Printable View
Do you think it is obvious that ESI focuses more on positive emotions than EII?
Do you think it is obvious that ESI focuses more on positive aspects of social behavior than EII?
Positive: hugging, cheering, smiling... Negative: mitigating, frowning, consoling...
Do you think it is obvious that EIE focuses more on negative relationships than ESE?
Do you think it is obvious that ESI is more strategic in social settings than EII?
No. IMO, this is one of the weakest areas of the Russian interpretation of the signed elements. I've proposed something that seems to be somewhat more accurate, though the Fi part still needs work.
I focus more on my own negative emotions and that causes a lot of depression and I focus a lot on everything in the world around me that's not ethical and that tends to frustrate me.
Do you think ESI focuses less on negative emotions than you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa
They talk about it more with their friends while I try hard not to talk excessively about all the details that go on because I want my friends to come to me to be their source of warmth and comfort. If it gets over the top I'll express one line statements and try not to elaborate until the pattern repeats. Se types tend to really hold onto all the details of events. I release it easily, I guess this is why I can remain in bad situations for a long time. Actually it's because I can empathize.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
Honestly I don't think so. Determining breaking points is hard because it's so individual. Who's to say what the limits of being stoic are?
Okay, what have you proposed?Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
My view is that +/- don't really work in Model A.
Only the base and creative function are real
The way I see it is this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
The EIE's Fe is primarily about self-expression and the ESE's Fe is primarily about emotional openness. This part seems very clear.
The ESI's Fi is about making (primarily negative) interpersonal judgments (the opposite of emotional openness, in a sense), while the EII's Fi is more about limiting one's emotional communication to people or a way that one is comfortable with (which is sort of the opposite of self-expression). This part needs refinement though.
I've written more about it here.
Model A2? This is your new model A, right? There are at least two other model A2.Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
This is my model, yes. It's an extension of model A.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
Really? I know about Model G and Model B but I'm not aware of any other model by that name.Quote:
There are at least two other model A2.
"the true conflictors: +Ti and -Te"Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
So you have come to a completely different conclusion than Hitta did a couple of years ago, right?
the way hitta explained it to me way, way back when, Te+ is in a sense "the same function" as Ti-, the same going for any pair of functions sharing the T/F/N/S aspect and being opposite in i/e and +/-. Something similar was always shown in the "model B updated Model A" diagrams that were posted at times. DarkAngelFireWolf69 has also repeatedly confirmed in his writings that this is the assumption he works from (trevor posted about this a while ago).
"Positive agenda: Increasing information or material
Negative agenda: Decreasing information or material"
This is very different from Bukalov's, DarkAngelFireWolf69's, Yermak's and other socionists' definitions of + and -. But is it accurate?
"+Fi seeks to put constraints on the content of communication; -Fe tries to expand the flow."
Why is + about constraint and - about expansion?
"Logic is either Process Aristocratic (and "Sensing", corresponding to a type whose second function is sensing) or Result Democratic (and Intuitive).
Result Democratic logic (+Te and -Ti) concerns the processing and objective evaluation of input information"
Are you saying that some types only have objective evaluation of input information?
"+Si tries to make things fit together better, improving the overall, holistic quality of one's experience, by making small adjustments and smoothing over irregularities"
This behavior corresponds to SLI. So you are saying that SLI and SLE have the same functions, right? Hmm
"+Fe is the goal of expanding the overall "volume" of ethical input—which it does by seeking to interact with as many people as possible."
This is definitely true for EIE as well.
"The opposite of this is -Fi, which rejects interaction with certain sources based on how you feel about them."
What do ESIs base their interactions on?
"In particular, -Te is concerned with efficient use of resources, or finding the shortest path from point A to point B."
This behavior corresponds to LIE and ILI.
"+Te wants to expand the inward flow or acquisition of resources, facts, and material, in order to gain benefit,"
And this behavior corresponds to LSE and SLI.
"We already considered conflicts between the opposing pairs of information elements in each domain"
According to you, LII's Te+ is a vital function because of this conflict, right? I don't think there is a conflict between Fe and Fi, Te and Ti etc.
"This results in conflict with Fe, when one has to choose between communicating a state and supressing it."
Fi is not suppressing an emotional state in my view. Fe and Fi deal with completely different evaluations of emotions, and they complement each other. There is a conflict between Te and Fi, Ti and Fe etc, though.
Do you claim that ILI tries to avoid Ti- as much as possible?
Model B:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...TIM_and_Socion
тельный раздражитель (слово, эмоция и др.). В этом случае неадекватное поведение взрослого человека особенно заметно для окружающих, которые не понимают, почему он так себя ведет в обычной, казалось бы, ситуации. Кроме того, теневое кольцо блока ЭГО позволяет человеку рать роль родственного типа в некоторых ситуациях, защищая тем самым четвёртую, уязвимую функцию. Выше нами была рассмотрена абстрактная модель Б в виде 4-мерного куба (рис. 3). Но поскольку тип информационного метабо-лизма, отражающий структуру ментального тела человека, пятимерен,
Bing translation:
In addition, the shadow ring allows a person's EGO block role of sibling types in some situations, protecting thus the fourth, the affected function. Above us was considered an abstract model b as a 4-dimensional cube (fig. 3). But because the type information-metabo faces, reflecting the mental structure of the human body, pjatimeren...
