Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: 16-function model

  1. #1
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default 16-function model

    Since some days I thought of the 16-function model, using the short/long range variants of elements.

    For a LII, this model will resemble this :

    1-+ 2+-
    4+- 3-+
    6+- 5-+
    7-+ 8+-

    (source : http://www.the16types.info/beta1-INTJ.php)

    Let's call the elements in the cells primary and secondary. For example for a LII, primary elements are - + - + - + - + and secondary elements are others.

    But I have a feeling that 2 functions on each cell is not logical. Maybe there is an additional dichotomy to define functions, which could be numbered 1-16 instead of 1-8.

    Let's call primary functions 12345678 and secondary functions 90ABCDEF. Model A would be like this :

    19 20 (ego block)
    4B 3A (superego block)
    6D 5C (superid block)
    7E 8F (id block)


    Functions 123490AB are conscious (upper functions), and functions 5678CDEF are subconscious (lower functions). But what's the definition behind the dichotomy 12345678/90ABCDEF (or primary/secondary) and what are those for the other (derivative Reinin-like) dichotomies ? Maybe functions are active/passive ? inputting/outputting ?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh boy... how about let's work on this together? If you're going down this road, you need all the help you can get.

    You may find my "transcendental function" thread interesting. There are strong similarities.

  3. #3
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Oh boy... how about let's work on this together? If you're going down this road, you need all the help you can get.

    You may find my "transcendental function" thread interesting. There are strong similarities.
    off-topic

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No, it isn't. Types have an aversion to incorporating elements of the opposite sign into their decisions until they undergo transcendence of that function. (although it's worth noting that pathological types accept the use of these without reservation)

  5. #5
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    No, it isn't. Types have an aversion to incorporating elements of the opposite sign into their decisions until they undergo transcendence of that function. (although it's worth noting that pathological types accept the use of these without reservation)
    I'm talking of a model that could have 16 functions (NOT elements) instead of 8, not of transcendental functions.

    I'm talking of an "extended" Model A.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    No, it isn't. Types have an aversion to incorporating elements of the opposite sign into their decisions until they undergo transcendence of that function. (although it's worth noting that pathological types accept the use of these without reservation)
    I'm talking of a model that could have 16 functions (NOT elements) instead of 8, not of transcendental functions.

    I'm talking of an "extended" Model A.
    Which would account for information exertion. The master-slave model already does that, just so you know.... Beyond that you're certainly wasting your time.

    I'm just saying that I went all through all that stuff already. You're right, two functions in the same cell/stage isn't logical. Anything outside Model-A is beyond comprehension. Took me a while to figure that out, though.

    +Te
    business reasonableness in personal questions.
    the ability to determine and to evaluate the business qualities of individual people.
    the personal pragmatism: the expediency of personal actions.
    the personal functionality: reliability, order, accuracy.
    advantage and benefit for itself;
    the hierarchy of the close environment: family, friends, familiar;
    optimality in the concrete realization of anything: the skill to recreate (to devise and to think over), to organize, to improve separate applied technological process, procedure, algorithm of the actions, where there is a clear understanding of the necessary sequence of actions, division of labor.
    money in its pocket: personal purchases, economy, investment, expenditure.
    the algorithm of concrete calculations, innovation in the separate technological process.
    the ramification of the facts, which are concerned the concrete matters, people, objects.
    understanding the working qualities of objects (elasticity, softness, thermal conductivity and so forth.) their practical value for itself.
    They're dodging around the four context lines/ideosyncracies, in all likelyhood. You can't convince a young INTj to use long range for anything. To do so would open the door to sadism.

  7. #7
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    No, it isn't. Types have an aversion to incorporating elements of the opposite sign into their decisions until they undergo transcendence of that function. (although it's worth noting that pathological types accept the use of these without reservation)
    I'm talking of a model that could have 16 functions (NOT elements) instead of 8, not of transcendental functions.

    I'm talking of an "extended" Model A.
    Which would account for information exertion. The master-slave model already does that, just so you know.... Beyond that you're certainly wasting your time.

