Anyone use the (+/-) signs for functions?

[photon]

There's an article on this forum about the signs for the IEs. Does anyone use or understand then? Are they a useful or not really? The article doesn't explain which types have what signs, except for result types having a (-) function as the leading function and process having a (+) sign.

[Ave]

You mean this? - http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...o-quot-Gulenko

I find it interesting, but I don't know if I find it useful. I also know Gulenko changed his models many times, but I like this version best.

[The Reality Denialist]

I prefer process/result declaration over messy +/- notation.

[photon]

You mean this? - http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...o-quot-Gulenko

I find it interesting, but I don't know if I find it useful. I also know Gulenko changed his models many times, but I like this version best.

It was one of the articles. Sorry, should have posted that in the OP;

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...unctions-Eglit

[silke]

I've referenced them at times. IMO they are superfluous in typing. Nice additional detail for confirming type, but too convoluted of a method. So I don't recommend it for someone who is just getting into socionics. It's advanced material for those who want to dive into theorycrafting.

It's also extremely confusing for newcomers to have several different explanations floating around with no agreement on which method works. The one that seems to work in my case is combining +/- with process/result where + designates process IEs and - designates result ones, then using Eglit's sign distribution that basically makes dual types work like magnets, where each plus of one is matched by a minus sign of respective IE in dual's model, and vice versa.

I prefer process/result declaration over messy +/- notation.

If you consider that + is process and - is result then process/result is actually the same thing. It makes each type be a combination of both process and result traits, with the difference of how signs alternate - process types are always leading with a +IE and result types with a -IE - and it also makes dual types balance each other out on every set of IEs e.g if SEIs have + Si then ILEs have - Si, if SEIs have -Fe the ILEs have +Fe, so combined together a dual dyad would have every possible +/- in their set in a balanced arrangement.

[Bertrand]

I agree they just sort of confuse people--same with subtypes.. and I fell into that too. I think the main goal should be understanding the theory without them rather than using them to make every typing some version of the exception by way of these concepts. I think one knows they're using them correctly when they're not producing bizarre results but mundane ones more often than not

[Bertrand]

strength can mean 3d+

it can also mean the obviousness of a function, i.e.: its "bulging"--this is usually typified by accents (an accent on a 1d function can be very obvious). one problem gulenko says is distinguishing "control" function from an accent. control is base + ignoring, i.e.: the domain where a person "lives" (ethics in a ethical base type, intuition in an intuition base type, etc--both attitudes essentially comprising the lens they view the world through). so if you mean strength by its obvious protrusion then yes its distinct from dimensionality, but to say they have nothing to do with eachother is an overstatement, because it can also be a way to distinguish between functions on either side of the strong/weak divide which is 4/3d functions v 2/1d functions. gulenko does admit the usefulness of the dimensionality concept, which makes sense because the dimensions of a function are a spatial way to visualize their scope and reach. when we talk of a cube vs a square that relationship exists in our minds as to certain informational domains. some people "flatten" certain parts of being whereas others have a very 3 and 4 dimensional concept of them. a good example is ethics, some people think ethical rules can be reduced to text and contain within them the entirety of the ethical content there is to convey. others would say written rules are just the jumping off point and comprise maybe 1% of an ethical existence

[The Reality Denialist]

I've referenced them at times. IMO they are superfluous in typing. Nice additional detail for confirming type, but too convoluted of a method. So I don't recommend it for someone who is just getting into socionics. It's advanced material for those who want to dive into theorycrafting.

It's also extremely confusing for newcomers to have several different explanations floating around with no agreement on which method works. The one that seems to work in my case is combining +/- with process/result where + designates process IEs and - designates result ones, then using Eglit's sign distribution that basically makes dual types work like magnets, where each plus of one is matched by a minus sign of respective IE in dual's model, and vice versa.



If you consider that + is process and - is result then process/result is actually the same thing. It makes each type be a combination of both process and result traits, with the difference of how signs alternate - process types are always leading with a +IE and result types with a -IE - and it also makes dual types balance each other out on every set of IEs e.g if SEIs have + Si then ILEs have - Si, if SEIs have -Fe the ILEs have +Fe, so combined together a dual dyad would have every possible +/- in their set in a balanced arrangement.

There is no reason to occupy already used +/- notation space and make people confused. If shorter then I recommend r/p.

[FDG]

They're useful in the sense that for each function you have two types who have it as base or creative and its manifestation changes i.e. the Ne creative of a EII is different from its LII variation since they're blocked with different base functions.

As Troll mentioned you can also use process/result or positivist/negativist (if you like Reinin) to distinguish between different variations of a certain function.

[FDG]

I like them, but silke has a point (they confuse things/are suprfluous), and I'll tell you why IMO:

As far as I understand, the stronger a function is, the more it can be the other +-. So for example: An Fi Dom should have really strong Fi, so this means an ESI which has Fi- can have Fi+ moments. On +-, Gulenko says a default to + or - will emerge - what this means is if you examine a person at a given moment, or even a short period of time, they may express Fi+ despite really being Fi- (ESI). But Gulenko also notes Function+- is only useful for deciding between lookalike types - perhaps because of this +- switcharoo business, actually. So as silke said, +- can just be ignored when typing, it confuses things and/or is superfluous.

note: Function strength has nothing to do with "Dimensionality" (I don't think Gulenko even believes in the theory of dimensionality? FWIW, he seems to say any function can be improved/strengthened). What this means essentially is a person can have a 'strong' Seeking, which means even it can be of the opposite sign (+-) at times.

I think this interpretation is not correct. An ESI showing Fi+ would be a ESI transitioning into a EII-Fi (from result-negativist to process-positivist), at least from a behavioral perspective.

Remember that +/- signs have a behavioral description which is basically derived from which type uses the function with + or -.

[ooo]

my problem with +/- signs is that I never know what system of +/- one is using. if you use the old one it's as worth as using process/result, if you use model G it's as worth as using positivist/negativist, with the inconvenience that the 2 models change the polarity of all the dynamic types... I think there's more sense in using +/- for the positivist/negativist dichotomy, so the old system is basically useless.

[falsehope]

I prefer to describe specific type and not generalize it based on IE as in every type it manifests differently. I see it useful in calculating relationships as the classic socionics relationships are not accurately described or rather far too general for any specific case. I think it's the direction in which socionics development should go. By exploring the relationships between people it could be possible to reveal additional internals of the model of the psyche and disprove other. That's how socionics and model A was made, and rearranging model A without researching relationships is a mistake.

[photon]

my problem with +/- signs is that I never know what system of +/- one is using. if you use the old one it's as worth as using process/result, if you use model G it's as worth as using positivist/negativist, with the inconvenience that the 2 models change the polarity of all the dynamic types... I think there's more sense in using +/- for the positivist/negativist dichotomy, so the old system is basically useless.

Which schools do those two systems come from? I've never heard of Model G.

[ooo]

@photon, I call "old" the old system you've shared in comment #4. Model G(ulenko) came after that I think but has been around for a while now. Basically it just changes those charges for all the dynamic types, that is, those types that have either Si, Ni, Fe, Te in their ego block. There's no actual bulletin for it around, but there's a facebook page and some threads around here, lately Ben Vaserlan is making yt videos on it.

[Sol]

Are they a useful or not really?

they are baseless heresy like many what people may use with Jung's types

[photon]

@photon, I call "old" the old system you've shared in comment #4. Model G(ulenko) came after that I think but has been around for a while now. Basically it just changes those charges for all the dynamic types, that is, those types that have either Si, Ni, Fe, Te in their ego block. There's no actual bulletin for it around, but there's a facebook page and some threads around here, lately Ben Vaserlan is making yt videos on it.

I've seen one of those videos actually, about the LII type. The elements in the blocks were changed I think, which I found really bizarre.

[photon]

I prefer process/result declaration over messy +/- notation.

I agree with that, but using the signs could be helpful when looking at how a person uses on of the IEs, and the result/process dichotomy isn't clear. I know I'm a result type as well, but I thought the signs could potentially add something more to the theory if they're accurate.