LII
Ti-/Ti+ Ne+/Se- ...
Do you think it is obvious that EIE focuses more on negative relationships than ESE? Yes - but almost everything is negative compared to an ESE. Poor ESEs. They are the naive light-hearted nerdy girl with freckles and braces that gets constantly bullied by their cooler and more bad-ass peers.
Do you think it is obvious that ESI focuses more on positive emotions than EII? No. EII has more potential to be the positive one... or both are negative. ESI has stern bitch faces. So can EII- but also they can be the more pollyanna-ish type.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
It's not always possible to compare different systems. Does Te+ correspond to LIE and Ti- to LII in hitta's system also? And being "the same" requires context -- Fe and Fi are "the same" in that they are both ethics but Fe and Si are "the same" in that they are both dynamic and involved, etc.
Quote:
[/I]
I'm not totally satisfied that this is an accurate definition. It seems to apply to most of the agendas as I've defined them. But for example, it's difficult to see how -Fe decreases information.Quote:
"Positive agenda: Increasing information or material
Negative agenda: Decreasing information or material"
This is very different from Bukalov's, DarkAngelFireWolf69's, Yermak's and other socionists' definitions of + and -. But is it accurate?
Here I'm referring to introversion (limitation) and extroversion (expansion). I realize that this may seem contradictory but the dichotomies are all somewhat intertwined the deeper you go -- it can be very difficult to make the distinctions between them precise.Quote:
"+Fi seeks to put constraints on the content of communication; -Fe tries to expand the flow."
Why is + about constraint and - about expansion?
Quote:
"Logic is either Process Aristocratic (and "Sensing", corresponding to a type whose second function is sensing) or Result Democratic (and Intuitive).
Result Democratic logic (+Te and -Ti) concerns the processing and objective evaluation of input information"
Are you saying that some types only have objective evaluation of input information?
No. As I mentioned in the article, every type uses all of the 16 elements (or microelements as I call them, to distinguish them from the Model A elements).
Quote:
Quote:
"+Si tries to make things fit together better, improving the overall, holistic quality of one's experience, by making small adjustments and smoothing over irregularities"
This behavior corresponds to SLI. So you are saying that SLI and SLE have the same functions, right? Hmm
Again, every type uses all of the elements, albeit in different ways. They have the same elements in their progressive functions, just like any other Result type.
Quote:
"+Fe is the goal of expanding the overall "volume" of ethical input—which it does by seeking to interact with as many people as possible."
This is definitely true for EIE as well.
This is a fair point -- however I do note that the regressive lead (r1) function is used quite a bit as well, it's just not quite as primary as the p1 function.
Quote:
"The opposite of this is -Fi, which rejects interaction with certain sources based on how you feel about them."
What do ESIs base their interactions on?
They would base it less on the content of the interaction and more on the qualities of the person or source they are interacting with.
Quote:
"In particular, -Te is concerned with efficient use of resources, or finding the shortest path from point A to point B."
This behavior corresponds to LIE and ILI.
Why not LSE or SLI?
Quote:
[/COLOR]"We already considered conflicts between the opposing pairs of information elements in each domain"
According to you, LII's Te+ is a vital function because of this conflict, right?
I don't know what you mean by that. The point here is that, in fulfilling -Ti's agenda, it almost invariably works against +Te's agenda or makes it more difficult. If you're generalizing information, you are making it less applicable and practical.
Uhh, Model A is sort of based on this concept...Quote:
I don't think there is a conflict between Fe and Fi, Te and Ti etc.
Quote:
"This results in conflict with Fe, when one has to choose between communicating a state and supressing it."
Fi is not suppressing an emotional state in my view. Fe and Fi deal with completely different evaluations of emotions, and they complement each other. There is a conflict between Te and Fi, Ti and Fe etc, though.
Again, this completely contradicts classical socionics. Types that value Te also value Fi -- these are complementary elements not conflicting ones. (I mean conflict in the everyday sense of being the source of interpersonal conflict.)
I'm not sure where you got that from. -Ti is ILI's r8 function, so my comments on the r8 function apply.Quote:
Do you claim that ILI tries to avoid Ti- as much as possible?
Do you think it is obvious that ESI focuses more on positive aspects of social behavior than EII?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullets
Positive: hugging, cheering, smiling...
Negative: mitigating, frowning, consoling...
EDIT: "ESI has stern bitch faces" Do you think ESI deliberately looks like this? Or is it just Fi-/emotions that shine through?
Do you think it is obvious that ESI focuses more on positive aspects of social behavior than EII?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa
Positive: hugging, cheering, smiling...
Negative: mitigating, frowning, consoling...
Not sure. More likely to reprimand than to instructQuote:
Originally Posted by Petter
Positivist types tend to be more positive and negativist types tend to be more negative. But I do not see ESI as more positive than EII generally, sorry. ESI and EII are both operating under the constraint of subjective ethics but ESI supports this with force, volition, manipulation of comfort and discomfort, etc. while EII supports it by setting up and observing the flow of situations abstractly. Without using socionics terms, people are probably going to pick the first as coming across "darker" most times, and if you survey villains (especially female ones) in movies, plays, musicals, operas, etc. you'll see tons of ESIs and very few EIIs. Please leave the "sensors are boring and dumb and intuitives are weird and cool" stereotypes at home. All of this stuff has very clear real-world correlates and without being anchored to that you're going to be lost.
