Model A with the +/- signs

[Hitta]

i'm retracting what i said about ganin (and only what i said about ganin.) after reading the recent thread that i referenced about him more carefully, i think it's inaccurate to suggest so strongly that "the community" as a whole here discredits his work. i also recall now referencing one of his own type descriptions ("INTp uncovered" i think) in one of my own posts. a significant portion of ganin's work has on second thought a significant amount of good to it. at the very least ganin is a funny man with a knack for picking good website addresses. i owe ganin an appology.

besides, questioning his credibility wasn't even necessary for my point in the relevant post, which i think has stood on its own theoretically given hitta's inability so far to say anything meaningful mathematically about the reinin dichotomies and his theory's apparent contradictions with them.

there's still a lot i disagree with ganin on and a lot of my patience was depleted by hitta's repeated refusal to address the resources i cite or the contradictions i identify. and i think that bubbled over into a hasty choice of words of mine regarding ganin's credibility as a whole. so anyway, despite what i said earlier, i think the one deserving of discrediting here isn't ganin, but hitta himself.

You have the IQ of a tickleme Elmo doll.

[Hitta]

If I'm so wrong, explain to me why ENTjs and INTps lack initiative. Explain to me why ESFjs and ISFjs are so extreme about getting things done. Explain to me why INTjs and ENTps attempt to overthrow authority.

[Creepy-bg]

If I'm so wrong, explain to me why ENTjs and INTps lack initiative. Explain to me why ESFjs and ISFjs are so extreme about getting things done. Explain to me why INTjs and ENTps attempt to overthrow authority.

just to play devils advocate- if he can't explain those things that doesn't necesarily mean you're right.

[Hitta]

If I'm so wrong, explain to me why ENTjs and INTps lack initiative. Explain to me why ESFjs and ISFjs are so extreme about getting things done. Explain to me why INTjs and ENTps attempt to overthrow authority.

just to play devils advocate- if he can't explain those things that doesn't necesarily mean you're right.

Agreed, but theres gotta be a functional reason for those things to happen.

[Creepy-bg]

perhaps... I'm not really of the "socionics should/can explain everything about human personality" crowd

[Hitta]

On another note, I'm absolutely certain I'm correct, its just a matter of convincing people. I'm not the type of person to believe something without something to back it up. I see the correlation.

[Hitta]

perhaps... I'm not really of the "socionics should/can explain everything about human personality" crowd

Hmm, the fact that there is both perceiving and judging functions means that everything in the human psyche could be influenced by socionics. Now people are witness to different events which causes a deviation from the line. I honestly don't think socionics explains "everything", but it explains a lot.

[Creepy-bg]

perhaps... I'm not really of the "socionics should/can explain everything about human personality" crowd

Hmm, the fact that there is both perceiving and judging functions means that everything in the human psyche could be influenced by socionics. Now people are witness to different events which causes a deviation from the line. I honestly don't think socionics explains "everything", but it explains a lot.

could be is the key word there IMO.

I think in the end it comes down to a difference of perception or desire for what socionics is. I want it kept as short, sweet, and simple as possible. What you're trying to do is make things even more complex. I'm cool with that, I can understand your drive, I can live with it. I'm just letting you know there are some of us out here who think socionics is fine as is and does all we need it to (which I'm sure you were already aware of anyways)

[Hitta]

On another note, I'm absolutely certain I'm correct, its just a matter of convincing people. I'm not the type of person to believe something without something to back it up. I see the correlation.

Also if my theory was incorrect, my quadrants wouldn't make sense, but they make perfect sense which is a testament to the validity of my theory.

[UDP]

Often what people perceive as as complete accuracy or correctness is nothing but circular logic and fruitlessness...

I read the first 3 pages of this topic - did anything useful come of this thread? Anyone can respond.

[Creepy-bg]

Often what people perceive as as complete accuracy or correctness is nothing but circular logic and fruitlessness...

I read the first 3 pages of this topic - did anything useful come of this thread? Anyone can respond.

not sure, I've been bouncing in and out. I get lost when they start talking all wordy and throw around the

[Hitta]

Often what people perceive as as complete accuracy or correctness is nothing but circular logic and fruitlessness...

I read the first 3 pages of this topic - did anything useful come of this thread? Anyone can respond.

