Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 50

Thread: Your own socionic model

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

    Default Your own socionic model.

    We all know socionic models, especially Models A, J, T, and X. Other models could be AM (Mitin's), G (Gulenko's), or such.

    But are there more possible models ? I started this topic so we can suggest our own models.

    Don't be shy, even if your models are still imperfect they could be interesting to study.

  2. #2
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Your own socionic model.

    We all know socionic models, especially Models A, J, T, and X. Other models could be AM (Mitin's), G (Gulenko's), or such.

    But are there more possible models ? I started this topic so we can suggest our own models.

    Don't be shy, even if your models are still imperfect they could be interesting to study.

  3. #3
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My model is that information flows between individuals and in individuals with barriers in both places which are the ones that determine the end result, the end interaction. What I'm saying is that interaction between people could be explained through complex flow formulas. Not really original but one I feel most reflects reality.

    A consequence of this model is that individuality is linked to type (Which would be the informational flow structure) as much as your feet are linked to the street you walk on, that is, it's merely using it. Also a consequence is that there are no personality types in this model, just types of information flow (Which can be described through complex formulas). In a esense type would be an individual formula that describes your base line information exchange capabilities.

  4. #4
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My model is that information flows between individuals and in individuals with barriers in both places which are the ones that determine the end result, the end interaction. What I'm saying is that interaction between people could be explained through complex flow formulas. Not really original but one I feel most reflects reality.

    A consequence of this model is that individuality is linked to type (Which would be the informational flow structure) as much as your feet are linked to the street you walk on, that is, it's merely using it. Also a consequence is that there are no personality types in this model, just types of information flow (Which can be described through complex formulas). In a esense type would be an individual formula that describes your base line information exchange capabilities.

  5. #5
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My model consists of 8 "types", the rational and irrational dual pairs from each quadra.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  6. #6
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My model consists of 8 "types", the rational and irrational dual pairs from each quadra.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

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

    Default

    I think it would be more useful to write a detailed description of a model, like when Talanov wrote on his Model T.

  8. #8
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it would be more useful to write a detailed description of a model, like when Talanov wrote on his Model T.

  9. #9
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That wouldn't be worth the effort... I pretty much use Model A, except that there really aren't any unconscious functions because between the two types in the dual pair, all of the functions are conscious. If, for example, I'm thinking of Si in Alpha rationals, I'm thinking of how the ESFj fulfills the INTj's hidden agenda. If I'm thinking of Fi in Gamma rationals, I'm thinking of how the ISFj fulfills the ENTj's dual seeking function. With functions that aren't quadra values, however, I think of the corresponding function that is a quadra value, which would be the 3rd & 5th or 4th & 6th. For example, if I'm thinking of Si in Gamma rationals, I'm thinking of how the ISFj's Se covers the ENTj's Si PoLR.

    So... I guess I don't see functions as being static within Model A, I instead see the interactions of functions between dual pairs.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  10. #10
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That wouldn't be worth the effort... I pretty much use Model A, except that there really aren't any unconscious functions because between the two types in the dual pair, all of the functions are conscious. If, for example, I'm thinking of Si in Alpha rationals, I'm thinking of how the ESFj fulfills the INTj's hidden agenda. If I'm thinking of Fi in Gamma rationals, I'm thinking of how the ISFj fulfills the ENTj's dual seeking function. With functions that aren't quadra values, however, I think of the corresponding function that is a quadra value, which would be the 3rd & 5th or 4th & 6th. For example, if I'm thinking of Si in Gamma rationals, I'm thinking of how the ISFj's Se covers the ENTj's Si PoLR.

    So... I guess I don't see functions as being static within Model A, I instead see the interactions of functions between dual pairs.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

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

    Default

    These are the models we know yet :

    A : Augusta's 8-component model. Also, there is the Systemic variant, with dimensionality of functions, and a different flow system.
    B : 16-component model which resembles Model A. (resembles Model A but has +/-)
    G : Model which *seems* to resemble Model A, but really very different. (click here) and see article #32.
    T : Physiological model with thresholds of excitation and inhibition. ILE would be +I- +L+ -S- -E+
    X : Ganin's Model which contains the valuable functions (1256).
    Ю : Model which contains the functions 1245. (also called Model J or Model Yu) ILE would be
    AM : A weird dynamic model with gears which I don't really understand.

