# Thread: Demonstrative and Mobilizing functions are Accepting NOT Producing.

1. ## Demonstrative and Mobilizing functions are Accepting NOT Producing.

Accepting/Producing is a band-aid fix to explain duality:

Your leading function is accepting & creative is producing. Your dual's leading is accepting & creative is producing. If suggestive is accepting and mobilizing is producing then it perfectly mirrors your dual's ego block functions = perfect match.

The problem is this total breaks other relationships such as quasi-identical. Your leading is accepting & creative is producing. If your demonstrative is accepting and ignoring is producing then this mirrors your quasi-identicals ego block functions = perfect conflict.

2. Originally Posted by domr
In the current system, the demonstrative is stronger than ignoring functions so it wouldn't be possible for the ignoring function to accept all the information from the demonstrative function. This is a BIG PROBLEM in the current model; unexplained.
But it doesn't lol. So what's the problem?

What you're describing is already the case for demonstrative and ignoring.

As for the other blocks, well I think you're missing the point about how accepting/producing is supposed to work.

The Independent (Accepting) Trait
The term "independent" has a specific meaning in the context of this function dichotomy. Independent functions are generally able to generate or create a product without being inhibited or constrained by the dependent functions. n this sense, the product of the independent functions can be considered fixed in that they are generally not altered by the dependent functions. However in certain cases, the independent functions must change. These cases arise when a critical threshold of information is received that contradicts the independent functions/' product. This critical threshold is defined at the point when the dependent functions can no longer explain or justify how the new information received conforms to what the independent function has produced. At this point, the independent functions are forced to make corrections and adjustments to their product.

The Dependent (Producing) Trait
As with the term independent, the term dependent also has a specific meaning. When creating a product, the dependent functions generally try to conform to the product of the independent functions; they are dependent, constrained, and governed by what the independent functions have produced. The dependent functions can also be called variable. Variable means that the product of the dependent functions change and adapt relatively quickly in order to explain how new information received conforms to what the independent functions have produced.
from: Sociotype.com .

It's more like just dependent and independently constrained information. It has nothing to do with 'accepting' all the information and holding it like a net. Actually the producing ones are more like that if you're going to liken it to that, which again, the demonstrative already is in the example you brought up.

But yeah thanks for bringing this up because I got to look into and understand accepting/producing when I didn't know much about it before.

3. Ok. Fair enough.

Out of curiosity, why do you think it might have been conceived?

Personally I read about it a long time ago but never got into it too much because I didn't see it playing out with much significance in IRL, so I'm open to discussion of this.

4. I like this. Nice work!

5. @dmor: I believe you are making an error here: thinking that two functions within a block are exchanging information, e.g. Ne and Fi. This is not the case, each information element can function by itself.

6. Originally Posted by domr
They are exchanging info. This is crucial to understanding people.
All IE are exchanging information, but not by default, they can operate fairly independently. Just my two cents.

7. Originally Posted by domr
Based on what?
Based on my insights on how functions and IEs interact. See my blog:

http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.nl

Of course you can disagree with me, but this is what all my experience with Socionics has led me to believe.

There is, e.g. for an IEE, no necessity for Ne and Fi to exchange information. Ne and Si serve, in the IEE-SLI dual relationship to establish a foundation for the relationship to exist and the individuals in this relationship to feel safe and secure. Once established, and only then, can Fi and Te be used to help the other person out.

We can see this in semi-dual relationships: they are easily established, but useless to get further in life.

8. Originally Posted by domr
I'm well aware of the definitions. The accepting function sees stuff (perception) or decides on what to do (judgement) and the producing functions then take that info and make it into something usable (judgement, if accepting function is perception) or provide info to accomplish the task (perception, if accepting function is judgement.) [/COLOR]
Not true. As I suggested in my previous post, the accepting functions are there to establish a relationship, the producing functions are there to help each other out. The Fi in an IEE is a response to the Fi in an SLI, not to the Ne in the IEE themselves. If it is, it is a neurotic response in the IEE, not a healthy one.