Well basically what I'm saying is that when you thought you were an INTj, it was because you had the same base function as an INTj. ESTjs ISTps INTjs , and ENTps share the same thinking function in the ego block. Now the biggest difference between an INTj and ESTj comes from the creative function, which for INTjs usually leads them to science or some type of philosophy, and for ESTjs usually leads them to systemize a business or something. Also note from ESTjs that their creative function is -Si/+Se. This would mean that ESTjs share a function with ESFps(which is their base). +Se is the enjoy the world function. ESFps, ISFjs, ESTjs, ISTps, are all in my experiencers quadrant.

[Gilly]

I live with an LSE. We absolutely do not have the same logical function. I also have many SLE friends, and some LSIs, and we absolutely do share the same logic preference. Your theory is fucked, buddy.

[Hitta]

I live with an LSE. We absolutely do not have the same logical function. I also have many SLE friends, and some LSIs, and we absolutely do share the same logic preference. Your theory is fucked, buddy.

-Ti/+Te is about systematizing, if you think that you SLEs and LSIs systematize, you are wrong. The similarity you are noticing probably is you both just having introverted logic. Even if you shared the same function (in which I doubt you do), Ti is introverted so they would have to express it through an extroverted function (this is the idea that all of socionics is based upon). They would interact with Se so I don't see how you could say that you and an "SLE" and "LSI" have the same logic, because they would have to express it to you through another function. +Ti/-Te which ISTjs and ESTps have is a live in the system logic. They do not create. -Ti/+Te is about creating system, whether abstract systems or business systems or whatever.

[Gilly]

You think LSIs don't make systems?




My LSE mother is hardly systematic.

[Hitta]

You think LSIs don't make systems?




My LSE mother is hardly systematic.

LSIs are not system builders, they are system followers. LSEs organize things like companies and stuff, they get the best productivity they can achieve. You could probably read the descriptions of them and derive that.

[Gilly]

+Ti is Ti blocked with Se, right? So you're saying that there are no systems built upon Se? You're a fucking nutcase?

[Hitta]

+Ti is Ti blocked with Se, right? So you're saying that there are no systems built upon Se? You're a fucking nutcase?

For ISTjs it is, ISTjs do not create systems based on Se, sometimes ESTjs do though. ISTjs are the "doers" of the world, not the creators or organizers.

[Gilly]

Whatever, buddy. Your system is a crock. You can't just say "ISTjs don't create systems because of my shitty interpretations of +/-." Socionics isn't nearly that simple.

[Hitta]

Whatever, buddy. Your system is a crock. You can't just say "ISTjs don't create systems because of my shitty interpretations of +/-." Socionics isn't nearly that simple.

Thats actually not my interpretation, thats not what this theory is. That aspect of its been put out by socionist that work with functional aspects. Here's the descriptions from the16types.com

Positive(short range):
Reality, detail, detailed study, carefulness, severity, place in hierarchies, laws, decisions, instructions, a choice of the best variant, logic of the organization,

Negative (long range):
abstraction, generality, universality, system, classification, typology, the general laws, objectivity, true, validity, the analysis, logic of a science, criteria.

ISTjs do organize things, but its within the system. They take things within a system and find all the details about it. INTjs, ENTps, ESTjs, and ISTps create systems.

[Gilly]

But see, those are descriptions, not definitions. You can't base a system on descriptions; they're too vague, not concrete and defined enough. Without concrete, logical definitions, your "system" becomes arbitrary and too open to interpretation, and thus invalid, at least insofar as it is relevant to the claims you are attempting to make.

Besides, do you even know where those came from? For all we know, Jimmy could have pulled those out of his ass when he first started the site. Where's the concrete logic behind this system?

[Hitta]

But see, those are descriptions, not definitions. You can't base a system on descriptions; they're too vague, not concrete and defined enough. Without concrete, logical definitions, your "system" becomes arbitrary and too open to interpretation, and thus invalid, at least insofar as it is relevant to the claims you are attempting to make.

Besides, do you even know where those came from? For all we know, Jimmy could have pulled those out of his ass when he first started the site. Where's the concrete logic behind this system?

http://forum.socionix.com/lofiversio...x.php?t51.html, the point of my theory isn't about the descriptions, its to say that the functions of a person's model A are composed of both extroverted and introverted elements in a single functional sub-block. Saying that an INTj with Ti(being introverted) only organizes internal logic is completely incorrect, INTjs reassert information from -Ti to +Te and organize the world as well. Its very obvious to me how this works. Its very obvious that the thinking function of an INTj isn't just internal. It can't be just internal. The function is just as extroverted as it is introverted. It has to be. Otherwise you would see just Ne from INTj. Which means that they would be extremely disorganized.

