Benefit Rings - Superficial Type Changes

[DividedsGhost]

Most of you are idiots, but for the people that actually care and have a brain, check this out.

Left Ring of Benefit — These types are Process under the Reinin dichotomies.
SEI → LSI → ILI → EII → SEI → ...
ILE → EIE → SEE → LSE → ILE → ...

Right Ring of Benefit — These types are Result under the Reinin dichotomies.
LII → SLI → ESI → IEI → LII → ...
ESE → IEE → LIE → SLE → ESE → ...

Each type has two orientations depending on the two benefit ring types surrounding it.

For an LIE, when developed they will be the Ni subtype and give off behavior of their IEE benefactor or even an EII. When focused on neurosis and underdeveloped, they will be the Te subtype and will have behavior that comes off as an SLE.

It's that simple. It's very real. And it almost always explains how a type can appear to change, when they have just changed the cognitive focus of their type for one reason or another. This isn't bullshit.

[Crispy]

So this can be nutshelled to the following?:
Accepting Subtype - Unhealthy
Producing Subtype - Healthy

Seems interesting, but how did you arrive at such a conclusion?

[EyeSeeCold]

Why Benefit Rings and not Supervisory?

[DividedsGhost]

So this can be nutshelled to the following?:
Accepting Subtype - Unhealthy
Producing Subtype - Healthy

Seems interesting, but how did you arrive at such a conclusion?

Yes. The accepting subtype has a gimped ego, due to neurosis. Myself and big differences between same types (fictionally and non-fictionally) and analyzing some of the people in this forum.

Why Benefit Rings and not Supervisory?

What would supervisors have to do with anything? They could make you neurotic, but I don't see how they relate cognitively to your type.

[pianosinger]

Most of you are idiots,

Sorry, I'm not really inclined to listen to people who call other people idiots.

[DividedsGhost]

Most of you are idiots,

Sorry, I'm not really inclined to listen to people who call other people idiots.

Relax. This is good stuff. If you're going to ignore it just because you don't like me, then that tells me you don't want to learn. Fine, then find something else to do and stop poaching people like me.

And I'm speaking in general. I'm somewhat aggravated by the fact that no one seems to want to learn this and my attempts to be involved get removed for trivial reasons, mainly people focusing on a neurosis.

This is taken from another site, but it explains the neurosis of the unhealthy accepting type briefly.

ENTp Schizotypal
ESFj Narcissistic (popularity)

INTj obsessive-compulsive (logical structure)
ISFp Dependent

ISTj Avoidant
INFp Schizoid

ISTp depression (feeling of loss)
INFj obsessive-compulsive (structure of ethical fondness to things)

ENFj Histrionic
ESTp Antisocial (impulsive for a passion)

INTp depression (love hurt)
ISFj Paranoid

ENFp Borderline
ESTj narcissistic (Wealth)

ENTj Antisocial (impulsive for immediate gain)
ESFp Bipolar

[DividedsGhost]

Let's type a couple people in this forum using this

Absurd - Narcissistic (Yes!)
Ashton - Antisocial (Yes! He even helped destroy part of the forum at one point)
Gulanzon - Narcissistic (Most definitely!)
Sleep - Schizoid (Indeed!)
Niffweed - obsessive-compulsive (I wouldn't doubt it)

Haha. It works so well it's almost pathetic how predictable we really are.

[DividedsGhost]

After Aleksandr Bukalov established the International Institute of Socionics in Kiev, Ukraine, some rivalry or differences of opinion arose between Augusta and the group in Kiev, or perhaps with Bukalov himself. Augusta came to the conferences for several years, then stopped coming as her health worsened. Perhaps she felt marginalized by the socionics community. In fact, two volumes of her works were published without her approval by someone else, and she apparently did not receive any royalties from book sales. Now a pensioner, Augusta lived a very poor life like almost all elderly people in the former Soviet Union after its collapse. Emissaries from Kiev and Moscow schools of socionics would collect donations and bring them to her in person to help her subsist. In her final years Augusta became involved in mysticism, which drew criticism from many socionists.

Let's not forget one of our great founders of socionics!

Aushra Augusta - Schizotypal (Undeniably!)

Isn't this shit fun!

[EyeSeeCold]

Why Benefit Rings and not Supervisory?