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

    Default

    These are the models we know yet :

    A : Augusta's 8-component model. Also, there is the Systemic variant, with dimensionality of functions, and a different flow system.
    B : 16-component model which resembles Model A. (resembles Model A but has +/-)
    G : Model which *seems* to resemble Model A, but really very different. (click here) and see article #32.
    T : Physiological model with thresholds of excitation and inhibition. ILE would be +I- +L+ -S- -E+
    X : Ganin's Model which contains the valuable functions (1256).
    Ю : Model which contains the functions 1245. (also called Model J or Model Yu) ILE would be
    AM : A weird dynamic model with gears which I don't really understand.

  13. #13
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I haven't read all the models, but until now I find Model A still most realistic.

  14. #14
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I haven't read all the models, but until now I find Model A still most realistic.

  15. #15
    BLauritson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    979
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I tend to use Model A when thinking about functions within a person, although I don't follow it religiously. I think I tend to just learn enough to adapt Socionics (and Model A) to my own experiences rather than trying to understand it completely. Resultantly I tend to have a more intuitive view of how it works...bah I don't know what the hell I'm trying to say. Let's just say I use Model A as a foundation for my understanding and use my intuition from thereon, modifying it in my mind according to my reconciliation of my understanding of Socionics with my experience of it in action.
    ILI (Indescribable Lovemaking Inc.)
    5w4 so/sx

    "IP temperament! Because today's concerns are tomorrow's indifferences!"

    Lord Fnorgle's Domain - A slowly growing collection of music, poetry and literature.
    Stickam music performances

  16. #16
    BLauritson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    979
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I tend to use Model A when thinking about functions within a person, although I don't follow it religiously. I think I tend to just learn enough to adapt Socionics (and Model A) to my own experiences rather than trying to understand it completely. Resultantly I tend to have a more intuitive view of how it works...bah I don't know what the hell I'm trying to say. Let's just say I use Model A as a foundation for my understanding and use my intuition from thereon, modifying it in my mind according to my reconciliation of my understanding of Socionics with my experience of it in action.
    ILI (Indescribable Lovemaking Inc.)
    5w4 so/sx

    "IP temperament! Because today's concerns are tomorrow's indifferences!"

    Lord Fnorgle's Domain - A slowly growing collection of music, poetry and literature.
    Stickam music performances

  17. #17
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BLauritson
    I tend to use Model A when thinking about functions within a person, although I don't follow it religiously. I think I tend to just learn enough to adapt Socionics (and Model A) to my own experiences rather than trying to understand it completely. Resultantly I tend to have a more intuitive view of how it works...bah I don't know what the hell I'm trying to say. Let's just say I use Model A as a foundation for my understanding and use my intuition from thereon, modifying it in my mind according to my reconciliation of my understanding of Socionics with my experience of it in action.
    Indeed, that's how I use it also. For my understanding of reality it's best to learn from reality itself than from theory. Interpreting theory doens't work out always. Although sometimes theory answers some questions which cannot be found quickly enough in reality.

  18. #18
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BLauritson
    I tend to use Model A when thinking about functions within a person, although I don't follow it religiously. I think I tend to just learn enough to adapt Socionics (and Model A) to my own experiences rather than trying to understand it completely. Resultantly I tend to have a more intuitive view of how it works...bah I don't know what the hell I'm trying to say. Let's just say I use Model A as a foundation for my understanding and use my intuition from thereon, modifying it in my mind according to my reconciliation of my understanding of Socionics with my experience of it in action.
    Indeed, that's how I use it also. For my understanding of reality it's best to learn from reality itself than from theory. Interpreting theory doens't work out always. Although sometimes theory answers some questions which cannot be found quickly enough in reality.

  19. #19

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

    Default

    if model G is what i think it is, then its how i think most of the time. although i don't know precisely what it entails; your link was not working.

  20. #20

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

    Default

    if model G is what i think it is, then its how i think most of the time. although i don't know precisely what it entails; your link was not working.