[tcaudilllg]

But see, those are descriptions, not definitions. You can't base a system on descriptions; they're too vague, not concrete and defined enough. Without concrete, logical definitions, your "system" becomes arbitrary and too open to interpretation, and thus invalid, at least insofar as it is relevant to the claims you are attempting to make.

Besides, do you even know where those came from? For all we know, Jimmy could have pulled those out of his ass when he first started the site. Where's the concrete logic behind this system?

All it means is that ISTjs have dim views of the generalities that intuitive thinking suggests, and using intuitive thinking with Se is a no-no.

Ask labcoat to explain. I'm not arguing anymore. Hitta, nothing you say is going to get through to him; he's being animated by something larger than himself -- the force of chaotic change --, and that's what you're really arguing with now.

[Expat]

the point of my theory isn't about the descriptions,

But you keep using them to validate your theory, as in arguing that ISTjs and ENTjs share the same dominant function. So it seems that you're assuming that those descriptions - as if by definition, which was Gilly's point - necessarily hold true.

[Hitta]

the point of my theory isn't about the descriptions,

But you keep using them to validate your theory, as in arguing that ISTjs and ENTjs share the same dominant function. So it seems that you're assuming that those descriptions - as if by definition, which was Gilly's point - necessarily hold true.

Its not really the definitions I see, theres basically two aspects that a function can view things through, using Se as an example, theres the Se that would want to go out and enjoy the world, enjoy the things that are offered, this Se finds that authority should be followed, theres another Se, an Se that isn't as concerned about enjoying the world as it is conquering the world. It tries to reinvent the way things work. The descriptions don't matter, there could be 1000s of descriptions. The fact that there are 2 Ses is the important thing. Supposedly socionists differentiated the functions by saying that type 1 was a + and type 2 was a -. +Se is basically the function of willpower. -Se is the function of initiative.

[Expat]

The descriptions don't matter, there could be 1000s of descriptions.

Then there is no reason to use those at all, is there?

[Hitta]

it still doesn't change the fact that there is 2 Ses though, i could just as easily make my own descriptions, but what would be the difference

[Hitta]

You can't honestly say that the members of the quadrants that I defined do not have a big thing in common with each other

[Expat]

it still doesn't change the fact that there is 2 Ses though

That's the biggest problem I have with the +/- version of model A (not only your own version of it). It was originally developed because people thought, rightly, that "one Se" is too simplistic. Which it is. But "two Ses" is also too simplistic.

I think it's more accurate to say that there are "16 Ses" - it is slightly different in each type. Which is precisely why it is so difficult to write functional descriptions that please everyone. We're trying that in the Wiki - we are actually writing "16 Ses".

The trap of the +/- model, in attempting to take into account that "one Se" is too simplistic, is in creating the illusion that "two Ses" is already clear enough, and leading to mistakes such as that of ENTjs and ISTjs.

[Expat]

You can't honestly say that the members of the quadrants that I defined do not have a big thing in common with each other

I do not reply to arguments that start by implying that if I disagree with you, I am being dishonest. What would be the point?

[Gilly]

But see, those are descriptions, not definitions. You can't base a system on descriptions; they're too vague, not concrete and defined enough. Without concrete, logical definitions, your "system" becomes arbitrary and too open to interpretation, and thus invalid, at least insofar as it is relevant to the claims you are attempting to make.

Besides, do you even know where those came from? For all we know, Jimmy could have pulled those out of his ass when he first started the site. Where's the concrete logic behind this system?

http://forum.socionix.com/lofiversio...x.php?t51.html, the point of my theory isn't about the descriptions, its to say that the functions of a person's model A are composed of both extroverted and introverted elements in a single functional sub-block. Saying that an INTj with Ti(being introverted) only organizes internal logic is completely incorrect, INTjs reassert information from -Ti to +Te and organize the world as well. Its very obvious to me how this works. Its very obvious that the thinking function of an INTj isn't just internal. It can't be just internal. The function is just as extroverted as it is introverted. It has to be. Otherwise you would see just Ne from INTj. Which means that they would be extremely disorganized.

You obviously have no idea what the concept of introversion is about. I will go into detail when I've had sleep.

[Rocky]

@hitta: throw away your current system, try again

[Gilly]

*sighs*

Rock, when will these kids learn?

[Hitta]

But see, those are descriptions, not definitions. You can't base a system on descriptions; they're too vague, not concrete and defined enough. Without concrete, logical definitions, your "system" becomes arbitrary and too open to interpretation, and thus invalid, at least insofar as it is relevant to the claims you are attempting to make.