Fair enough... your definitions of +/- are completely different.Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
Yes... I also think Sensing is very unclear.Quote:
I'm not totally satisfied that this is an accurate definition. It seems to apply to most of the agendas as I've defined them. But for example, it's difficult to see how -Fe decreases information.
"Process Democratic sensing applies to action and the energy we put into it. If you are experiencing something bad or difficult, there is a choice of either seeking to solve the issue (-Si) or simply struggling through it (+Se). Thus, -Si relates to alleviating experiential needs and +Se to willpower, impact, and struggle."
Do these descriptions really apply to SEI and SEE?
This is problematic. If it is difficult to explain/describe a concept then it is probably inaccurate.Quote:
Here I'm referring to introversion (limitation) and extroversion (expansion). I realize that this may seem contradictory but the dichotomies are all somewhat intertwined the deeper you go -- it can be very difficult to make the distinctions between them precise.
Okay, so this is a complete description of LII in Model A2? LII values both Ti- (p1?) and Ti+ (r1?), but he/she uses 'minus' more than 'plus', right?Quote:
No. As I mentioned in the article, every type uses all of the 16 elements (or microelements as I call them, to distinguish them from the Model A elements).
Ti- Ne+
Se+ Fi-
-------
Si- Fe+
Te+ Ni-
But you are still claiming that this behavior applies more to ESE than EIE, right? Hmm... I think EIE has the widest circle of friends.Quote:
This is a fair point -- however I do note that the regressive lead (r1) function is used quite a bit as well, it's just not quite as primary as the p1 function.
Okay, but how does that support your model?Quote:
They would base it less on the content of the interaction and more on the qualities of the person or source they are interacting with.
I think these descriptions are fairly accurate, and they contradict your descriptions of Te+ and Te-. "+Te wants to expand the inward flow or acquisition of resources, facts, and material, in order to gain benefit" This applies to LSE and SLI.Quote:
Why not LSE or SLI?
Logic of processes (Te-): processes, technologies
Logic of objects (Te+): things, objects
-Te = business logic of risk and entrepreneurship. For them it is characteristic to reject that which is useless, insignificant, mundane. This aspect is valued as more important than accumulation and rational consumption. Gammas successfully operate in environments of economic scarcity, where in order to survive it is necessary to use something that may appear useless at first glace, but which is present in abundance.
+Te = logic of use and rational management of resources. This is the most cost-conscious quadra that consumes rationally and prefers high-quality long-lasting products. Risk, rushed jobs, economic chaos and manipulation are not characteristic of this quadra. The society of quality consumption should be stable.
What do you base that assertion on? Can you provide a quote from Aushra or another socionist?Quote:
Uhh, Model A is sort of based on this concept...
I don't know what you mean by that. The point here is that, in fulfilling -Ti's agenda, it almost invariably works against +Te's agenda or makes it more difficult. If you're generalizing information, you are making it less applicable and practical.
What exactly do you mean by "value"?Quote:
Again, this completely contradicts classical socionics. Types that value Te also value Fi -- these are complementary elements not conflicting ones. (I mean conflict in the everyday sense of being the source of interpersonal conflict.)
Well, that would explain why LSE has Te+ in your model, i.e. a function LSE avoids as much as possible (vital).Quote:
I'm not sure where you got that from. -Ti is ILI's r8 function, so my comments on the r8 function apply.
First of all, positivist/negativist do not correspond to positive/negative. For example, ILI is negativist but is mostly positive (Ni+), and SLI is positivist but is mostly negative (Si-).Quote:
Originally Posted by Verbrannte
ESI is both negativist and (generally) negative, and I agree with your observations: "But I do not see ESI as more positive than EII generally".
But my question in OP is not about ESI's and EII's emotions (see editing).
I would roughly agree with that, yes, though the second part may be more true for some functions than others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
The LII's Model A2 is as follows:Quote:
Okay, so this is a complete description of LII in Model A2?
Ti- Ne+
Se+ Fi-
-------
Si- Fe+
Te+ Ni-
I've been determining the characteristics of the functions largely empirically -- there don't seem to be a lot of neat patterns with respect to dichotomies (the same is true to an extent for Model A also, IME).Code:progressive regressive
-Ti -Ne +Ti +Ne
-Se -Fi +Se +Fi
------- -----------
+Si +Fe -Si -Fe
+Te +Ni -Te -Ni
It's not about having more friends necessarily, it's about being open to communication and wanting to include people. EIEs do like inclusiveness but they also manifest an "us vs. them" mentality a lot of the time, which means excluding people.Quote:
But you are still claiming that this behavior applies more to ESE than EIE, right? Hmm... I think EIE has the widest circle of friends.
Because I provisionally define Process ethics as being a judgment based on the content of the interaction, while Result ethics is a judgment based on the entities/sources/people involved in the interaction.Quote:
Okay, but how does that support your model?
Which one? The second one is original by me, it's an explanation and refinement of the conflict between Ti and Te that is already present in classical socionics.Quote:
What do you base that assertion on? Can you provide a quote from Aushra or another socionist?
