How do you integrate all the functions of Model A into a psyche? I'd really like to hear.
Model A functional concepts
How do you integrate all the functions of Model A into a psyche? I'd really like to hear.
what do you mean?
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
You dont, model A doesnt exist, its simply an abstract representation of whats supposed to be there.Originally Posted by Divided
That's a given. How do you understand it in terms of reality? That's the point people seem to disregard.
Or if you feel it can't, then what does it do in terms of philosophy?
What are you talking about?
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
You use Model A to represent psyches. How do you understand the ego, superego, superid, and id. What does it mean in terms of philosophy if anything at all? If it's not a philosophy, then what does it mean to be a certain type? How do you interpret the duality of the functions? How do you interpret intuition from sensing? How do you understand extroversion from introversion, judging from perceiving? I'm asking you to integrate everything into an inclusive whole. I want to know how you do that. I've done it and have not seen one person do such a thing. Instead people argue about parts of things and interpretations without building any kind of stable foundation on the theory. Actually, I only bring this up because no one seems to cares, but this has a lot of potential for constructive discussion since it gets at the core of all the reasoning that a person holds in understanding Jungian types. It's worth getting people to do.What are you talking about?
I know it's a lot to ask for though. People are so quick to fight, argue, and assert their understanding above all. And I know explaining an irrational abstract concept is hard to do because a lot depends on the perspective it's coming from; but there's no reason it can't be done just because it's hard. Actually doing this will make arguments easier to debate. We will be able to discern irreconcilable philosophies from what are similar ideas of thought. Then you could create a collection of schools of thought by knowing how to compare their foundations. This would solve a lot of bickering.
I see no reification in Divided's demand. A psyche is also abstract.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