Besides, do you even know where those came from? For all we know, Jimmy could have pulled those out of his ass when he first started the site. Where's the concrete logic behind this system?

http://forum.socionix.com/lofiversio...x.php?t51.html, the point of my theory isn't about the descriptions, its to say that the functions of a person's model A are composed of both extroverted and introverted elements in a single functional sub-block. Saying that an INTj with Ti(being introverted) only organizes internal logic is completely incorrect, INTjs reassert information from -Ti to +Te and organize the world as well. Its very obvious to me how this works. Its very obvious that the thinking function of an INTj isn't just internal. It can't be just internal. The function is just as extroverted as it is introverted. It has to be. Otherwise you would see just Ne from INTj. Which means that they would be extremely disorganized.

You obviously have no idea what the concept of introversion is about. I will go into detail when I've had sleep.

If you've ever studied information metabolism, an introverted function can not express itself alone.

[Hitta]

If I'm so wrong, explain to me why ENTjs and INTps lack initiative. Explain to me why ESFjs and ISFjs are so extreme about getting things done. Explain to me why INTjs and ENTps attempt to overthrow authority.

Do that. Functionally there is no way to explain it through the original Model As.

[Gilly]

But see, those are descriptions, not definitions. You can't base a system on descriptions; they're too vague, not concrete and defined enough. Without concrete, logical definitions, your "system" becomes arbitrary and too open to interpretation, and thus invalid, at least insofar as it is relevant to the claims you are attempting to make.

Besides, do you even know where those came from? For all we know, Jimmy could have pulled those out of his ass when he first started the site. Where's the concrete logic behind this system?

http://forum.socionix.com/lofiversio...x.php?t51.html, the point of my theory isn't about the descriptions, its to say that the functions of a person's model A are composed of both extroverted and introverted elements in a single functional sub-block. Saying that an INTj with Ti(being introverted) only organizes internal logic is completely incorrect, INTjs reassert information from -Ti to +Te and organize the world as well. Its very obvious to me how this works. Its very obvious that the thinking function of an INTj isn't just internal. It can't be just internal. The function is just as extroverted as it is introverted. It has to be. Otherwise you would see just Ne from INTj. Which means that they would be extremely disorganized.

You obviously have no idea what the concept of introversion is about. I will go into detail when I've had sleep.

If you've ever studied information metabolism, an introverted function can not express itself alone.

That's because it needs input, not a mode of expression. You can "speak Ti," as I showed in my thread about heath.

[Rocky]

*sighs*

Rock, when will these kids learn?

It's like they're going back to everything we talked about a year or two ago, putting a bad interpretation on it, and claiming it to be the law.

In the subject we're talking about, nothing is inherant and obvious, it just isn't. It's too complicated for that.

[Hitta]

But see, those are descriptions, not definitions. You can't base a system on descriptions; they're too vague, not concrete and defined enough. Without concrete, logical definitions, your "system" becomes arbitrary and too open to interpretation, and thus invalid, at least insofar as it is relevant to the claims you are attempting to make.

Besides, do you even know where those came from? For all we know, Jimmy could have pulled those out of his ass when he first started the site. Where's the concrete logic behind this system?

http://forum.socionix.com/lofiversio...x.php?t51.html, the point of my theory isn't about the descriptions, its to say that the functions of a person's model A are composed of both extroverted and introverted elements in a single functional sub-block. Saying that an INTj with Ti(being introverted) only organizes internal logic is completely incorrect, INTjs reassert information from -Ti to +Te and organize the world as well. Its very obvious to me how this works. Its very obvious that the thinking function of an INTj isn't just internal. It can't be just internal. The function is just as extroverted as it is introverted. It has to be. Otherwise you would see just Ne from INTj. Which means that they would be extremely disorganized.

You obviously have no idea what the concept of introversion is about. I will go into detail when I've had sleep.

If you've ever studied information metabolism, an introverted function can not express itself alone.

That's because it needs input, not a mode of expression. You can "speak Ti," as I showed in my thread about heath.

Input?!?! You can not speak Ti without using an extroverted function. Its the basics of information metabolism.

[Gilly]

Bleh, this is why WikiSocion is going to be so useful when fully operational. Instead of having to teach them everything every time some newby with "new ideas" shows up, we can just tell them to shuttup and read WikiSocion when they don't know what they're talking about

[Hitta]

Bleh, this is why WikiSocion is going to be so useful when fully operational. Instead of having to teach them everything every time some newby with "new ideas" shows up, we can just tell them to shuttup and read WikiSocion when they don't know what they're talking about

Um, if you read about information metabolism on wikisocion you would feel stupid.