    I'm just saying that I went all through all that stuff already. You're right, two functions in the same cell/stage isn't logical. Anything outside Model-A is beyond comprehension. Took me a while to figure that out, though.
    I'm talking of information metabolism, not information exertion.

    I'm talking of an IM model which has 16 aspects instead of 8.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    *shaking head*

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    No, it isn't. Types have an aversion to incorporating elements of the opposite sign into their decisions until they undergo transcendence of that function. (although it's worth noting that pathological types accept the use of these without reservation)
    I'm talking of a model that could have 16 functions (NOT elements) instead of 8, not of transcendental functions.

    I'm talking of an "extended" Model A.
    Which would account for information exertion. The master-slave model already does that, just so you know.... Beyond that you're certainly wasting your time.

    I'm just saying that I went all through all that stuff already. You're right, two functions in the same cell/stage isn't logical. Anything outside Model-A is beyond comprehension. Took me a while to figure that out, though.
    I'm talking of information metabolism, not information exertion.

    I'm talking of an IM model which has 16 aspects instead of 8.
    Then you're going to have to divy up the first 8 into two halves each. Jung does, of course, suggest this is possible.

    The problem is I don't think you'll be able to isolate those elements in a person's speech the way you can isolate information metabolism ("what I perceive") and information exertion ("what I can do with it"). It seems that the functions take turns accessing the linguistic processing functions of the brain for their own ends.

    What I'm trying to say is, I'm not sure what you're looking for is there. I have no intuitive hint of its existence, which is uncommon for INTjs. Are you sure you understand what it means to exert information; that is, to model how something will work out?

  10. #10
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, this looks interesting... Strange that this was on the main page all the time and yet isn't common knowlegde...

    Lots of possibilities opening up if we entertain the correctness of all this. People have been reporting that several of the Reinin Dichotomies are not relyable. This offers an explanation. The secundary base-creative pairs are inversed in taciturn/narrator. Reasonable/resolute also seem to get inversed, and I bet there are more.

    Another thing; movement in two different directions on the function cycle are caused by the two base-creative pairs. And since the movement opposite to the prefered happens at the hands of the ID functions, which have been associated with political motivations before, as have the function states, several interesting prospects open.

  11. #11
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    Well, this looks interesting... Strange that this was on the main page all the time and yet isn't common knowlegde...

    Lots of possibilities opening up if we entertain the correctness of all this. People have been reporting that several of the Reinin Dichotomies are not relyable. This offers an explanation. The secundary base-creative pairs are inversed in taciturn/narrator. Reasonable/resolute also seem to get inversed, and I bet there are more.

    Another thing; movement in two different directions on the function cycle are caused by the two base-creative pairs. And since the movement opposite to the prefered happens at the hands of the ID functions, which have been associated with political motivations before, as have the function states, several interesting prospects open.
    For example, a taciturn is -i and +e ; as a narrator is +i and -e. An emotivist has an F element as function 2 or 3, as a constructivist has a T element as function 2 or 3.

    Reinin's dichotomies are reliable because they are directly related to functions and elements, although some are difficult to interpretate.

  12. #12
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is a possibly stupid hypothesis on the IM flows.



    I'm wondering if the dichotomy conscious/subconscious is actually related to blue/red arrows.

    This "model" is extrapolated from the original 16-function model : 4 red arrows come from the 8 primary elements, and 4 blue arrows come from the 8 secondary elements.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not following you.

  14. #14
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    I'm not following you.
    Yes, but it would be more useful to explain WHY you're not agreeing with me than only saying "yes" or "no".

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
    I'm not following you.
    Yes, but it would be more useful to explain WHY you're not agreeing with me than only saying "yes" or "no".
    I didn't say I was disagreeing with you, I said I wasn't following you.

    I would ask Expat about this sort of thing. He's very astute as to the communication patterns in Model-A. What it seems like to me, is that you need to structure those communication paths, then you can divy them up into seperate "functions".

    I was disagreeing with you, I wouldn't hide it.

Posting Permissions

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