  21. #21
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    if model G is what i think it is, then its how i think most of the time. although i don't know precisely what it entails; your link was not working.
    EPFI / RLST - Active / Passive (eq. E/I)
    EPLR / FTIS - Discrete, Fractional / Continuous, Integral (eq. J/P)
    EPST / RLFI - Dynamic, Non-equilibrium / Static, Equilibrium (eq. static/dynamic)
    ERFS / PLIT - Implcated / Removed (eq. SF / NT)
    PLFS / ERIT - Explicit / Implicit (eq. ST / NF)
    ELIS / PRFT - Goal-setting / Executive (eq. Alpha / Gamma)
    ELFT / PRIS - Engine / Inertia (eq. Beta / Delta)

    source : Gulenko's article on information aspects

    WARNING : On Model G, functions are ordered like this :

    12
    43
    56
    87

    An ILE would have :

    1I 2L
    4R 3F
    5E 6S
    8T 7P

    1234 / 5678 - Resident / Mobile
    1278 / 3456 - Mental / Vital
    1256 / 3478 - Autonomous / Dependent
    1368 / 2457 - Energy / Information
    2367 / 1458 - Initial / Terminal
    1467 / 2358 - Value / Instrument
    2468 / 1357 - Relief / Diffuse

    Source : Gulenko's article on functions

    As you can see, definitions differ from classical socionics'.

  22. #22
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    if model G is what i think it is, then its how i think most of the time. although i don't know precisely what it entails; your link was not working.
    EPFI / RLST - Active / Passive (eq. E/I)
    EPLR / FTIS - Discrete, Fractional / Continuous, Integral (eq. J/P)
    EPST / RLFI - Dynamic, Non-equilibrium / Static, Equilibrium (eq. static/dynamic)
    ERFS / PLIT - Implcated / Removed (eq. SF / NT)
    PLFS / ERIT - Explicit / Implicit (eq. ST / NF)
    ELIS / PRFT - Goal-setting / Executive (eq. Alpha / Gamma)
    ELFT / PRIS - Engine / Inertia (eq. Beta / Delta)

    source : Gulenko's article on information aspects

    WARNING : On Model G, functions are ordered like this :

    12
    43
    56
    87

    An ILE would have :

    1I 2L
    4R 3F
    5E 6S
    8T 7P

    1234 / 5678 - Resident / Mobile
    1278 / 3456 - Mental / Vital
    1256 / 3478 - Autonomous / Dependent
    1368 / 2457 - Energy / Information
    2367 / 1458 - Initial / Terminal
    1467 / 2358 - Value / Instrument
    2468 / 1357 - Relief / Diffuse

    Source : Gulenko's article on functions

    As you can see, definitions differ from classical socionics'.

  23. #23
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Probably the A-model explains things in the most simple way.

    All those other models only create a lot of fuzzy things, without gaining an advantage over model A.

  24. #24
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Probably the A-model explains things in the most simple way.

    All those other models only create a lot of fuzzy things, without gaining an advantage over model A.

  25. #25
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    Probably the A-model explains things in the most simple way.

    All those other models only create a lot of fuzzy things, without gaining an advantage over model A.
    Right, except for Model T.

    Model T is explaining things which would be difficult to explain with Model A. Model T says that Tactical/Strategical, Compliant/Obstinate, Careless/Farsighted, Constructivist/Emotivist, and Statics/Dynamics have actually a strong physiological aspect.

    Model T explains that functions with the same numbers work differently on introtims and extrotims.

    Model T explains that functions 2 and 3 are balanced, and functions 1 and 4 are not balanced.

  26. #26
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno
    Probably the A-model explains things in the most simple way.

    All those other models only create a lot of fuzzy things, without gaining an advantage over model A.
    Right, except for Model T.

    Model T is explaining things which would be difficult to explain with Model A. Model T says that Tactical/Strategical, Compliant/Obstinate, Careless/Farsighted, Constructivist/Emotivist, and Statics/Dynamics have actually a strong physiological aspect.

    Model T explains that functions with the same numbers work differently on introtims and extrotims.

    Model T explains that functions 2 and 3 are balanced, and functions 1 and 4 are not balanced.

  27. #27
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    oke that's starts to get interesting. i'll try to study model T

  28. #28
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    oke that's starts to get interesting. i'll try to study model T

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My view is very simple, and I think it serves as the principle conclusion and resolution to most of the confusions that both I and others have had.