What would supervisors have to do with anything? They could make you neurotic, but I don't see how they relate cognitively to your type.

"What would benefactors have to do with anything? They could make you neurotic, but I don't see how they relate cognitively to your type"

Okay, I did that as an example of your faulty reasoning, there is nothing here to say that Benefactor rings have any implied significance, so you need to explain your point here, but Gulenko actually has a proposition about "cognitive styles" and Supervisory Rings. Smilingeyes did some unrelated work on those rings too if you can find them around here.

Let's type a couple people in this forum using this

Absurd - Narcissistic (Yes!)
Ashton - Antisocial (Yes! He even helped destroy part of the forum at one point)
Gulanzon - Narcissistic (Most definitely!)
Sleep - Schizoid (Indeed!)
Niffweed - obsessive-compulsive (I wouldn't doubt it)

Haha. It works so well it's almost pathetic how predictable we really are.

Hey, you missed one.

[Absurd]

Damn IEIs. You type yourself IEI, don't you ? If so, then get off my nuts for I I know you and your typing "methods" not to mention you numerous accounts (?)

[pianosinger]

sleep: All I'm suggesting is that you may have better luck getting people to want to listen to you if you didn't preamble your thread with "Most of you are idiots."

btw, I did read your thread the first time I saw it. True, I have sometimes come across-- or at least tried to come across-- as more of an ESE. It never lasts long, thank goodness. I also believe I am Ne-Subtype, which-- under your theory-- makes me neurotic? Borderline, you say...for me? Hardly. I disbelieve your theory. That makes me an idiot?

[Absurd]

btw, I did read your thread the first time I saw it. True, I have sometimes come across-- or at least tried to come across-- as more of an ESE. It never lasts long, thank goodness. I also believe I am Ne-Subtype, which-- under your theory-- makes me neurotic? Borderline, you say...for me? Hardly. I disbelieve your theory. That makes me an idiot?

Theory

[Jonathan]

Most of you are idiots, but for the people that actually care and have a brain, check this out.

Left Ring of Benefit — These types are Process under the Reinin dichotomies.
SEI → LSI → ILI → EII → SEI → ...
ILE → EIE → SEE → LSE → ILE → ...

Right Ring of Benefit — These types are Result under the Reinin dichotomies.
LII → SLI → ESI → IEI → LII → ...
ESE → IEE → LIE → SLE → ESE → ...

Each type has two orientations depending on the two benefit ring types surrounding it.

For an LIE, when developed they will be the Ni subtype and give off behavior of their IEE benefactor or even an EII. When focused on neurosis and underdeveloped, they will be the Te subtype and will have behavior that comes off as an SLE.

It's that simple. It's very real. And it almost always explains how a type can appear to change, when they have just changed the cognitive focus of their type for one reason or another. This isn't bullshit.

This is similar to a theory I had called "wings based on cycles." I posted it on wikisocion but it was lost when the site went down sometime within the last few years.

I mentioned it in this thread...http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=35640

I think it's basically the same phenomenon as you're describing.

[DividedsGhost]

Damn IEIs. You type yourself IEI, don't you ? If so, then get off my nuts for I I know you and your typing "methods" not to mention you numerous accounts (?)

btw, I did read your thread the first time I saw it. True, I have sometimes come across-- or at least tried to come across-- as more of an ESE. It never lasts long, thank goodness. I also believe I am Ne-Subtype, which-- under your theory-- makes me neurotic? Borderline, you say...for me? Hardly. I disbelieve your theory. That makes me an idiot?

Theory

That thread was a test to see who wouldn't use it against me for ad-hominems. You failed. And I've already stopped listening to the inanity of your narcissistic bullshit.

sleep: All I'm suggesting is that you may have better luck getting people to want to listen to you if you didn't preamble your thread with "Most of you are idiots."

btw, I did read your thread the first time I saw it. True, I have sometimes come across-- or at least tried to come across-- as more of an ESE. It never lasts long, thank goodness. I also believe I am Ne-Subtype, which-- under your theory-- makes me neurotic? Borderline, you say...for me? Hardly. I disbelieve your theory. That makes me an idiot?

No, you misunderstand. If you're the Ne-subtype you will have a much higher prevalence for neurosis of the HA (borderline traits over any other traits) which makes this type much more neurotic over the creative subtype and ideally undesired. I didn't call you an idiot. Nor do I think that. I was speaking generally as I did not single any person out. A lot of people here are not trying to learn as you do and make stupid generalizations or troll or make everything into a personal attack against themselves or their knowledge of the theory. I will not discuss this any further. I don't even know what you're so hung up about because I did not insult you; you assumed I did and even though I was mad, it was also a test to judge a person's character from which - are you willing to make me into a bad person and ignore me or look past that and accept my good traits? That's the test. You haven't failed, but you seem(ed) close. You could even call it a test of character if you want. One that Absurd fails horribly.

Most of you are idiots, but for the people that actually care and have a brain, check this out.

Left Ring of Benefit — These types are Process under the Reinin dichotomies.
SEI → LSI → ILI → EII → SEI → ...
ILE → EIE → SEE → LSE → ILE → ...

Right Ring of Benefit — These types are Result under the Reinin dichotomies.
LII → SLI → ESI → IEI → LII → ...
ESE → IEE → LIE → SLE → ESE → ...

Each type has two orientations depending on the two benefit ring types surrounding it.

For an LIE, when developed they will be the Ni subtype and give off behavior of their IEE benefactor or even an EII. When focused on neurosis and underdeveloped, they will be the Te subtype and will have behavior that comes off as an SLE.

It's that simple. It's very real. And it almost always explains how a type can appear to change, when they have just changed the cognitive focus of their type for one reason or another. This isn't bullshit.

This is similar to a theory I had called "wings based on cycles." I posted it on wikisocion but it was lost when the site went down sometime within the last few years.

I mentioned it in this thread...http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=35640

I think it's basically the same phenomenon as you're describing.

Interesting. Thanks. I'm pretty sure I didn't understand it at the time (which is good because we came to the same conclusion independently). If you've noticed, the creative subtype also can have a neurosis reflective of their dual's accepting subtype, but it's usually very mild or mildly appearing. I will draw up the mathematics of why this is correct, but I have a feeling you've already analyzed it since you came to the same conclusion.

What would supervisors have to do with anything? They could make you neurotic, but I don't see how they relate cognitively to your type.

"What would benefactors have to do with anything? They could make you neurotic, but I don't see how they relate cognitively to your type"

Okay, I did that as an example of your faulty reasoning, there is nothing here to say that Benefactor rings have any implied significance, so you need to explain your point here, but Gulenko actually has a proposition about "cognitive styles" and Supervisory Rings. Smilingeyes did some unrelated work on those rings too if you can find them around here.

Look I get it that supervisor rings have a special mathematical symmetry about them that relates to super-egos, but with one partner in a mirrored aspect that puts more psychological strength over and onto the other's strongest weaknesses. But the basis for my Benefit rings are from observation. When I've typed people I've found that when I got to know them better I was often questioning whether they were another type adjacent to their benefit ring. I then started to notice that this pops up in many type threads of popular tv shows and such and many of the heated debates of people's types. All you have to do is look and see if it's there or if I'm making this up or if it's just bias (It's not, it's very prevalent). You can keep it in mind and look for yourself or you can be an asshole and ignore it. Either way, I shared this for your benefit; I already am aware of it.

I don't understand why sharing a cognitive style is more important than this. Perhaps you could explain?

[Absurd]

That thread was a test to see who wouldn't use it against me. You failed. And I've already stopped listening to inanity of your narcissistic bullshit.

Quackie quackie rubber duckie. I'm going to use everything you throw me against you.

[DividedsGhost]

That thread was a test to see who wouldn't use it against me. You failed. And I've already stopped listening to inanity of your narcissistic bullshit.

Quackie quackie rubber duckie. I'm going to use everything you throw me against you.

So you don't even think that you're behavior might be quite a bit narcissistic or unhealthy to go around verbally abusing, punishing, and trying to emotionally humiliate others? That's all you do man. Give a rest. No one really cares. It doesn't mean I will ignore you, but I will not take you seriously if this is all you're willing to do on this forum. You can be right, without being an asshole.

[DividedsGhost]

Full neurosis of each type. >> denotes the left is 'much greater than'.

LSE narcissistic >> obsessive-compulsive
EII obsessive-compulsive >> narcissistic
IEE borderline >> depressive
SLI depressive >> borderline

LIE antisocial >> paranoid
ESI paranoid >> antisocial
ILI depressive >> bipolar
SEE bipolar >> depressive

SLE antisocial >> schizoid
IEI schizoid >> antisocial
LSI avoidant >> histrionic
EIE histrionic >> avoidant

LII obsessive-compulsive >> narcissistic
ESE narcissistic >> obsessive-compulsive
ILE schizotypal >> dependent
SEI dependent >> schizotypal

[Absurd]

So you don't even think that you're behavior might be quite a bit narcissistic or unhealthy to go around verbally abusing, punishing, and trying to emotionally humiliate others?

And where are your, I don't know, credentials ? You're an armchair psychiatrist.

That's all you do man. Give a rest. No one really cares.

You have a peculiar way showing no one cares.

It doesn't mean I will ignore you, but I will not take you seriously if this is all you're willing to do on this forum.

I'm touched. Practise what you preach.

You can be right, without being an asshole.

Love ?

[pianosinger]

Okay, I obviously missed something, or was misinterpreted somewhere...I had not seen the other thread (that Absurd linked here), I was referring only to this thread, that I am posting in right now...I should have said "I read your original post," rather than "I read your original thread." My mistake.

When I said "I disbelieve your theory" I was only referring to what I thought you meant, that Accepting subtypes are unhealthy, and that only Producing subtypes are healthy.

As for the Benefit rings and a person possibly being mistaken for either his Benefactor or Beneficiary, well I've been saying that myself for a while now (don't know if anyone's bothered to listen). So I can see where you're coming from there.

My apologies, Sleep. I don't spend a great deal of time on here just reading every new post that comes along (I have two young children, after all), so it's easy for me to miss a lot of the ah...personal dynamics that go on. If people really were being idiotic towards you in other threads, I obviously missed it, and maybe your statement in your OP in this thread was not unprovoked.

I do realize you were not calling me an idiot personally; and I obviously failed in my logical understanding, thinking that what you really meant was that anyone who didn't listen to you or agree with you was an idiot.

[EyeSeeCold]

Look I get it that supervisor rings have a special mathematical symmetry about them that relates to super-egos, but with one partner in a mirrored aspect that puts more psychological strength over and onto the other's strongest weaknesses. But the basis for my Benefit rings are from observation. When I've typed people I've found that when I got to know them better I was often questioning whether they were another type adjacent to their benefit ring. I then started to notice that this pops up in many type threads of popular tv shows and such and many of the heated debates of people's types. All you have to do is look and see if it's there or if I'm making this up or if it's just bias (It's not, it's very prevalent). You can keep it in mind and look for yourself or you can be an asshole and ignore it. Either way, I shared this for your benefit; I already am aware of it.

I don't understand why sharing a cognitive style is more important than this. Perhaps you could explain?

Okay, sleep, your theory is culled from observations, cool. That's fine and all but you're not explaining why it happens, leaving your observations without a justification to exist. In other words, you're making unfounded claims, and while this phenomenon may actually exist in reality, the theory stage needs either observable evidence or a rational explanation, which this thread is lacking. I mentioned the Supervisory rings because there are actual justifications and evidence behind them(not that it's valid), but as it stands your Benefit rings theory is just a hypothesis. Furthermore you're reasoning is fallacious, specifically in commanding me to "look and see what's there", you are on the stand to prove this to us as a witness. Also, your false dichotomy of "do this or be an asshole and ignore it". Now, I'm not saying I've never seen anything to suggest its validity, but at the same time, it's not enough to claim this theory as fact.

[Jonathan]

If you've noticed, the creative subtype also can have a neurosis reflective of their dual's accepting subtype, but it's usually very mild or mildly appearing. I will draw up the mathematics of why this is correct, but I have a feeling you've already analyzed it since you came to the same conclusion.

Actually, what I was writing about wasn't the neurosis part, just the way subtypes may resemble the adjacent quadras based on the cycles. It's similar, but not necessarily tied to neurosis.

Jung believed that too much emphasis on the base function, to the exclusion of all else, could be associated with neurosis. I think that makes sense.

[DividedsGhost]

Look I get it that supervisor rings have a special mathematical symmetry about them that relates to super-egos, but with one partner in a mirrored aspect that puts more psychological strength over and onto the other's strongest weaknesses. But the basis for my Benefit rings are from observation. When I've typed people I've found that when I got to know them better I was often questioning whether they were another type adjacent to their benefit ring. I then started to notice that this pops up in many type threads of popular tv shows and such and many of the heated debates of people's types. All you have to do is look and see if it's there or if I'm making this up or if it's just bias (It's not, it's very prevalent). You can keep it in mind and look for yourself or you can be an asshole and ignore it. Either way, I shared this for your benefit; I already am aware of it.

I don't understand why sharing a cognitive style is more important than this. Perhaps you could explain?

Okay, sleep, your theory is culled from observations, cool. That's fine and all but you're not explaining why it happens, leaving your observations without a justification to exist. In other words, you're making unfounded claims, and while this phenomenon may actually exist in reality, the theory stage needs either observable evidence or a rational explanation, which this thread is lacking. I mentioned the Supervisory rings because there are actual justifications and evidence behind them(not that it's valid), but as it stands your Benefit rings theory is just a hypothesis. Furthermore you're reasoning is fallacious, specifically in commanding me to "look and see what's there", you are on the stand to prove this to us as a witness. Also, your false dichotomy of "do this or be an asshole and ignore it". Now, I'm not saying I've never seen anything to suggest its validity, but at the same time, it's not enough to claim this theory as fact.

You also haven't shown me anything about how supervision rings mean anything. They have a particular functional ordering and similar cognitive styles? Okay, but why is that important?

Also, I'm not going to link to 50 different threads just to show you a correlation, but I would expect that if you've actually been bothered to look at other people's types and the most prevalent types they have been deciding from, you would see it's more often than not part of the benefit ring. I agree that I didn't provide a mathematical framework for it in Model A but that's because I can't sit here for hours drawing up charts and correlations and explanations and arguing with you (I do have some semblance of a life). But what I can do for you is hand you the logical rules from my conclusions.

from another thread

There's a logical consistency inherent to the Jungian elements that I used from observation (Benefit Ring phenomenon) to come to that conclusion based on the basic Jungian function rules where if you are using say Ti, you aren't using Fe and if you are using Ti, you aren't using Fi, applied to each function but put into subtypes and analyzed mathematically in Model A. It's very revealing and I know types aren't static, but there does seem to be some inherent cognitive bias towards a particular set of types of a benefit ring.

Consider IEI:
Accepting subtype - Strong Ni, so that means weak Se and weak Si by inherent logic of the elements.
Strong Ti, so that means weak Fe and Fi.

Now put that into Model A, think about the math and tell me if the valued elements of the IEI doesn't represent a Ti-neurosis of the IEI type (strong Ni and Ti, weak Se and Fe, the fixation is on introversion)?

Producing Subtype - Weak Ni, so that means strong Se and strong Si by inherent logic of the elements.
Weak Ti, so that means strong Fe and Fi.

This represents a balance to show the neurosis of your dual represented in you (Strong Se and Fe, weak Ni and Ti, the fixation is on extroversion).

I'm not spending a ridiculous amount of time drawing charts for you, but you should be able to draw up your own on a piece of paper very quickly and get an idea of what I'm talking about.

Also, it's not hard to imagine why these Benefit types are the closest in the psyche to a particular ego. Demonstrative is used to protect the ego from the weakness of the PoLR. Because the ego goes down you can damn be sure the demonstrative is going to get so focused on that it might end up conscious. And what's the most comforting element to associate it with now that you don't have a leading function? The opposite to the leading. PoLR now becomes accepted and suggestive, albeit still something you struggle with. It's really simple. And the other type shares your HA and ignoring function. If your ego again breaks down, you might find relief in using the next closest function to your leading, the ignoring and make that conscious with the next closest HA function. You also might end up with your HA as the leading function if focused on a neurosis while your ego breaks down (with next closest ignoring function to supplement), but maybe this one seems like more of a stretch.

Edit: Perhaps I shouldn't just say that the accepting subtype is neurotic then. But coming off as your semi-dual functionally speaking in relation to the ego would be developed and you would have to be the producing subtype.

Are you happy? Will you cut the crap now?

Now, I'm not saying I've never seen anything to suggest its validity, but at the same time, it's not enough to claim this theory as fact.