I mean they are quadra values. Are you not familiar with the concept of quadra values? Alphas are Alphas because they have :Fe:, :Ti:, :Ne:, and :Si: in their valued functions, which is the opposite of Gamma with :Fi:, :Te:, :Ni:, and :Se: in their valued functions.Quote:
What exactly do you mean by "value"?
It seems like you're mixing theories here -- can you put this in empirical terms? What does it mean that LSEs avoid Te+?Quote:
Well, that would explain why LSE has Te+ in your model, i.e. a function LSE avoids as much as possible (vital).
"If you are experiencing something bad or difficult, there is a choice of either seeking to solve the issue (-Si)"Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
I don't see how this applies to SEI. SEI usually sweeps problems under the carpet.
"+Fe is the goal of expanding the overall "volume" of ethical input—which it does by seeking to interact with as many people as possible."Quote:
It's not about having more friends necessarily, it's about being open to communication and wanting to include people. EIEs do like inclusiveness but they also manifest an "us vs. them" mentality a lot of the time, which means excluding people.
I don't see the connection between 'volume of ethical input' and inclusiveness. EIE could include 100 people and exclude 2000 people, while ESE could include all 99 people he/she has met.
"conflict between Ti and Te that is already present in classical socionics"Quote:
Which one? The second one is original by me, it's an explanation and refinement of the conflict between Ti and Te that is already present in classical socionics.
Which article by Aushra are you referring to?
I am familiar with "quadra values", but I don't think they are accurate.Quote:
I mean they are quadra values. Are you not familiar with the concept of quadra values? Alphas are Alphas because they have , , , and in their valued functions, which is the opposite of Gamma with , , , and in their valued functions.
Wikisocion:
"Subdued functions are the remaining four functions that oppose our preferences; as a result we try to limit the use of these functions. The mental-subdued (weak) functions are found in the Super-ego block (functions 3 and 4), and the vital-subdued (strong) functions are in the Id block (functions 7 and 8). Since these functions are what we suppress as much as we can, in situations where we must use them they tend to produce dissatisfaction and distress in ourselves. Subdued functions are sometimes called non-valued although some socionists prefer not to use this name."
This description is partially false! ILI often uses Si and Fe (as well as Ne and Ti) without dissatisfaction and distress. But if (for example) an ESE or an SEI uses Si and Fe a lot in the presence of an ILI, THEN it can cause dissatisfaction and distress.
Mathematical physicists Roger Penrose and Robbert Dijkgraaf are using Ti extensively every day. And they are ILI.
I meant your Te-. LSE "suppresses" Te-. LIE "suppresses" Te+. I was just trying to make sense of your theory.Quote:
It seems like you're mixing theories here -- can you put this in empirical terms? What does it mean that LSEs avoid Te+?
"+Te wants to expand the inward flow or acquisition of resources, facts, and material, in order to gain benefit"
This actually applies to LSE and SLI, but you claim it applies to LIE and ILI.
Definitely not. I notice absence, incompetence and "wrongness" in behaviour first. Every time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
Yes, precisely.Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
Nailed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullets
We just can't help it usually, but we definitely can use it consciously once we realize the effect it has on others. It's very useful because I don't have to say a word or lift a finger to resolve situations that are unpleasant to me. Depends on the efficiency of the bitch dace, though. I'd probably have a good one independently of Socionics type because I'm a SX/SP 8.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
Can you give me an example of this?Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyOne
I was watching The Voice last week and I noticed the difference between me and my mom's (EII) judgements of the contestants. There was this girl for example, who had a nice voice, but not unique or powerful at all and who's personality was the same: nice, but common. She was very pretty and dressed well, but again bothe her face and clothes were ordinary. She wan't awful, but failed to leave an impression. When her performance was over, only one of the judges turned their chairs for her and my mom was like: "Oh thank God! The rest will surely regret not picking her!" and I said "Well, I wouldn't have picked her either. I think he will be the one to regret giving her a spot on his team once better contestants show up."Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
My mom asked why and I said "She has a common voice tone, a limited range, no style of her own, low volume and poor projection. She seems nice but that's all, looks and dresses like any girl you find on the streets. She doesn't have the it factor". To which my mom responded: "I think she has a nice tone, sings well and her face is cute. And you never know, she might have potential. You gotta give them a chance".
She did concede to all points I made and I agreed with her assessments, but the thing is: I noticed everything that was wrong or missing right away,in the first 20 seconds of the performance, and made my decision about her not being/having enough based on that. My mom on the other hand noticed everything good she had to offer and was open minded about her future prospects. She agreed with me on her "non specialness", but still thought she was promising enough.
This example was more about competence and other traits, but the same happens hen we are judging a person's character. The large majority of the time I'm proven to be right about people (the girl was eliminated this week after proving to be just as mediocre as I said she was at a battle stage), but it doesn't change her positive expectations since it's her nature.
That's true. Simply being passive and ignoring the issue is another Si approach. In any case, the strategy is to adapt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
That's exactly it -- a fundamental point of Model A2 is that information is subjective: there is a tradeoff between constraint and content, distribution of resources here or there...the ratio is what matters. 99/99 = 1 while 100/2000 = 0.05.Quote:
"+Fe is the goal of expanding the overall "volume" of ethical input—which it does by seeking to interact with as many people as possible."
I don't see the connection between 'volume of ethical input' and inclusiveness. EIE could include 100 people and exclude 2000 people, while ESE could include all 99 people he/she has met.
I'm not going to hunt down some Russian article to substantiate every little thing about Model A to you -- if there isn't one by Augusta there is surely one by one of the earlier socionists like DarkAngelFireWolf69.Quote:
"conflict between Ti and Te that is already present in classical socionics"
Which article by Aushra are you referring to?
I have a feeling we aren't going to get much farther then. If you dispute the concept of valued and conflicting elements then Model A2 will make no sense to you. Nor am I going to try to argue the concept to you, I have no time for pointless theoretical debates.Quote:
I am familiar with "quadra values", but I don't think they are accurate.
I somewhat agree with what you're saying here, the wikisocion description isn't exactly how I would put it. I define what valued elements are much more precisely in the articles on my site -- any time I refer to them they should be understood in that sense.Quote:
This description is partially false! ILI often uses Si and Fe (as well as Ne and Ti) without dissatisfaction and distress. But if (for example) an ESE or an SEI uses Si and Fe a lot in the presence of an ILI, THEN it can cause dissatisfaction and distress.
Mathematical physicists Roger Penrose and Robbert Dijkgraaf are using Ti extensively every day. And they are ILI.
Okay, so you are saying that SEI is adaptable?Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
"+Se to willpower, impact, and struggle." Does this apply to SEE?
What distribution of resources? It takes no effort to ignore/exclude people.Quote:
That's exactly it -- a fundamental point of Model A2 is that information is subjective: there is a tradeoff between constraint and content, distribution of resources here or there...the ratio is what matters. 99/99 = 1 while 100/2000 = 0.05.
Okay, so what do you base your assumptions on? Peter Bartl's and Jack Aaron's comments on WSS? Or your own observations?Quote:
I'm not going to hunt down some Russian article to substantiate every little thing about Model A to you -- if there isn't one by Augusta there is surely one by one of the earlier socionists like DarkAngelFireWolf69.
"pointless theoretical debates"???Quote:
I have a feeling we aren't going to get much farther then. If you dispute the concept of valued and conflicting elements then Model A2 will make no sense to you. Nor am I going to try to argue the concept to you, I have no time for pointless theoretical debates.
"The valued functions (functions 1, 2, 5, and 6) are those which give us an immediate psychological feeling of reward when we achieve their agendas. We are motivated by them primarily, because using the unvalued functions creates mild to intense irritation and cannot be sustained for long periods of time. Because of this the valued functions tend to be more verbalized. In particular, if someone makes a verbal complaint or criticism of someone else related to a certain element's agenda then it is likely that they value that element."Quote:
I somewhat agree with what you're saying here, the wikisocion description isn't exactly how I would put it. I define what valued elements are much more precisely in the articles on my site -- any time I refer to them they should be understood in that sense.
I don't see the difference between your view and the wikisocion description.
The mental functions 1, 2, 3, 4 are verbalized (not 5, 6). Neither functions 3, 4 nor functions 5, 6 are (generally) interesting. But information that is processed by functions 5, 6 is usually not considered at all. Hence, we are curious about it.
Attachment 9082
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by Petter
The idea is that there is a basic resource tradeoff between -Fi and +Fe, -Ti and +Te, etc., in terms of the mental state we are in and the choices we make. An ESE, when presented with an +Fe/-Fi choice will make the former much more than the EIE will, as a percentage of the total.Quote:
What distribution of resources? It takes no effort to ignore/exclude people.
My own observations, which confirmed the information passed on by Rick from the Russian community. I don't speak Russian so I can't say for sure where everything in his interpretation of socionics comes from, though I have read a bit of Augusta's works. You know very well that I've been here long before Jack ever heard about socionics.Quote:
Okay, so what do you base your assumptions on? Peter Bartl's and Jack Aaron's comments on WSS? Or your own observations?
Yes, I mean I'm not going to try to justify any basic assumptions behind socionics to you, I've been in these debates countless times before and they are a waste of time. I will explain my take on it but I will not try to convince you of it.Quote:
"pointless theoretical debates"???
Wikisocion says "Every person actively seeks to process information based on [the valued functions]" andQuote:
"The valued functions (functions 1, 2, 5, and 6) are those which give us an immediate psychological feeling of reward when we achieve their agendas. We are motivated by them primarily, because using the unvalued functions creates mild to intense irritation and cannot be sustained for long periods of time. Because of this the valued functions tend to be more verbalized. In particular, if someone makes a verbal complaint or criticism of someone else related to a certain element's agenda then it is likely that they value that element."
I don't see the difference between your view and the wikisocion description.
"in situations where we must use [the subdued functions] they tend to produce dissatisfaction and distress in ourselves."
My understanding differs from this in a subtle but important way. As I've written about on my site, I see the IM elements as goals, as well as categories of information that we can focus on. If "using" them means actively focusing on them and trying to achieve their goals, then no this is not what we value or enjoy in my view. What we value is that the goals themselves are achieved. This is what produces the positive feeling associated with the suggestive function. Very often it is actually annoying to have to actively use the suggestive function, it's something that we tend to have trouble with. (This point about the suggestive function was noted by Rick as well many years ago, though not put into the framework of goal fulfillment.)