If the theory states otherwise, I say the theory is wrong.

9. @domr: you are free to accept the resources of your choosing, I stand by mine. One of us is wrong and thus will suffer the consequences.

10. Originally Posted by domr
Give me the definitions for the IM. I don't think you have a good understanding of the functions or the blocks. In fact, I think I'm the only person that has a good understanding of the blocks.
Excuse me? I think this discussion stops right here. You just earned yourself a spot on my ignore list!

11. metal af discussion

12. ;P

13. Originally Posted by domr
I think I scared him away.
I don't think you scared him away.

It's just that claims to knowing the absolute truth in a field as speculative as Socionics can be off-putting. It's better to present your arguments as best you can, and do course-corrections if necessary.

I think this is why some guys like the game of golf.

14. Originally Posted by Adam Strange
I don't think you scared him away.

It's just that claims to knowing the absolute truth in a field as speculative as Socionics can be off-putting. It's better to present your arguments as best you can, and do course-corrections if necessary.

I think this is why some guys like the game of golf.
It's like I said in another thread: I radically refuse to waste my time on people that aren't worth it. It's their loss, not mine.

15. Originally Posted by domr
Mistake. When Aushra Augusta created Model A, she must have thought that the conscious mind was the same as the unconscious in terms of rational vs irrational. In addition, her model only has strong/weak vs 1-4. So it wasn't entirely obvious this was a mistake.

This mistakes becomes really important when you do start to do research on the blocks. I gave an Si>Fe vs Si<Fe example in the original post. It's not possible to understand the unconscious blocks if a 3D function is stronger than a 4D function and it breaks the symmetry between conscious and unconscious blocks.

To rephrase that. There are 8 blocks

FiNe
TiSe
FiSe
TiNe
NiTe
SiTe
NiFe
SiFe

If you add the 4D to these blocks then you get 16 blocks, all 8 blocks but with each block having 1 stronger function.

Fi>Ne
Fi<Ne
etc.

This correlates to the 16 different personality types.

If you add the accepting/producing dichotomy then you create 16(?) new blocks, all unconscious, where weaker function is accepting.
This doesn't seem right and it makes doing analysis really difficult.

Are you sure youre an ethical type xd

16. I really like your thoughts on Si and feel similarly. I think Tallmo also has come to that realization that Si is pushed out in society and requires rediscovery by individuals in order to be healthy

17. Originally Posted by Adam Strange
It's just that claims to knowing the absolute truth in a field as speculative as Socionics can be off-putting.
That's not too different from this kind of a response imo lmao

Based on my insights on how functions and IEs interact. See my blog:

http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.nl
Tfw trying to disprove someone disproving original socionics by using their own non-original-socionics work. It's a way of indirectly displaying he's got his head up his own ass.

Few people can deal with a mirror being held up to them and their own antics.

18. Originally Posted by domr
I agree. He was telling me I was wrong and when I asked him for data to back up it's statements, he gets upset. Hypocrite.
And he was even the first to egg you on by saying this less than necessary shit:

One of us is wrong and thus will suffer the consequences.
Don't you love how people miss shit like this? Then instinctively jump to the rescue of whoever shows the most indignance.

19. I also call it low quality

20. Originally Posted by niffer
And he was even the first to egg you on by saying this less than necessary shit:

Don't you love how people miss shit like this? Then instinctively jump to the rescue of whoever shows the most indignance.
You are completely wrong about me and projecting your own interpretation of my intentions (Ne role??). I did not mean any derogative by saying that one of us is wrong and will suffer the consequences of our errors in believe, I was just stating what I believe to be true: that one of us is wrong and will suffer the consequences, simply because if we believe something that is wrong, it will guide us into the wrong actions. It was not implied to mean that he was wrong and I am right.