And how exactly is any part of theory a fact? Theory is not factual by it's definition, but that doesn't mean it can't closely foreshadow patterns that can be accurately used as fact.

If you've noticed, the creative subtype also can have a neurosis reflective of their dual's accepting subtype, but it's usually very mild or mildly appearing. I will draw up the mathematics of why this is correct, but I have a feeling you've already analyzed it since you came to the same conclusion.

Actually, what I was writing about wasn't the neurosis part, just the way subtypes may resemble the adjacent quadras based on the cycles. It's similar, but not necessarily tied to neurosis.

Jung believed that too much emphasis on the base function, to the exclusion of all else, could be associated with neurosis. I think that makes sense.

I don't think that makes sense because it depends what type we're talking about. If Jung thought of himself as LII (and I have reason to believe it), then his Benefit ring is SLI-LII-IEI and if he was changing types and acting more in line with dominant Ni and IEI, then his dominant Ti would have been an unconscious neurosis of the IEI type. Does this seem that absurd?

I know I have multiple types now. It's not hard for me to identify with ILE, LII, and IEI. I had always considered myself LII since I began type theory in all typologies, but people can change and the benefit ring seems to be the most accessible link to changing type.

Now maybe some might call these type changes personas. But I can dualize with SLEs now if I just let myself change. I would rather dualize with them. My original state of LII is another state of being. Sometimes I can be LII, but I think life changed me and forced me to adapt. It's hard to explain, but I don't have one type and I seriously doubt the credibility of anyone that claims types don't change or that changes are just personas. Life is not that simple. We can have multiple types and it seems empirically that the benefit ring is a big part of the link.

[Crispy]

Each type has unique weaknesses. A change in type is an acquisition of different weaknesses. What weakness did you feel you have acquired as you awoke from LII-> IEI?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

OP: Please don't insult people like a narcissistic overly intellectual 'professor' who can't get laid.

I have a hard time following your train of thought but I will do my best.

[DividedsGhost]

Each type has unique weaknesses. A change in type is an acquisition of different weaknesses. What weakness did you feel you have acquired as you awoke from LII-> IEI?

It depends. Both PoLR's are very real for me. But it depends which ego I'm in more. You don't have to believe me, but I've fit both theoretical attitudes of overdoing the suggestive from too much base. I couldn't honestly pick one without feeling like I'm trying to mislead just to prove that we all have one magical type that doesn't change and is there, independent of reality and how it affects us.

OP: Please don't insult people like a narcissistic overly intellectual 'professor' who can't get laid.

I have a hard time following your train of thought but I will do my best.

I have a hard time following your train of thought as well. Are you vague on purpose just so you can gauge how I will project onto that? If you're going to be vague on purpose, then I don't care to respect your wishes because I don't know what they really are.

[Crispy]

In case you didn't know, the suggestive function is supposed to be "weaker" than the PoLR. So if you are IEI, should feel a bit weaker than . That may or may not be why you feel it to be the PoLR along with

[DividedsGhost]

In case you didn't know, the suggestive function is supposed to be "weaker" than the PoLR. So if you are IEI, should feel a bit weaker than . That may or may not be why you feel it to be the PoLR along with

I don't really understand. This is how I understand it. I thought the super-ego is the most undervalued and avoided part of the psyche because it's orientation is completely opposite to the ego. I could understand the role function being used in connection with the ignoring at times because the ignoring isn't used that much, but the PoLR is a blind spot that you deal with at the cost of confidence to the ego. Suggestive helps the leading by keeping it from overindulging when using the suggestive would be better (why it's appreciated). And Jungian function opposite reasoning would apply to these sets of dual functions.

So when you say "weaker" I don't really understand how to relate that to anything for understanding other than to imply absent (but it's not supposed to be and developing it is supposed to be an area of growth). Do you mean that it's conceptually originally weaker than the PoLR? If true, then I would have to think about what that might imply.

[Crispy]

Hmmm, this is how Filatova differentiated between the PoLR and the Suggestible.

Third Channel - Here, there is a striving (often impossible to fulfill) to be in harmony with the world and yourself. A person reacts painfully to any kind of pressure applied through this channel. The psychological function residing in this channel becomes as a result, vulnerable to outside intrusion. Because of this, the third channel is called - Channel of the Least Resistance, or Vulnerable Channel.