I don't really agree with that. The classical description of the mental/vital distinction seems wrong to me: the mobilizing function is definitely consciously focused on quite a bit (far more than the vulnerable function, for example).Quote:
The mental functions 1, 2, 3, 4 are verbalized (not 5, 6). Neither functions 3, 4 nor functions 5, 6 are (generally) interesting. But information that is processed by functions 5, 6 is usually not considered at all. Hence, we are curious about it.
Yes. Even to the detriment of the relationship at times. Short term profit v. Long term profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
Depends on what negative relationship means in this context. EIE identifies negative traits quicker in others, whereas ESE is more carefree in this regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
"+Se to willpower, impact, and struggle." (I: Does this apply to SEE?)Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
This contradicts my observations and definitions of 'plus' (SEE, Se+). 'Plus' is about maximizing the positive and avoiding the negative.
Can you give me an example of SEI being adaptable?
I don't think there is a tradeoff/conflict between Fi- and Fe+. The vital functions support the mental functions. Your model A2 really contradicts classical Socionics in this respect.Quote:
The idea is that there is a basic resource tradeoff between -Fi and +Fe, -Ti and +Te, etc., in terms of the mental state we are in and the choices we make. An ESE, when presented with an +Fe/-Fi choice will make the former much more than the EIE will, as a percentage of the total.
I didn't know that. I recognized your name from WSS. That's all. And I don't think 'being active on a forum for many years' is relevant. It is more about interpreting the theory accurately.Quote:
My own observations, which confirmed the information passed on by Rick from the Russian community. I don't speak Russian so I can't say for sure where everything in his interpretation of socionics comes from, though I have read a bit of Augusta's works.
You know very well that I've been here long before Jack ever heard about socionics.
First of all, Rick wasn't a socionist. He just passed on information from the Russian community (as you mentioned).Quote:
Wikisocion says "Every person actively seeks to process information based on [the valued functions]" and
"in situations where we must use [the subdued functions] they tend to produce dissatisfaction and distress in ourselves."
My understanding differs from this in a subtle but important way. As I've written about on my site, I see the IM elements as goals, as well as categories of information that we can focus on. If "using" them means actively focusing on them and trying to achieve their goals, then no this is not what we value or enjoy in my view. What we value is that the goals themselves are achieved. This is what produces the positive feeling associated with the suggestive function. Very often it is actually annoying to have to actively use the suggestive function, it's something that we tend to have trouble with. (This point about the suggestive function was noted by Rick as well many years ago, though not put into the framework of goal fulfillment.)
Do you think Jack and Peter (i.e. classical Socionics) also view IM elements as goals?
People usually have goals (which is processed by Te in my view), but I don't see how a cognitive function/IM element itself can have goals.
This is important. Are there many members on this forum who agree with you that functions 5 and 6 are verbalized?Quote:
I don't really agree with that. The classical description of the mental/vital distinction seems wrong to me: the mobilizing function is definitely consciously focused on quite a bit (far more than the vulnerable function, for example).
Secondly, vital functions can be used consciously for a short period of time according to Yermak (read more on SSS website). That is my view as well.
Thirdly, Model D (see viewpoints) explains why you experience HA (Model A) as far more consciously focused than the vulnerable function.
SEIs and SLIs are constantly in a state of adapting to their environment -- responding to whatever needs they have themselves, but also the needs of others. I see the relationship between -Si and -Fe as being about "signals", the sort of signals you get from your body etc. that tell you that some need needs to be fulfilled (so it is "minus" in that sense).Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
The most general difference I've been able to identify between SEI's Si and SLI's Si is that SEIs seem more often to focus directly on fulfilling particular needs (or creating particular objects of beauty, like art), while SLIs try to optimize the total quality of experience (or an object's functioning) until it's satisfactory.
Fi and Fe conflict in classical socionics as well. I'm not aware of anything in classical socionics that says that Fi "supports" Fe -- do you have a source for that? How would that work with quadras?Quote:
I don't think there is a tradeoff/conflict between Fi- and Fe+. The vital functions support the mental functions. Your model A2 really contradicts classical Socionics in this respect.
Fair enough. :thumbsup:Quote:
I didn't know that. I recognized your name from WSS. That's all. And I don't think 'being active on a forum for many years' is relevant. It is more about interpreting the theory accurately.
In what sense was Rick not a socionist? It's not right to say that he only passed on information -- he made his own observations and developed his own interpretation of the theory, although it was primarily based on views already existing in the Russian community.Quote:
First of all, Rick wasn't a socionist. He just passed on information from the Russian community (as you mentioned).
Jack and Peter haven't really commented on Model A2, so I can't say for sure.Quote:
Do you think Jack and Peter (i.e. classical Socionics) also view IM elements as goals?
Ah -- an IM element doesn't have a goal, it is a goal.Quote:
People usually have goals (which is processed by Te in my view), but I don't see how a cognitive function/IM element itself can have goals.
I think the suggestive function is not necessarily verbalized a whole lot, not as clearly as the mobilizing function.Quote:
This is important. Are there many members on this forum who agree with you that functions 5 and 6 are verbalized?
@Jack Oliver Aaron can correct me if I'm wrong but from our conversations Jack and Peter do seem to agree with that. As for the general public on the16types? Maybe not. Deemphasis on the mental/vital and accepting/producing dichotomies may be one of the unique views of the "Anglophone school." But we have come to similar conclusions despite having very different observations, which seems like a good sign to me.
