo said about "the unconscious may be more powerful than the conscious" stands out as the most defining to me on this topic.

Thanks all and I bid thee farewell, thread. Bye!

Page 4 of 4 First 1234

#### Posting Permissions

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