As to my convictions on Socionics: I do think that in the past twelve years I have gained a very deep understanding of the matter, and I also believe I have written some pretty original insights on my blog. I really couldn't care less what newcomers to Socionics think of that.

By the way, you have now made it onto my ignore list as well.

21. irlol fukin retard confirmed

22. I dunno I get what he's saying, to suffer the consequences can just be a form of resignation to the natural results of a intractable disagreement. its a way of letting God sort it out when its an area where all people can do is argue. it cuts both ways, to say that is to include yourself as potentially being on the wrong side, but simply adopting a wait and see attitude rather than try to apply force where it won't help anyway. that seems fair to me and not some kind of threat, rather the opposite of a threat really. if one is confident in what one's saying they can take those exact words as an endorsement

23. ^ another point to you and Fe polr lmao sigh

bitches dont learn

24. So demonstrative does not produce but accept, how does it differ between a 4D accepting and lower D accepting?

25. Originally Posted by Bertrand
...but simply adopting a wait and see attitude...
This. Because what other way is there to find out? Socionics is a theory in the realm of social and behavioral sciences, and as such must be proved or disproved by empirical methods. Of course you can mentally masturbate with Socionics by trying to make it logically or mathematically consistent, but it will not prove anything, because there is no relation with the empirical facts.

Furthermore, I suppose most of us are into Socionics in order to have an effect on our lives, unless we are here to mentally masturbate, of course. But I'm not into Socionics just for intellectual fun. For me, it is damn serious business, which helps me to function better in life. And that's what I mean by suffering the consequences if we have an incorrect understanding of Socionics: if we are into Socionics to improve the quality of our life, we'd better not have an incorrect understanding. If it does not improve our lives, we are at best not applying tghe insights, or we are applying the wrong insights. (of course it is also possible to be wrong and accidentally still have a good outcome).

26. <______>

27. Originally Posted by Bertrand
...rather the opposite of a threat really. if one is confident in what one's saying they can take those exact words as an endorsement
exactly:

...I wish you all the arrival at that point where it all comes together. Keep investing in Socionics, keep testing it against your real life experiences....

28. reeeeeeeeeee

29. Originally Posted by domr
Accepting/Producing has no impact on function strength.
Ok, How does higher dimension in accepting differ? What is a high dimension accepting?

30. Originally Posted by domr
To give an example of Ne Demonstrative/Base vs. Mobilizing/Role.
4D Ne is able to see with great clarity different possibilities or connections between seemingly unrelated objects or events.
2D Ne only has a rudimentary ability to see different possibilities or connections.

Similarly
4D Fe is great fidelity in knowing what is appropriate or rude. These types can break the rules and be rude because you know when it's okay to be rude.
2D Fe has basic understanding of what is appropriate or rude. These types need to wait until they screw up than gauge if they were ethical or not by taking a survey of what other people think, 51% wins.

The higher dimension gives you nuance in your ability to use the function. (I don't agree with the definitions of the dimensions tho, norms, situaiton, time, I think it's BS).
How does the producing differ? Does it not accept but change things? Higher dimension higher nuance and wisdom and such.

31. Originally Posted by domr
See post #3.

Higher dimension function (accepting) in the block creates the insight (if perception) or decision (if judgement).
Lower dimension function (producing) then provides rational to explain insight (if judgment) or data to enact decision (if perception).

So accepting/producing dichotomy is already built into the dimensions depending on which function is in control of the block.
I never really been digging in accepting/producing. Thanks for clearing it up a bit.

32. I don't get how the order of strength has to debunk accepting/producing. If anything, it shows that the 2 columns are opposed for you and your Quasi identical. In the flow that you've shown from ego to quasi the only difference between one type and the other is given by accepting/producing.

33. Originally Posted by domr
The accepting/producing dichotomy, which we don't even know how it's derived, creates 16 new blocks.
What do you mean that they create 16 blocks? I think this dichotomy has to do with how we elaborate information, if there wasn't this difference, you could as well say that you operate precisely like your quasi, because of strength, but since you work out information differently, you result in different types that have opposing orders, even for accepting/producing, because they're mirrored and twisted up.

All unconscious, with a weaker accepting function, stronger producing function.
What makes you say weaker and stronger exactly? For the conscious, the strength of the accepting functions is 4D (base) and 1D (polr), in the unconscious it's 2D and 3D, it seems balanced, not weaker.

34. Originally Posted by domr
In each block, there is a stronger function. That stronger function is in control of the block, at least in the conscious blocks. Base and Role function are stronger than Creative and Vulnerable so they control the blocks. e.g. an Si>Fe is more focused on understanding the human condition Si while Si<Fe is more focused on influencing humans Fe.
From this misconception, of the theory, your whole analysis falls apart because you've adopted an axiom that nobody follows. You are on your own, following your own derivative version of the theory now.

Your definition of "strength" is incompatible with the common folk, so you'll need to explain it.

Originally Posted by domr
By symmetry, the unconscious blocks should be the same. This makes sense intuitively, that someone who is a conscious perceiver is an unconscious judger and vice-versa. In the current system, the demonstrative is stronger than ignoring functions so it wouldn't be possible for the ignoring function to accept all the information from the demonstrative function. This is a BIG PROBLEM in the current model; unexplained.
"conscious" now means something totally different in your model, without creating your own theory from the ground up, you'll just be adding confusion and misunderstandings since you are implying that others share comparable axioms - thus oblivious to the incompatibility in comprehension of the supposed phenomena you are trying to communicate.

Originally Posted by domr
Below is my revised Modal A diagram, where I added 2 axes. With this change, the flow of information is the same between conscious and unconscious blocks in terms of I/E.

Horizontal axis is Conscious/Unconscious
Vertical axis Introverted/Extraverted
Flow of information from Producing to Accepting
[Function Strength / Dimensions]

IEE fixed

Code:
```[1] Ti ---|--> Se [2] (Super-Ego)
[3] Fi ---|--> Ne [4] (Ego)
----------|----------
[3] Ni ---|--> Fe [4] (Id)
[1] Si ---|--> Te [2] (Super Id)```
Unfixed IEE (Status Quo)

Code:
```[1] Ti ---|--> Se [2] (Super-Ego)
[3] Fi ---|--> Ne [4] (Ego)
----------|----------
[3] Ni <--|--- Fe [4] (Id)
[1] Si <--|--- Te [2] (Super Id)```
The problem with this diagram is that it says the person prefers weaker functions in the unconscious block while they prefer stronger functions in the conscious block. In addition, the Quasi-identical is the only other type with the same dimensionally to their functions. But if you try creating the Quasi-identical while preserving the current accepting/producing dichotomy, it won't be possible.

Derived EIE Quasi-Identical
Code:
```[1] Si <--|--- Te [2] (Super-Ego)
[3] Ni <--|--- Fe [4] (Ego)
----------|----------
[3] Fi ---|---> Ne [4] (Id)
[1] Ti ---|---> Se [2] (Super Id)```
This model says that your quasi-identical should be an introvert because their conscious introverted functions are producing but that isn't the case.

Derived EIE Quasi-Identical Fixed
Code:
```[1] Si ---|--> Te [2] (Super-Ego)
[3] Ni ---|--> Fe [4] (Ego)
----------|----------
[3] Fi ---|--> Ne [4] (Id)
[1] Ti ---|--> Se [2] (Super-Id)```
This diagram makes sense. By having demonstrative and mobilizing, all one has to do is swap ego<->id and superego<->super-id to go between Quasi-Identicals.

The more I think about it, the more confident I get that this change is correct. This change gets rid of the entire accepting/producing dichotomy by incorporating the information into preference between introversion vs. extroversion.
At this point, you are no longer using model a, so you should create your own model. BTW you might wanna check on the energy-model and/or model g since they've realised that dimensionality can conflict with model a - hence they've got.

For IEE:
Base Ne
Creative Fe
Demonstrative Fi
Control Ni

In that model the reason for the first two functions being the same is based on acceptance of energy being the most dominant influence in behavioural profiles. Most of the "Fi" observations attributed to IEE are that F-traits but heavily charged with extroverted energy. Any actual "Fi" is for conclusion purposes - selling ideas developed via the NeFe processes.

35. @domr

Alright, I think I got what you're saying, you're saying that because there are 16 blocks (accepting-producing), then it makes no sense to create other 16 ones that go producing-accepting to resemble our quasis? Basically you say "let's erase accepting/producing" because if we take them out then we have the same 16 blocks for everyone... is it right?

36. Originally Posted by domr
@Soupman

Correct. I don't call my work Socionics anymore. I view it as Analytical Psychology. An improvement of Socionics, the same way Socioncis improved on Jung's work..

Not misconception. Correction.
Just to clarify, I'm not insulting you but you have a misconception because you haven't demonstrated the ability to understand the classical interpretation on it's own terms. Nevertheless you don't care about about the classical ideas, but that's okay, instead you've gone your own way.

What is the difference between IEE and EII? Ne Dom with Fi Aux (using Jung's words) vs. Fi Dom vs Ne Aux. This is the original block that Jung discovered, now called the ego block. This dom/aux (base/creative) is the same as the accepting/producing dichotomy in the ego block (and super-ego blocks). Once you think about it, you realize that you can get rid of the dichotomy because it's already built-in the modal, at least in the conscious blocks because of the dimensions. The stronger function in the block, i.e. higher dimensions is always accepting, while lower is producing, again in the conscious blocks. So up until here, this is all standard modern Socionics but reduced, as seen in the chart below.
BTW by throwing away the classical interpretation of producing and accepting,you've lost the ability to understand and explain why rationality is important - why the intertype relations between those dyads are always "off" and disorientating especially between mirror types.

You need to interact with rational types - especially INFJ ENFJ INTJ, to feel that dissonance in priority and confusion.

37. Originally Posted by Soupman
BTW by throwing away the classical interpretation of producing and accepting,you've lost the ability to understand and explain why rationality is important
Ah so that's what it's about. Thanks.

Could you give an example illustrating the effect of accepting/producing (separate from rational/irrational alone) on mirror types?

38. Originally Posted by domr
Yes. And dichotomies need to add value to the model. Accepting/Producing adds no value in the conscious blocks because it's correlated 100% with other dichotomies, specifically dimensions. And in the unconscious, it's not understandable how 3D accepting functions operate compared to 4D accepting in the conscious blocks.
Accepting/Producing is not really a dichotomy but you're right, none really cares to explain accepting/producing. I'm noting though that if you keep the accepting functions as they are they're the same of your Contrary, but inverted upside down, and if you value dimension instead, you'll have the same order of your Quasi, but inverted, and if you mirror the functions, as you've noticed, you'll find your mirror.

Accepting/producing looks like a rather interesting way to distinguish conscious and unconscious functions, if you have the same dimensionality of your Quasi you can distinguish the two by studying what sort of information they can produce or instead are firm on; base is accepting and 4d, it takes more to be shaken, while creative is producing and 3D, more prone to build bridges and change course based on external things, so 2 Quasis will have opposite ways to be firm and producing, even if they share the same dimensionality. You can say it's because of conscious/unconscious functions, but once the functions of the unconscious become conscious, you're just making a type switch, as you've shown in your first codes. Now, an EIE is supposedly totally another type, not just the shadow of an IEE, so their information content and flow should be different as well.

39. If I were to pick them it would be
Accepting : Lead, Ignoring, Mobilizing and PolR
Producing: Demonstrative, Creative, Suggestive and Role

40. Originally Posted by niffer
reeeeeeeeeee

Page 1 of 5 12345 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
•