"responding to whatever needs they have themselves" This is about minimizing the negative, and it is definitely true for SLI. But I don't think this corresponds to SEI behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
This corresponds to socionists' definitions of plus (details, local) and minus (general, global).Quote:
The most general difference I've been able to identify between SEI's Si and SLI's Si is that SEIs seem more often to focus directly on fulfilling particular needs (or creating particular objects of beauty, like art), while SLIs try to optimize the total quality of experience (or an object's functioning) until it's satisfactory.
I asked you first. Where do you find this Fi and Fe conflict?Quote:
Fi and Fe conflict in classical socionics as well. I'm not aware of anything in classical socionics that says that Fi "supports" Fe -- do you have a source for that?
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/258
"A person uses this element mainly as a kind of game, or to ridicule those who he thinks take it too seriously. They often intentionally go against its conventional usage simply to prove a point in favor of their creative function. However, this function is used quite often in private, to produce information of its element to support their creative function when focusing on making contact with the external world."
What do you mean?Quote:
How would that work with quadras?
All of us have made own observations and interpreted the theory. In my view, a socionist is a person who has contributed to the development of Socionics theory and is recognized as a socionist by other socionists.Quote:
In what sense was Rick not a socionist? It's not right to say that he only passed on information -- he made his own observations and developed his own interpretation of the theory, although it was primarily based on views already existing in the Russian community.
But they are only interested in classical Socionics, so I think they would be very skeptical of your model A2.Quote:
Jack and Peter haven't really commented on Model A2, so I can't say for sure.
Okay, how can an IM element be a goal? It is almost like saying that your arm is a goal.Quote:
Ah -- an IM element doesn't have a goal, it is a goal.
Can you explain this part a bit further?Quote:
Deemphasis on the mental/vital and accepting/producing dichotomies may be one of the unique views of the "Anglophone school." But we have come to similar conclusions despite having very different observations, which seems like a good sign to me.
Yes and I already answered you. Again, if you dispute the idea of Fi and Fe conflicting then Model A2 will not make any sense to you. Model A2 is almost completely derived from my observations of the interactions (conflict, complementation, etc.) between different IM elements. If you are actually willing to consider this idea, then just take it for the sake of argument for now, or seek out a source you trust for yourself. These relations exist mathematically in the theory: Fi is to Te as Ni is to Se etc., Fi is to Se and Ne as Ti is to Se and Ne, etc., Ti is to Te as Fe is to Fi, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
Ironically you are quoting descriptions derived from wikisocion, which I myself helped to write along with Rick and others. If you apply the same standards of research to yourself, you should find a citation from a "real" socionist like Augusta or DarkAngelFireWolf69.Quote:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/258
"A person uses this element mainly as a kind of game, or to ridicule those who he thinks take it too seriously. They often intentionally go against its conventional usage simply to prove a point in favor of their creative function. However, this function is used quite often in private, to produce information of its element to support their creative function when focusing on making contact with the external world."
Rick gave a talk at the Kiev socionics conference so he certainly was recognized by other socionists.Quote:
All of us have made own observations and interpreted the theory. In my view, a socionist is a person who has contributed to the development of Socionics theory and is recognized as a socionist by other socionists.
For me, a socionist is whoever is able to type people accurately and has formed a thorough mental model of the theory based on their personal experience. This invariably results in some kind of original conclusions, since everyone's experience with the types is different.
Rather than speculating, you should just ask them yourself. I would describe their attitude more as disinterest than active skepticism. In any case, what I am trying to do here is to refine classical socionics while preserving as much as possible of the original theory. Any changes to my views on Model A have been relatively conservative thus far, it's just a matter of dividing the original categories into smaller, more precise ones.Quote:
But they are only interested in classical Socionics, so I think they would be very skeptical of your model A2.
Please read the articles on my site more carefully, everything is explained there: https://wholesocionics.herokuapp.com...lement-AgendasQuote:
Okay, how can an IM element be a goal? It is almost like saying that your arm is a goal.
Sure.Quote:
Can you explain this part a bit further?
Classical old-school Russian socionics includes a ton of theoretical categories of varying usefulness. Rick's approach started out using Jungian dichotomies more but gradually turned towards a more function + IM element -based approach. It has also been my experience (as well as Roan, Peter, and Jack's) that the Jungian dichotomies are often not the most obvious datum when typing someone. We tend to use quadra values, introversion/extroversion (or bold/cautious for Jack), and strengths (except Roan, who is skeptical of this one). Other categories that we pretty much agree to be useless or at least don't actively refer to are Reinin dichotomies, static/dynamic (and mental/vital), rational/irrational (and accepting/producing), and 2-subtype theory.
From what I have seen, Jungian dichotomies are still very much primary in certain Russian socionists' thinking. Reinin dichotomies are more controversial but they do have a large following.
No, you haven't. I asked for a quote by Aushra or another socionist.Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
Is there a conflict between EIE and EII (or EIE and ESI) in your view?Quote:
Again, if you dispute the idea of Fi and Fe conflicting then Model A2 will not make any sense to you. Model A2 is almost completely derived from my observations of the interactions (conflict, complementation, etc.) between different IM elements.
Okay... but how does that prove Fi and Fe are conflicting functions?Quote:
These relations exist mathematically in the theory: Fi is to Te as Ni is to Se etc., Fi is to Se and Ne as Ti is to Se and Ne, etc., Ti is to Te as Fe is to Fi, etc.
