It is good to start by clearly laying out your premises, makes it easier for others to follow and amend. I have to say though that it is often awfully hard to say anything for sure in socionics.Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
This seems like rather an arbitrary set of definitions to me, but I guess you have to start from somewhere - and this is no worse than any other starting point.My proposal:
1. I am assuming the socionics interactions as currently understood work.
2. I am discussing psychological processes not ANYTHING except psychological relations.
3. I am only discussing IM products with temperaments that have a shared function in them and a shared direction not J/P and a direction, not the clubs, not N/S and J/P, and not T/F and J/P.
4. The structures for the groups proposed are psychological not necessarily "power" structures.
Temperaments- (my definition) two shared qualities (not functions necessarily) among a group of individuals (ie I and N not the same as Ni).
Yes, but on the other hand INTPs and INFPs share Comparative relations, and thus their creative functions hit on each other's painful fourth functions, POLR. This is not fun. In my experience I do not get on well with ISFJs with strongly expressed sensory function, Look-alike relations with INTJs have been far more inspiring:Example:
INxx - persons in this group are INTJ, INTP, INFJ, and INFP.
In this group the INFP is Benefactor to the INTJ. The INTP is Benefactor to the INFJ. The INTP and INFP are connected by a shared primary function (). The INFJ and INTJ are connected by shared auxuliary function (). The connection between the INxPs is greater because they share a function that is used nearly always by both people. The connection of the INxJs is weaker because they share a function that is not used as often as the of the INxPs is. Their "structure" is as follows.
Look-a-like partners do not feel any danger from the other partner. The strong sides of the partners are different in the such a way that almost any conversations between them always fall into the area of the confidence of only one of the partners. Look-a-like partners also have similar problems which makes them feel rather sympathetic towards each other instead of being critical of each other's vulnerabilities.
Thanks for taking up the challenge. In my opinion the +/- dichotomy seems to be generally accurate, but it is controversial and many socionists do not (yet) accept it. Yuri Selyutin's model on this site is, in my humble opinion, overstuffed with qualities appearing out of nowhere that do not help to differentiate between the positive and negative functions, and thus not really between the types either. I guess it is a good start though. I may be biased since I currently view all socionics information almost exclusively with regard to its usefulness in typing. Others may have broader interests.Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
I hope that with our help you will eventually be able to make real progress. It is hard but it is worth it.