Fourth Channel- This channel is usually called the Suggestible Channel. A person is most susceptible to outside influence through this channel. The psychological function residing in this channel is the weakest of the four. A person is not at all confident in matters dealing with this function and obviously requires outside correction. However, on the conscious level, the person is nearly oblivious to information in this field and hardly perceives it at all.

There's also a good set of strongest/weakest characteristics descriptions for each of the 16 types using their respective Base/Suggestive functions.

[Beautiful sky]

Yes, one way that EII is oblivious of Te is in trying to organize things and order work, but being unsuccessful at it or unproductive in managing or structuring time and resources yet striving to do more and more, but realizing that they really haven't done much. At first, I would say that they reject Te and feel that Se is helpful because Te is really something they are trying to control to improve and get better at; stubbornly unwilling to let the other person have the control, but when a dual comes along suddenly the person realizes how much better their advice is helping and lets go.

[DividedsGhost]

Hmmm, this is how Filatova differentiated between the PoLR and the Suggestible.

Third Channel - Here, there is a striving (often impossible to fulfill) to be in harmony with the world and yourself. A person reacts painfully to any kind of pressure applied through this channel. The psychological function residing in this channel becomes as a result, vulnerable to outside intrusion. Because of this, the third channel is called - Channel of the Least Resistance, or Vulnerable Channel.

Fourth Channel- This channel is usually called the Suggestible Channel. A person is most susceptible to outside influence through this channel. The psychological function residing in this channel is the weakest of the four. A person is not at all confident in matters dealing with this function and obviously requires outside correction. However, on the conscious level, the person is nearly oblivious to information in this field and hardly perceives it at all.

There's also a good set of strongest/weakest characteristics descriptions for each of the 16 types using their respective Base/Suggestive functions.

Thanks. If I had to make a decision based on that I would go with LII, but I still have to tell you it depends and I think I can change modes.

Most people think I'm really nice, sensitive, and friendly in person (like an Fe creative). It's very hard for people not to like me. I used to project more when I was younger and came off like an LII (Fi Role, more like Labcoat), but I'm very serious when I say I'm very IEI now. Am I being stubborn? I just don't want to support the idea that types are innate when I have my own evidence of that not being the case. And my relations depend solely on which mode I'm in.

I don't know what to tell you, but thanks for at least trying to clarify this.

[EyeSeeCold]

Consider IEI:
Accepting subtype - Strong Ni, so that means weak Se and weak Si by inherent logic of the elements.
Strong Ti, so that means weak Fe and Fi.

Now put that into Model A, think about the math and tell me if the valued elements of the IEI doesn't represent a Ti-neurosis of the IEI type (strong Ni and Ti, weak Se and Fe, the fixation is on introversion)?

Producing Subtype - Weak Ni, so that means strong Se and strong Si by inherent logic of the elements.
Weak Ti, so that means strong Fe and Fi.

This represents a balance to show the neurosis of your dual represented in you (Strong Se and Fe, weak Ni and Ti, the fixation is on extroversion).

Alright, I see what you're saying now.

Also, it's not hard to imagine why these Benefit types are the closest in the psyche to a particular ego. Demonstrative is used to protect the ego from the weakness of the PoLR. Because the ego goes down you can damn be sure the demonstrative is going to get so focused on that it might end up conscious. And what's the most comforting element to associate it with now that you don't have a leading function? The opposite to the leading. PoLR now becomes accepted and suggestive, albeit still something you struggle with. It's really simple. And the other type shares your HA and ignoring function. If your ego again breaks down, you might find relief in using the next closest function to your leading, the ignoring and make that conscious with the next closest HA function. You also might end up with your HA as the leading function if focused on a neurosis while your ego breaks down (with next closest ignoring function to supplement), but maybe this one seems like more of a stretch.

Edit: Perhaps I shouldn't just say that the accepting subtype is neurotic then. But coming off as your semi-dual functionally speaking in relation to the ego would be developed and you would have to be the producing subtype.

Ah. Alright, now, I agree with the idea that types naturally resort to their Id as Ego defense, very interesting that you say the PoLR becomes accepted and suggestive, but after that I don't see much connection. However, 'tactical ego defense', in other words, systematically referring to the next logical function, in a situation is something I've been thinking of. It's not a new theory, it actually surfaced in this old thread, in the form of plus/minus functions(Ashton and Krig mainly).

Also there exists something called the Narrator/Taciturn cycles that Gulenko and labcoat support. This probably sounds irrelevant, but they claim types are linked functionally and temperamentally through n/t functions, I bring this up because the linked types are nearly the same as you would have them, as Benefit Rings.

Example of Yours:
SEI-LSI-ILI-EII

Example of N/T cycles:
SEI-SLE-ILI-IEE

You see how your example has the types with the same ego functions as N/T cycles? By this, I mean to say there may be something here.



But as for substantial neurosis in a type due to Accepting/Creative, I think that's generalizing a bit.

[Jonathan]

I don't think that makes sense because it depends what type we're talking about. If Jung thought of himself as LII (and I have reason to believe it), then his Benefit ring is SLI-LII-IEI and if he was changing types and acting more in line with dominant Ni and IEI, then his dominant Ti would have been an unconscious neurosis of the IEI type. Does this seem that absurd?

Maybe it would help to define how you're using the word "neurosis." Online definitions say that it's a mild mental disorder causing stress or anxiety. You seem to be using it rather to refer to some sort of functional relationship, as in "then his dominant Ti would have been an unconscious neurosis of the IEI type."

It's not clear to me that using or having different type "moods" or different "sides" of one's personality would constitute any sort of disorder or cause stress or anxiety. It seems that someone could explore all the different functions in a perfectly healthy mental state.

On the other hand, maybe we're actually saying basically the same thing. You mention that you feel you've had certain type changes in your life, which I identify with also. I just don't quite see how that has to do with neurosis.

[EyeSeeCold]

Bump.

100% agree

[noid]

LSE narcissistic >> obsessive-compulsive
EII obsessive-compulsive >> narcissistic

LII obsessive-compulsive >> narcissistic
ESE narcissistic >> obsessive-compulsive

Oh shit, this is actually really interesting. You should read about covert narcissism, codependency, narcissistic PD, freud view on narcissism and OCD, OCPD.
I suspect strongly that codependency/narcissistic relation (wich is 2 form of narcissism, no one better than other) is filled by EII/LSE, ESI/LIE, as well as OCD/OCPD (respectively Fi acc, Te acc). Not sure if LII/ESE correspond to typical narcissism, because behavior of each dont fully correspond to narcissist behavior.

Most of you are idiots, but for the people that actually care and have a brain, check this out.

You a funny guy.

[noid]

edited

[DividedsGhost]

I just want to say that I don't follow any of this. At the time that I did this I was trying to come up with some ideas on how to understand things and was a little frustrated that I couldn't discuss socionics with people in a manner that would help me understand the Jungian functions realistically, so I came off very crude and crazy (this was my perception at the time). I was also not in a good place emotionally at the time, so maybe this should just be deleted.

The opinion I have now is that the hidden agenda gets used with the observing when people are relaxed. The dual-seeking seems to lead to neurosis and types seem to adopt the HA-neurosis of their kindred while keeping their creative function.

I know it's just my opinion based on what I've seen empirically. I don't want to discuss it, I just don't think this thread has any relevance to types and I wanted to make that clear and explain what had exactly happened here for anyone that is considering this to be useful. PLEASE DON'T

[EyeSeeCold]

I just want to say that I don't follow any of this. At the time that I did this I was trying to come up with some ideas on how to understand things and was a little frustrated that I couldn't discuss socionics with people in a manner that would help me understand the Jungian functions realistically, so I came off very crude and crazy (this was my perception at the time). I was also not in a good place emotionally at the time, so maybe this should just be deleted.

The opinion I have now is that the hidden agenda gets used with the observing when people are relaxed. The dual-seeking seems to lead to neurosis and types seem to adopt the HA-neurosis of their kindred while keeping their creative function.

I know it's just my opinion based on what I've seen empirically. I don't want to discuss it, I just don't think this thread has any relevance to types and I wanted to make that clear and explain what had exactly happened here for anyone that is considering this to be useful. PLEASE DON'T

I don't accept your psychological/pathological explanations, but I agree with the general concept of these shifting quadra similarities.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...855#post826855