...which means that you are either contradicting yourself or your model A2 is contradicting classical socionics (or those descriptions aren't really from Aushra or other socionists).Quote:
Ironically you are quoting descriptions derived from wikisocion, which I myself helped to write along with Rick and others.
Are you referring to this?Quote:
Rick gave a talk at the Kiev socionics conference so he certainly was recognized by other socionists.
http://www.tryukraine.com/socionics/...nce_2006.shtml
"Richard DeLong talked about the development of socionics in the West, the influence of Meyers-Briggs typology, the importance of the Internet in the development of a socionics community, and the interests and problems of this community. The audience listened with great interest and asked about the quality of English translations on the socionics institute's site, about why people in the West weren't interested in learning Russian, whether Keirsey's typology was the same as Meyers-Briggs', and whether people from non-English speaking countries were interested in socionics."
Conservative? Really? Btw, what exactly do you mean by "input information" and "output information"?Quote:
Rather than speculating, you should just ask them yourself. I would describe their attitude more as disinterest than active skepticism. In any case, what I am trying to do here is to refine classical socionics while preserving as much as possible of the original theory. Any changes to my views on Model A have been relatively conservative thus far, it's just a matter of dividing the original categories into smaller, more precise ones.
And your definitions of +/- contradict DarkAngelFireWolf69's, Bukalov's and Yermak's definitions of +/-. Both IIS and SRSI represent mainstream Socionics according to Olga.
Can you provide a quote? I have no idea what you are referring to.Quote:
Please read the articles on my site more carefully, everything is explained there: https://wholesocionics.herokuapp.com...lement-Agendas
Unless youre both an ESE and a ESI, your post doesnt make sense.
If you're talking to me then why don't you quote me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie
But yes, I see I didn't read the second quote correctly now.
My point in the first response still stands.
I spoke to both Rick and DarkAngelFireWolf69 and they both confirmed that Te and Ti conflict, and Fe and Fi etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Petter
Conflicts can occur between people of any types. Conflict on the level of IM elements is more abstract - my view is that generally when people conflict in the strict sense of wanting to make opposite decisions, then the two sides can be categorized using contrary pairs of signed elements (-Fe and +Fi, +Fe and -Fi, etc.), and the side they take will reflect their type. So types from opposite quadras generally do conflict more in this sense.Quote:
Is there a conflict between EIE and EII (or EIE and ESI) in your view?
The wikisocion quote was written ~10 years ago and needs to be put in context. I don't believe that Te and Ti generally support one another, I would never use that wording now. What I do believe is that they can be used in alternation to build upon one another, as in the scientific method of creating theories and testing them alternatively. But they cannot be used simultaneously, in parallel, and they do clash when you try to do so. This is where they differ from dual elements, blocked elements, benefactors etc.Quote:
...which means that you are either contradicting yourself or your model A2 is contradicting classical socionics (or those descriptions aren't really from Aushra or other socionists).
Yes.Quote:
Are you referring to this?
http://www.tryukraine.com/socionics/...nce_2006.shtml
"Richard DeLong talked about the development of socionics in the West, the influence of Meyers-Briggs typology, the importance of the Internet in the development of a socionics community, and the interests and problems of this community. The audience listened with great interest and asked about the quality of English translations on the socionics institute's site, about why people in the West weren't interested in learning Russian, whether Keirsey's typology was the same as Meyers-Briggs', and whether people from non-English speaking countries were interested in socionics."
Output in the sense of Model A2 should be understood as action in the same way that perception is input.Quote:
Conservative? Really? Btw, what exactly do you mean by "input information" and "output information"?
Some of my definitions are pretty similar to Model G actually, like +Ne and -Ne for example as potential and possibilities respectively. But all these models are speculative and none have reached widespread agreement yet. (Olga and the Associative Socionics crew should definitely not be taken as an authority on what is mainstream or not.)Quote:
And your definitions of +/- contradict DarkAngelFireWolf69's, Bukalov's and Yermak's definitions of +/-. Both IIS and SRSI represent mainstream Socionics according to Olga.
The information elements are eight psychological faculties which are responsible for processing "information aspects" or categories of information, similar to the physical senses of sight, touch, hearing etc.Quote:
Can you provide a quote? I have no idea what you are referring to.
Less often mentioned is that, like the physical senses, each IM element does not accept input uncritically - they also make judgments. That is, just as we dislike and seek to avoid negative physical sensations like pain or abrasive sounds, yet we seek out and enjoy pleasant sensations (good music, tasty food, etc.), each IM element has its own (psychological) definition of "good" and "bad" information.
Each category of information (information aspect) has a utility measure naturally attached to it. A person's type determines their relationship to each of these utility measures, the leading function being the primary way they evaluate how good or bad things are. We attempt to optimize each of these measures through action, hence they are goals.
Compared to EII I still think so. Im not going to refute your personal anecdote, but it does seem in line with my idea that strategically the ESI is less strategic long term (as gamma sf is prone to cutting people out entirely, and delta nf is more accepting or forgiving in this regard). Short term social strategy though, I think gamma sf is better than delta nf.Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyOne
Point conceded. Comparing Gamma Ethic types to Delta Ethic types really puts things in perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie