Accepting/Creating, Static/Dynamic, and Limiting/Empowering

[krieger]

Some knowledge that is needed for any person to understand the info in the thread properly:

- Under my theories, any type is said to be diffusely a member of the temperament (and thought style) of it's dual and contrary. ISFj, for example, is diffusely Ej (Positive Result), dynamically resembling an odd mixture of ENTj and ESFj. In essence this is nothing new, because the model A claims this exact same thing when it tells us we possess "ID blocks" and "Super-ID-Blocks" besides our "Ego Block".

- Accepting Static functions are Empowering
- Accepting Dynamic functions are Limiting

Any type possessing an Accepting/Empowering/Static function, possesses an Accepting/Limiting/Dynamic function as a diffuse function. The two functions are understood to work jointly.

Passively, this diffuse accepting function will resemble the function of the dual more than it will resemble that of the contrary. In moments of activity, however, the diffuse contrary variant of the function will become more and more visible.

The process at hand when these diffuse functions work together with the ordinary accepting function is one in which information of the form of the dual transforms into information in the form of the contrary type by use of a directive, or a map, that was constructed on the level of the "ego block" functions.

We can distinguish between a "valued" form of the diffuse accepting function and an "unvalued" form of it. The former would correspond with the accepting function of the dual, the latter with the accepting function of the contrary.

My own terminology for valued/unvalued functions is as follows:
Valued: constatating, registering, "accepting", supported, peaceful
Unvalued: dictating, establishing, "creating", unsupported, combattive

Valued functions are peaceful in the sense that they pertain to discussion of things that one knows one has similar ideas about as others. In other words, they are peaceful because they are supported. Unvalued functions are combattive because they are unsupported, because they pertain to discussion of things that one has newly invoked ideas and thoughts about which can at certain points conflict with those of the surroundings.

Given a diffuse valued function and a diffuse unvalued function, I understand the former to redictate the latter in terms of itself. Or rather, I understand the ego functions to dictate that latter in terms of the former. Given this "dictating" mechanism, the information relating to the unvalued functions are looked upon in a different way than that relating to the valued functions. Valued information is accepted uncritically. Unvalued information is judged to be true or false according to what one knows the valued information says about the pertaining matter.

----

So what am I doing in this thread...? I am reïnventing model A. Or rather finding out that my understanding of socionics functions corresponds with that model; something that I did not initially take for granted and must say I am quite relieved about. Further, I notice that socionics' patriarchs have made a fatal mistake in not noticing the difference in roles between Static and Dynamic types, and the associated difference in roles between Static and Dynamic functions. The result of all this will be a new version of socionics model, one in which the emphasis is first placed on similarity between types of the same temperament and thought style AND their duals/contraries (the groups formed by taking any type together with it's dual, super-ego and contrary) and only then on difference between types.

(One possible inadequacy of the current incarnation of the theory: insufficient consideration for the difference between Rationals and Irrationals.)