    The functions, fundamentally, concern kinds of structures. When related to people, however, one may understand their application in a way that's analogous to an operating system, and to software that's running on that operating system.

    For example, if you look at a video of someone, you get a very clear view of the way the person tends to articulate his/her thoughts. That provides a view of the operating system. This usually doesn't change that much. However, when you talk about a person's self-concept, what the person prefers to think about, what the person is interested in, etc., you have something that's much more analogous to the software running on that operating system.

    As an experiment, I took a video of myself talking about Ti and Ne (which I don't plan to post on the forum). As I was doing it, I was convinced that I would come off as an ILE type. But I look so ILI that it was funny....the very matter-of-fact Te-like expressions, the appeals to external observations when I wasn't aware I was doing it, the Ni "thoughtful" look....everything was ILI, and would not be confused with IEI, LII, ILE, or any other type that I tend to identify myself with at various times. This is the operating system.

    However, what we often talk about and think about is the software. For example, I like to think about formal systems and wild ideas. So from a software perspective, I am often in Alpha mode. Similarly, a lot of times I want to create artistic works that have a certain external expression in them, and I want to understand precisely what that expression is, how it works, the essence of it. And so, at times, in focusing on external expressions, I may be running Beta software. But if I were to talk about these things to someone in person, it would probably be evident to the other person that I'm running an ILI operating system, even though my software is changing to Alpha, Beta, or even S types sometimes.

    Because the essence of Jung-based typology has to do with patterns regarding structure, rather than anything specifically biological in nature, they may apply at many levels. And, accordingly, the software one is running has a structure just as the operating system does. However, to get a clear view of one's type from a classical Socionics perspective, one most focus on the operating system.

    Unfortunately, when we try to describe the functions and how they work (and also generally when people are talking about quadra values or content interests), we typically are thinking at the level of the software. People talk about Ti in terms of definitions, axioms, consistent models, and of Te as external data, charts, etc. But in reality, people of any OS type can run all of these different kinds of software, and can be interested in all of these different kinds of things. Hence, people become convinced that they're LII because they like math, or that they're IEI because they like art, but this has more to do with interests and self-concept than with the operating system that determines the key direction in one's life and how one comes off to others in person. (In posts, the software level comes off more clearly, and this may confuse people, however.)

    I understand that what I'm describing is very similar to Tcaud's "exertion" thing; but I've never seen him explain it properly, so I'm not sure it's the same thing. However, I've become convinced that these two different levels are operating, and that to fully understand Socionics, one simply must look at it from the perspective of distinguishing between these two levels.


    (PS...I'm aware that an OS is also "software"; perhaps I should have said "hardware" or OS vs. applications running on the OS...but you know what I mean. :-))

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My view is very simple, and I think it serves as the principle conclusion and resolution to most of the confusions that both I and others have had.

    The functions, fundamentally, concern kinds of structures. When related to people, however, one may understand their application in a way that's analogous to an operating system, and to software that's running on that operating system.

    For example, if you look at a video of someone, you get a very clear view of the way the person tends to articulate his/her thoughts. That provides a view of the operating system. This usually doesn't change that much. However, when you talk about a person's self-concept, what the person prefers to think about, what the person is interested in, etc., you have something that's much more analogous to the software running on that operating system.

    As an experiment, I took a video of myself talking about Ti and Ne (which I don't plan to post on the forum). As I was doing it, I was convinced that I would come off as an ILE type. But I look so ILI that it was funny....the very matter-of-fact Te-like expressions, the appeals to external observations when I wasn't aware I was doing it, the Ni "thoughtful" look....everything was ILI, and would not be confused with IEI, LII, ILE, or any other type that I tend to identify myself with at various times. This is the operating system.

    However, what we often talk about and think about is the software. For example, I like to think about formal systems and wild ideas. So from a software perspective, I am often in Alpha mode. Similarly, a lot of times I want to create artistic works that have a certain external expression in them, and I want to understand precisely what that expression is, how it works, the essence of it. And so, at times, in focusing on external expressions, I may be running Beta software. But if I were to talk about these things to someone in person, it would probably be evident to the other person that I'm running an ILI operating system, even though my software is changing to Alpha, Beta, or even S types sometimes.

    Because the essence of Jung-based typology has to do with patterns regarding structure, rather than anything specifically biological in nature, they may apply at many levels. And, accordingly, the software one is running has a structure just as the operating system does. However, to get a clear view of one's type from a classical Socionics perspective, one most focus on the operating system.

    Unfortunately, when we try to describe the functions and how they work (and also generally when people are talking about quadra values or content interests), we typically are thinking at the level of the software. People talk about Ti in terms of definitions, axioms, consistent models, and of Te as external data, charts, etc. But in reality, people of any OS type can run all of these different kinds of software, and can be interested in all of these different kinds of things. Hence, people become convinced that they're LII because they like math, or that they're IEI because they like art, but this has more to do with interests and self-concept than with the operating system that determines the key direction in one's life and how one comes off to others in person. (In posts, the software level comes off more clearly, and this may confuse people, however.)

    I understand that what I'm describing is very similar to Tcaud's "exertion" thing; but I've never seen him explain it properly, so I'm not sure it's the same thing. However, I've become convinced that these two different levels are operating, and that to fully understand Socionics, one simply must look at it from the perspective of distinguishing between these two levels.


    (PS...I'm aware that an OS is also "software"; perhaps I should have said "hardware" or OS vs. applications running on the OS...but you know what I mean. :-))

  31. #31
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Mine is completely coincident with Smilingeyes'
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  32. #32
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Mine is completely coincident with Smilingeyes'
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  33. #33

  34. #34

  35. #35
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
    off topic

  36. #36
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
    off topic

  37. #37
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    Quote Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
    off topic

  38. #38
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    Quote Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
    off topic

  39. #39
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    That wouldn't be worth the effort... I pretty much use Model A, except that there really aren't any unconscious functions because between the two types in the dual pair, all of the functions are conscious. If, for example, I'm thinking of Si in Alpha rationals, I'm thinking of how the ESFj fulfills the INTj's hidden agenda. If I'm thinking of Fi in Gamma rationals, I'm thinking of how the ISFj fulfills the ENTj's dual seeking function. With functions that aren't quadra values, however, I think of the corresponding function that is a quadra value, which would be the 3rd & 5th or 4th & 6th. For example, if I'm thinking of Si in Gamma rationals, I'm thinking of how the ISFj's Se covers the ENTj's Si PoLR.

    So... I guess I don't see functions as being static within Model A, I instead see the interactions of functions between dual pairs.
    I think that's an useful approach.


    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    X : Ganin's Model which contains the valuable functions (1256).
    It's interesting because it's based on quadra values, but some people (perhaps not Ganin himself) suggest that these four functions may be equally strong, which is a mistake.

    I go for model A, paying attention to quadra values as Joy mentioned and even model X, and also to temperaments. Smilingeyes's model is useful although I don't agree with all of it. To define temperaments, I go for my own interpretation of static/dynamic + rational/irrational = temperament.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  40. #40
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    That wouldn't be worth the effort... I pretty much use Model A, except that there really aren't any unconscious functions because between the two types in the dual pair, all of the functions are conscious. If, for example, I'm thinking of Si in Alpha rationals, I'm thinking of how the ESFj fulfills the INTj's hidden agenda. If I'm thinking of Fi in Gamma rationals, I'm thinking of how the ISFj fulfills the ENTj's dual seeking function. With functions that aren't quadra values, however, I think of the corresponding function that is a quadra value, which would be the 3rd & 5th or 4th & 6th. For example, if I'm thinking of Si in Gamma rationals, I'm thinking of how the ISFj's Se covers the ENTj's Si PoLR.

    So... I guess I don't see functions as being static within Model A, I instead see the interactions of functions between dual pairs.
    I think that's an useful approach.


    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    X : Ganin's Model which contains the valuable functions (1256).
    It's interesting because it's based on quadra values, but some people (perhaps not Ganin himself) suggest that these four functions may be equally strong, which is a mistake.

    I go for model A, paying attention to quadra values as Joy mentioned and even model X, and also to temperaments. Smilingeyes's model is useful although I don't agree with all of it. To define temperaments, I go for my own interpretation of static/dynamic + rational/irrational = temperament.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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