"The element hierarchy does not line up with model A, which does not mean they are not compatible. They describe different aspects of the elements in the types."
Well, they are compatible insofar as the + and - spins are just aspects of the normal IM elements.
The spins are not relevant for this thread. Do you understand the difference in what Model A and Model G try to explain?Originally Posted by thehotelambush
How are they not relevant? They're an integral part of Model G.
Tbh, I haven't bothered delving deeply into Model G except for the spins. There are some good ideas in it but it seems to be drifting quite far from classical socionics.Do you understand the difference in what Model A and Model G try to explain?
The spins for all the types.
From what I can tell and my reading, Model G is not a new paradigm but rather a different measurement? model(on the basis of energy), but the model for information processing seems the same. The element pairs are still the same as well as the Model A intertype relations.
The diffrence in Model A is that this is a measurement model for information preference. Not sure the exact right term to call this difference but I think it's measurement model.
From this standpoint Model A inter-type relations still apply but the new measurement model allows for a new viewpoint on the information dynamics within information metabolism but does not invalidate the original observations of Model A.
This new look at information metabolism is certainly significant, and it also highlights his own holographic-panoramic thinking as this form of thinking is particularly suited to such observations.
Model A informs about the informational processes but does not really deal with this energy aspect Gulenko has observed.
Yeah...whatever that is.
No.Are you saying that Ne should not be included in Model G?
@mu4 whatever you call it, it seems a bit strange to make a new model without trying to integrate it or reconcile it with the existing one. If you don't do so they are inevitably going to diverge. This can be done very easily at the structural level: simply have 16 functions. That way you get both the "information-flow" (supervision) rings and the "energy-flow" (benefit) rings.
It is two models and 16 functions however the information elements remain the same. These two models attempt to measure different characteristic of the information metabolism and neither is incompatible with the other.
I think what you've laid out is exactly what Model G and Model A are, the connection points are information elements and not functions.
As far as psychic energy
It is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_(psychological)
This is a very important concept in psycho-dynamic psychology which socionics is part of.
Information preference doesn't say anything about psychic energy, but rather our reaction to information which contains psychic energy, you can say the information produced by ourselves and other individuals contain different levels of psychic energy and these also are measurable.
I also think very important error in socionics that this can help to address and that is the association of function strength with information preference. However this concept of function strength is not necessary for any individual and it's likely just a correlation, this also does not adequately cover many external factors such as culture, education and any such characteristic which do not originate from information preference.
Energy flow within the information metabolism may be one of these characteristics which in Model A is explained under the purview of function strength, but this is too convenient an explanation with the variation that is observed in individuals.
I'm not sure how to explain this properly as my knowledge of Model G is limited, and my focus hasn't been on socionics but psychology in the last 2 years.
"Jung regarded the psychic energy as a basic life-force which would manifest itself as needed (eating, moving, thinking, sex, remembering, etc.) not concentrating through childhood in various body zones (oral, anal, genital) as Freud envisaged. The psychic energy resembled physical energy: it could be exchanged with the external world in muscular effort or ingestion of food, but otherwise remained as a reservoir to be used for thought, sexual activity, artistic creation and so on."
---------
http://www.eoht.info/page/Psychic+energy
Psychic energy
In psychodynamics, psychic energy or "psychological energy" refers, generally, to the energy of the mind, mental processes, or psychological phenomena; energy tends to be conceptualized as some type of flow in the psychological system, governed by the principle of conservation of energy, and or the first law of thermodynamics.
Overview
In 1838 to 1842, German physicians Ernst Brücke, Herman Helmholtz, and Emil Du Bois-Reymond, who during the years 1838-42, worked in the laboratory of the German physiologist Johannes Muller, who adherence to the principle of vitalism, a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from physiochemical forces. In reaction to this, the three of them, in the words of Du Bois-Reymond, formulated a desire to validate the basic truth that: [1]
This force or kraft, as it is called in German, soon later became synonymous with the newly forming concept of energy.
In 1895, Austrian psychologist Sigmund Freud, Brücke’s medical school student, in his "A Project for Scientific Psychology" began theorizing about bound energy and free energy in psychological terms.
In 1898, Russian psychologist Nicolas von Grot stated: [2]
“The concept of psychic energy is as much justified in science as that of physical energy, and psychic energy has just as many quantitative measurements and different forms as has physical energy.”Into the early 20th century, Freud’s protégé Swiss psychologist Carl Jung began discussing and using psychic energy, in his theories.
In 1976, American psychiatrist Robert Galatzer-Levy, in his article "Psychic Energy: A Historical Perspective", summarized that: [3]
“Much criticism of the concept of psychic energy is based on its apparent failure to live up to the paradigm on which it is modeled, the concept of energy conservation in physics.”
If there is a psychic energy, how can information contain this energy? I think psychic energy corresponds to a general attitude towards certain information, which seems to be very similar to function strength and/or "valued" function (or mental vs. vital) in my view.
What is the difference between function strength and information preference in your view?I also think very important error in socionics that this can help to address and that is the association of function strength with information preference. However this concept of function strength is not necessary for any individual and it's likely just a correlation, this also does not adequately cover many external factors such as culture, education and any such characteristic which do not originate from information preference.
Last edited by Petter; 01-06-2017 at 09:05 AM.
It's just Gulenko trying to align Socionics to his own opinion of himself. LII in Socionics is not considered a good type. It's almost like Gulenko spent years of his life increasing the solidity of Socionics only to realize that he sealed his own self into negative stigma and now has to find a way to completely alter the structure of Socionics so he doesn't look bad.
No all types are equal by value. LII is superficial the most intelligent of the types. Model G add the energybar to the elements.
Well, you asked a question and I gave you the answer. It doesn't take me long to look at something and get the reasons and motivations behind it.
Model G started as an inversion of sorts, mixing things around here and there. When it had no "buy-in," he retrospectively made it so that it could be used in conjunction with Model A without disregarding Model A. However, you can't tack something onto Model A without changing the semantics of Model A. So while he says, well I'm adding this on but it doesn't change Model A, everyone else is scratching their head in the Kiev/Russian Socionics community saying yeah but it does change Model A...
In Socionics, the LII is not an objectivist. It is not a constructivist. It is not a positivist. Each of these things means something, and the LII does not like these thing when they become aware of them, due to their own 1D functions.
Viktor, for whatever reason, eventually realized the map he helped complete, had what it was reeeeallllyyyy saying sink in, and didn't like it. It's basically his own version of the J/P flip, letting him partially flip LII into positives associated with ILI on the objective front, while relinquishing some of LIIs negatives.
Heck, petters/tellus has been doing the same thing for several years now, trying to holograph the LII so that its reeeaaallllyyyy a positive, constructive, and objective type, only he started in the reverse order and slapped an ILI sticker on himself and is now trying to rewrite all the elements to make the ILI use the elements he uses and in that order while trying to keep the positive stigmas of ILI.
The whole thing is goofy and transparent as heck.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote