Model X

[redbaron]

lol b&d, I agree...

[Nexus]

Hitta I have yet to see you produce anything resembling or , your style of speech is typical of ...in fact, the majority of people who responded to this thread were INFp.

[Danielle]

Sad.

Kim, I had the same questions as you. I am not predisposed to like or dislike Model X, just want to understand what it is on a basic level the way I understand Model A socionics, MBTI, enneagram, keirseyan temperaments, interaction styles, etc. Someone (Tom I think) linked me to a socionix page with a bunch of celebrity pictures, supposedly members of Delta quadra (because I wanted to know how to identify Deltas). Since I don't really know what Model X is, I wasn't prepared to accept those typings because I have been burned so often by VI typings. So I clicked this thread hoping finally for at least some explanation of what it is and how the truths of it manifest in reality.

Instead, we get this nonsense of a thread. And this sums up a lot of my experience with Socionics (important to note that much of that comes from this forum). Can't explain a simple thing because there is too much fighting and theoretical nonsense, even over the simplest things. I'm afraid this forum is tainting my entire impression of Socionics.

[Mattie]

Instead, we get this nonsense of a thread. And this sums up a lot of my experience with Socionics (important to note that much of that comes from this forum). Can't explain a simple thing because there is too much fighting and theoretical nonsense, even over the simplest things. I'm afraid this forum is tainting my entire impression of Socionics.

+478209824734

[Danielle]

you don't have to let that happen!

Well I guess not, but this leaves me with the feeling that Socionics is:

A. useless because NOTHING is known, EVERYTHING is fought over
B. just going to make me more antagonistic towards people rather than more understanding because stereotypes are reinforced (beta this and alpha that, YOU SUCK this and YOU'RE STUPID that)

Back to Model X, why are people in this thread saying that Model X only accounts for four functions? I just spent an hour or so perusing the Socionix forum and there is plenty of talk there about PoLR and role. Ashton, the person over there who seems to be treated as if he is the most knowledgeable, referred to "phobic" and "counterphobic" PoLR in a post I just read.

So stuff like this confuses me because I just want to understand, and all of this posturing gets in the way.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Sad.

Kim, I had the same questions as you. I am not predisposed to like or dislike Model X, just want to understand what it is on a basic level the way I understand Model A socionics, MBTI, enneagram, keirseyan temperaments, interaction styles, etc. Someone (Tom I think) linked me to a socionix page with a bunch of celebrity pictures, supposedly members of Delta quadra (because I wanted to know how to identify Deltas). Since I don't really know what Model X is, I wasn't prepared to accept those typings because I have been burned so often by VI typings. So I clicked this thread hoping finally for at least some explanation of what it is and how the truths of it manifest in reality.

Instead, we get this nonsense of a thread. And this sums up a lot of my experience with Socionics (important to note that much of that comes from this forum). Can't explain a simple thing because there is too much fighting and theoretical nonsense, even over the simplest things. I'm afraid this forum is tainting my entire impression of Socionics.

This is a common problem with this forum. It's always been this way but it's got a lot worse recently due to the owner user name Gilly. He encourages and participates in this sort of jeuvinile nonesense.

Just have to remember that many of the goings on in this forum is a reaction to people acting out due to being cowards/incapable of doing in life/have psychological issues. Stick it if you can but rely first and foremost on your own reasoning and remember to take a break from the place every so often so as not to get too despondent with the caustic individuals.

[Gilly]

This is a common problem with this forum. It's always been this way but it's got a lot worse recently due to the owner user name Gilly. He encourages and participates in this sort of jeuvinile nonesense.

Just have to remember that many of the goings on in this forum is a reaction to people acting out due to being cowards/incapable of doing in life/have psychological issues. Stick it if you can but rely first and foremost on your own reasoning and remember to take a break from the place every so often so as not to get too despondent with the caustic individuals.

lmao, quit projecting and trying to point the finger. This place has never been any less caustic than it is now.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

lmao, quit projecting and trying to point the finger. This place has never been any less caustic than it is now.

As an example you were responsible for Joy leaving the forum again recently when you spent your time posting on a thread she'd created with all sorts of obscenities about her partner. You've been following me around calling me full of shit and stuff like that. I haven't been following your actions any more than that but you get the idea.

Basically to post here lots of people have to decide if it's worth it putting up with your childish nonesense. Haven't you noticed how conversations are drying up on the forum? I rest my case.

[Danielle]

If Model A describes various interactions by the presence of non-quadra functions, Model X describes those same interactions by their absence.

Okay, that does make sense I guess (the overwhelming use of abstract language is killing me but that's everywhere). Why then is this superior to Model A? I mean, why would one take the time to learn about Model X after one has already learned Model A?

The only difference I noticed between this forum and the Socionix forum is the lack of Deltas there. But it didn't seem like they were talking about Socionics in a new or different way. The same conversations were going on.

However I think of the model creation not as some radical departure from the "norm" (whatever the hell that is), but rather in terms of building an accurate foundation. Witness Allie's post highlighting the nature of a scientific theory, and you'll see what I mean.

Building an accurate foundation for Socionics? The Russians didn't do that yet? And if they did, then shouldn't the focus of these forums be much more heavily on translating rather than trying to create new understandings? How are people arguing with something they don't understand yet?

I guess in my mind I keep thinking that the Soviets built this awesome psychological model and the Cold War kept everyone in the West from knowing it. We don't need new models or anything like that because all of this work has already been done.

I guess maybe I should head to the Classic Socionics forum or something.

It makes more sense, given the repeated instances in which people fail to understand, digest, or otherwise utilize their non-quadra functions, to define such a phenomenon by the absence of a function instead of the presence.

Well how can there be a role function in Model X at all? People use these functions, healthy or unhealthy, for two minutes or two hours. I suppose proponents of Model X would say it's less productive to focus on functions people rarely and barely use or how they use them if you're trying to type or understand someone. So with a person with role Ti like myself, the focus should be more on the valuing of Te than the suspect Ti usage?

[Gilly]

As an example you were responsible for Joy leaving the forum again recently when you spent your time posting on a thread she'd created with all sorts of obscenities about her partner.

If you knew anything about mine and discojoe's history, you'd know that he and I always exchange crass remarks.

Also, Joy SHOULD be gone from the forum; she herself admits that she gets in a rut thinking about Socionics too much.

You've been following me around calling me full of shit and stuff like that.

Don't flatter yourself.

Haven't you noticed how conversations are drying up on the forum?

No. People always say shit like this: "The forum's going to hell, oh everything is so bad; the forum gets worse every day, blah blah blah" and nothing ever changes.

[ArchonAlarion]

Building an accurate foundation for Socionics? The Russians didn't do that yet? And if they did, then shouldn't the focus of these forums be much more heavily on translating rather than trying to create new understandings? How are people arguing with something they don't understand yet?

I guess in my mind I keep thinking that the Soviets built this awesome psychological model and the Cold War kept everyone in the West from knowing it. We don't need new models or anything like that because all of this work has already been done.

I guess maybe I should head to the Classic Socionics forum or something.

my god no.

oh my.

[Kim]

Thanks for reviving this thread, Danielle! I will keep it very basic and say what my problem is with what I have read so far of Model X (not Model X itself):

It is all highly theoretical. I don't see yet how it relates to real life. I would like to see a real life example that illustrates the difference between types having access to all functions and types only having access to four.

I am asking this because I can see how Model A function stackings work in my relationships with other people and I am curious to know if the differences Model X proposes works as well, better or worse.

[Kim]

PS: I agree with Danielle that there are Russian psychologist doing research in Socionics within the context of a Socionics institute, yet there is no interaction between them and this forum. And yet, people here consider themselves and/others experts without having conducted a single study. What to make of that?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[crazedrat]

Edit for clarity:
All you've done is taken Model A, changed nothing, reworded alot, and called it Model X. First of all, the word 'weaker' is relative. The strong functions in model A have 'weaker' strong functions, and 'stronger' strong functions. Model A 'weaker' functions (the weaker strong and the weaker weak functions) are describing the same phenomenon as you when you speak of 'not having' a function. When you speak of 'not having' a function, you give no elaboration on what it means to 'have and use' a function. Any parameters you assign to this 'have and use' will be arbitrary; you can have a backwards, observational awareness; and you can have a forwards looking, producing awareness. And that is the real difference between these functions; and it can easily be explained within Model A. In both cases you have awareness, and that awareness is what is described in function descriptions. 'Using' a function doesn't require a change, it only requires an observation. A change can never occur under the influence of a single function. When a function changes something, it has reorganized a previous way of looking at the world. The only thing a function can change is the information of other functions. As for the weaker functions (the weaker stronger and the weaker weaker Model A functions), what they can do is direct your point of view backwards, and show you your flaws. If you read the russian texts laying down the foundations of socionics, I am confident you would find anything you have to contribute on this matter addressed plainly within the text. (and I know you havent read the texts, since you dont read russian.. and neither does ashton). As for our definitions of the functions that we read online, they are generally short and incomplete; and they don't account for varying strengths, or describe what it means to use a function at all. This only means we need to write better descriptions for Model A in English. Model X is pseudo intellectual ego driven compensatory bullshit

[ArchonAlarion]

In model A I'd have weak Se Fi Fe Si

In model X I'd have weak Se Fi Te Ni

Do you understand the difference now?

In model X your valued elements are strong (in use, surfaced, w/e) and your devalued elements are weak/not present

[strrrng]

you don't have to let that happen!

omg did you hear that??? glamourama has assured us that YOU DON'T HAVE TO LET THAT HAPPEN. Praise Jesus, hope is still alive.

Thanks for reviving this thread, Danielle! I will keep it very basic and say what my problem is with what I have read so far of Model X (not Model X itself):

It is all highly theoretical. I don't see yet how it relates to real life. I would like to see a real life example that illustrates the difference between types having access to all functions and types only having access to four.

How is it theoretical? There isn't even an explicitly-defined "model." This in contrast to Model A, which not only is immensely theoretical in conception, but has a multitude of permutations made by others (ruskies). As far as "real life examples" go, it isn't going to be as simple as saying "this person is using force to achieve a goal, I can see their Se base function!" or something of the sort. As I told someone earlier, in order to understand the substance behind an idea, you have to first attune yourself to the patterns which it is based on, not read a theoretical description that purports direct correlation to behaviors and act as if you've noticed anything new. So, I can't give you some isolated, "real life" example of one person "only using this function but not that." Videos and pictures could provide a decent cross-set of information, but their meaning would hinge on a mutual understanding of the patterns being observed, which would require prior discussion. So...

I am asking this because I can see how Model A function stackings work in my relationships with other people and I am curious to know if the differences Model X proposes works as well, better or worse.

The intertype relations are the same. As dolphin said, the reality each of these models describes is essentially the same thing; the fact that intertype relations aren't as easily mapped out to some 2+2 formula in Model X, as they are in Model A, doesn't negate their existence or the emphasis they possess in a given framework.

That right there sums up exactly what my totally misunderstood explanation was about in a recent thread. I agree.

lol. Furtive attempt at moral exoneration. Cut the shit, please.

[crazedrat]

In model A I'd have weak Se Fi Fe Si

In model X I'd have weak Se Fi Te Ni

Do you understand the difference now?

In model X your valued elements are strong (in use, surfaced, w/e) and your devalued elements are weak/not present

And that is entirely arbitrary semantics. There is not a shred of meaning in that statement. For your benefit I have reworded my post to take these semantics into account.

[strrrng]

why the mocking?

Impulse.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Hitta]

Functions 1 and 2: Main base functionary protocol

Functions 3 and 4: Main conscious functions that the individual is trying to rid himself from

Functions 5 and 6: Unconscious(note this!) motivators behind man functionary protocol, its because what the core self of the individual is in need of sustaining and uses base functions to achieve it

Functions 7 and 8: The functions in which are at the base of the individuals unconscious. This is the intangible way the individual views the word(usually without realizing it). Usually main actions in life are counterproductive of these functions(as thought is always a critical process and antithetical process.

Take a box for example. Lets say consciously with their thoughts, they want to reduce the box to atoms and molecules(base functions 1 and 2). The middle to sets of functions are why the want to reduce it(5 and 6) and why the dislike viewing the box as a box(3 and 4). To reduce a box to molecules, one has to actually naturally identify the box to be able to reduce it(7 and 8). Conscious thought is basically the negative(like the negatives of a photo) of our entire mental makeup. Thought is always trying to defeat the selfs predefined makeup.


Pretty much all you need to know about model As structure. Anything like switching functions place for cosmic effect instead of actual functionary effect is just boring and mundane. Model X is just the emo version of Model A.

[ArchonAlarion]

And that is entirely arbitrary semantics. There is not a shred of meaning in that statement. For your benefit I have reworded my post to take these semantics into account.

nah thats not semantics at all.

In model A, an ENTp uses Te frequently and well. In fact, it supposedly aids the Ti. Fe is rarely used.

In model X an ENTp uses Fe frequently and well (more like, all the time actually).

So thats not a small difference.

Also YOU may have a different interpretation of model A than its mainstream interpretation. I was speaking of the mainstream "hour glass" model A

Btw that not the only difference. That difference is actually a product of a deeper difference.

In mainstream model A the elements are attached to specific types of information (Ni - Time, Si - comfort, etc). In model X, two different elements can be given the same information (such as information about time or comfort), but they will filter it and interpret it in different ways.

So to perceive all information in model A you must have at least limited use of all the elements, whereas in model X ya dont.

[crazedrat]

Well I guess not, but this leaves me with the feeling that Socionics is:

A. useless because NOTHING is known, EVERYTHING is fought over
B. just going to make me more antagonistic towards people rather than more understanding because stereotypes are reinforced (beta this and alpha that, YOU SUCK this and YOU'RE STUPID that)

So stuff like this confuses me because I just want to understand, and all of this posturing gets in the way.

There is a tendency in any field for people to try and claim a 'piece of territory'. That's all this is. You will see people take an idea, understand it in their terms, and act like the idea is now their own. You see this in college professors, philosophy gurus, guys you talk to online.. anywhere in academia, the main driving force is ego fulfillment. You're not going to avoid that anywhere you go. Hopefully you are insightful enough to know it when you see it. I know I am.

nah thats not semantics at all.

In model A, an ENTp uses Te frequently and well. In fact, it supposedly aids the Ti. Fe is rarely used.

In model X an ENTp uses Fe frequently and well (more like, all the time actually).

So thats not a small difference.

Also YOU may have a different interpretation of model A than its mainstream interpretation. I was speaking of the mainstream "hour glass" model A

Btw that not the only difference. That difference is actually a product of a deeper difference.

In mainstream model A the elements are attached to specific types of information (Ni - Time, Si - comfort, etc). In model X, two different elements can be given the same information (such as information about time or comfort), but they will filter it and interpret it in different ways.

So to perceive all information in model A you must have at least limited use of all the elements, whereas in model X ya dont.

No buddy. You don't understand model A. That's now how Model A works, that's retarded. Tell me how many official texts on Model A you've read? Answer please? Let us all acknowledge that we don't study Model A, because we don't read russian. Let's all do that right now.
Notice I just typed up a massive paragraph critiquing what it means to 'use' a function at all; and explaining the meaningless confusion we're having over this word.

[Hitta]

nah thats not semantics at all.

In model A, an ENTp uses Te frequently and well. In fact, it supposedly aids the Ti. Fe is rarely used.

In model X an ENTp uses Fe frequently and well (more like, all the time actually).

So thats not a small difference.

Also YOU may have a different interpretation of model A than its mainstream interpretation. I was speaking of the mainstream "hour glass" model A

Btw that not the only difference. That difference is actually a product of a deeper difference.

In mainstream model A the elements are attached to specific types of information (Ni - Time, Si - comfort, etc). In model X, two different elements can be given the same information (such as information about time or comfort), but they will filter it and interpret it in different ways.

So to perceive all information in model A you must have at least limited use of all the elements, whereas in model X ya dont.

Thats incorrect. ENTp doesn't consciously(well if you every studied some of Gulenkos and Bukalovs work on dimensionality then it does a little bit) show Te in model A.

[Kim]

QUIT THE INSULTS AND ATTACKS.

Seriously, this is so frustrating. Danielle is right, it's all about posturing here: "I am so smart and you are not getting it or whateverotherbullshit." Answer the questions about Model X and add whatever else you know about it or shut the hell up.

Or better yet, get off the computer and take a walk...

[Kim]

Nick, I tend to theorize based on patterns, not the other way around. So if Model X was not conceived out of thin air, it must be based on observable patterns. What are some of these patterns?

[crazedrat]

Read about Model A, then read boukalov and gulenko. Then you will be well on your way.

[aestrivex]

this struck me as so absolutely backwards that i felt compelled to respond. i can't fathom how anybody could possibly say this, even as dumb as the ashtonian system is.

i apologize if someone has already tried to debunk this with largely the same reasons; i haven't read most of this thread.

@ Kim:

My main complaint with Model A is that it prevents Socionics from meeting the criteria to even be called a theory.



Model A fails to identify any set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena. It is a backwards method. Instead, it makes assertions about an underlying reality (i.e., the function blocks) of some supposed phenomena that goes unidentified and without observational consensus upon.

In other words, Model A doesn't have any basis in reality. It doesn't identify first what you're observing. It only explains some underlying reality through theoretical descriptions and models, and then it expects you to be able to see it manifest in reality.

“Model X”, however, is an alternative method to Model A which attempts to meet the standards necessary in order to have a simple, functional, and reliable means of addressing this class of phenomena (i.e., the sixteen sociotypes).

Its basis is in reality. People who use it tend to agree upon typings, intertype relations, etc. (therefore meeting the first criteria of a theory: “1. identifies [a] set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena”). And because of this consensus, people feel confident to explore and hypothesize on possible models to the patterns that are readily observable once the phenomena is identified (“2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class”).

And that is basically all “Model X” is—a general term to reference anyone who agrees on what they're observing first, and then hypothesizes later, if ever. It's not rebellious, it's not promoted, and it is certainly not saying that Model A is wrong. What it is about is not jumping to conclusions regarding an underlying reality without first identifying an observable reality. So to all those who criticize us for having an actual consensus, well uh, that's kind of the point.

this is absurd. the criteria that you've identified here suggest that model A fails as a theory because it uses "theoretical descriptions and models," whereas model X is a theory because it ignores models and instead observes phenomena.

this is fraught with inconsistencies, and it is my sincere hope that anyone who took the time to read this post sees what utter nonsense this claim is. what are the 16 types if not a "theoretical model" for understanding phenomena? model X, like model A, seeks to divide people up into various categories and make broader inferences based on these categories -- there is no physical observation or indisputable evidence of socionics elements or types; therefore it qualifies as a theory. model A qualifies as a theory for the same reason; whatever theoretical constructs that model A uses are irrelevant to this end.

if model A has a role function and a polr and things like that, why are these constructs any different from what model X uses? according to model X, if i'm an Ne-INTj, i necessarily have Si agenda. while nobody has ever satisfactorily explained to me in what way this makes any sense to my character (nor does anyone talk about these components of the model at all), but they are presented as being a part of the model. i recognize, however that these have never, not once, been used in explaining to me any single typing, other than by steve.

it is my opinion and observation that, while surely there exists a whole lot of bullshittery and nonsense by people who primarily use model A, very rarely are ashtonian people interested in discussing real observations about the individuals in question, outside of their models and designations like "lol she's ISFp lol." i mean this as a caricature and not as a representation of the entirety of those who practice model X, for the sake of formality, but i will also let it be known that this caricature is, in effect, how i see the observations made by those proponents of model X. nonetheless, it is these observations that might qualify as something that actually identify the phenomena at work; if the phenomena were measured objectively and to the satisfaction of all observers, then it would not be a theory at all, but an objective law of human psychology.

for the same reason, strrrng's claim that model X is "not actually a model" or whatever, is equally much bullshit.


either way, the fact that many people disagree and fight about the criteria relevant in model A has nothing whatever to do with its effectiveness as a theory. one interpretation might be that many of the persons who claim to be using model A are really using closely related but different theories; others might be drawing from the same theoretical material but applying it differently; others might be using a set of assumptions that have nothing to do with model A. these disagreements say nothing about whether there is any real, objective, measurable phenomenon below the theoretical framework of model A -- and nor is this true for model X, and the disagreements between proponents of model X underscore this fact just as much as those for model A.

there are, as this post fails to mention, disagreements by individuals that claim to use model X. according to my userlist comparisons, those individuals who use model X (defined here as users archonalarion, ashton, jriddy, strrrng, steve, and tom) all have extremely high correspondences with each other (93% or more; the average percent correspondence is perhaps 65%, though i picked that number at random and i have not bothered to calculate this figure, but it would be somewhere around there). this fact is not in any question. personally, i feel that this is more representative of, as expat has suggested, "puny minds" that do not think for themselves, but that is somewhat beside the point at hand here -- there are disagreements, no matter the level of existing consensus. whether or not these individuals are "true users" of model X (ie, steve, for the three typings he disagrees on) is something that can be disputed, but in this respect this is no different from model A; perhaps i am the only legitimate user of model A, and anyone who disagrees with me would be considered some deviant from my theoretical perspective, and thus not actually using model A. by this rather solipsistic criterion, the criticisms of model A no longer hold water; and only by the use of the same level of solipsism can model X claim to be without disagreement.


basically, the whole discussion is absurd, for the obvious fact that while adherents to model X obviously do not agree on every minute detail or typing, they agree on the general principles of the phenomena being modeled and discussed. and this is the same thing that is true for many (obviously, not all) users of model A. and it is this that, possibly, makes it from a useless crackpot theory into a theory that might have some external applicability. notice that i said "might;" i'm unconvinced personally that it does.




i will not respond to any replies to this post.

[Hitta]

this struck me as so absolutely backwards that i felt compelled to respond. i can't fathom how anybody could possibly say this, even as dumb as the ashtonian system is.

i apologize if someone has already tried to debunk this with largely the same reasons; i haven't read most of this thread.



this is absurd. the criteria that you've identified here suggest that model A fails as a theory because it uses "theoretical descriptions and models," whereas model X is a theory because it ignores models and instead observes phenomena.

this is fraught with inconsistencies, and it is my sincere hope that anyone who took the time to read this post sees what utter nonsense this claim is. what are the 16 types if not a "theoretical model" for understanding phenomena? model X, like model A, seeks to divide people up into various categories and make broader inferences based on these categories -- there is no physical observation or indisputable evidence of socionics elements or types; therefore it qualifies as a theory. model A qualifies as a theory for the same reason; whatever theoretical constructs that model A uses are irrelevant to this end.

if model A has a role function and a polr and things like that, why are these constructs any different from what model X uses? according to model X, if i'm an Ne-INTj, i necessarily have Si agenda. while nobody has ever satisfactorily explained to me in what way this makes any sense to my character (nor does anyone talk about these components of the model at all), but they are presented as being a part of the model. i recognize, however that these have never, not once, been used in explaining to me any single typing, other than by steve.

it is my opinion and observation that, while surely there exists a whole lot of bullshittery and nonsense by people who primarily use model A, very rarely are ashtonian people interested in discussing real observations about the individuals in question, outside of their models and designations like "lol she's ISFp lol." i mean this as a caricature and not as a representation of the entirety of those who practice model X, for the sake of formality, but i will also let it be known that this caricature is, in effect, how i see the observations made by those proponents of model X. nonetheless, it is these observations that might qualify as something that actually identify the phenomena at work; if the phenomena were measured objectively and to the satisfaction of all observers, then it would not be a theory at all, but an objective law of human psychology.

for the same reason, strrrng's claim that model X is "not actually a model" or whatever, is equally much bullshit.


either way, the fact that many people disagree and fight about the criteria relevant in model A has nothing whatever to do with its effectiveness as a theory. one interpretation might be that many of the persons who claim to be using model A are really using closely related but different theories; others might be drawing from the same theoretical material but applying it differently; others might be using a set of assumptions that have nothing to do with model A. these disagreements say nothing about whether there is any real, objective, measurable phenomenon below the theoretical framework of model A -- and nor is this true for model X, and the disagreements between proponents of model X underscore this fact just as much as those for model A.

there are, as this post fails to mention, disagreements by individuals that claim to use model X. according to my userlist comparisons, those individuals who use model X (defined here as users archonalarion, ashton, jriddy, strrrng, steve, and tom) all have extremely high correspondences with each other (93% or more; the average percent correspondence is perhaps 65%, though i picked that number at random and i have not bothered to calculate this figure, but it would be somewhere around there). this fact is not in any question. personally, i feel that this is more representative of, as expat has suggested, "puny minds" that do not think for themselves, but that is somewhat beside the point at hand here -- there are disagreements, no matter the level of existing consensus. whether or not these individuals are "true users" of model X (ie, steve, for the three typings he disagrees on) is something that can be disputed, but in this respect this is no different from model A; perhaps i am the only legitimate user of model A, and anyone who disagrees with me would be considered some deviant from my theoretical perspective, and thus not actually using model A. by this rather solipsistic criterion, the criticisms of model A no longer hold water; and only by the use of the same level of solipsism can model X claim to be without disagreement.


basically, the whole discussion is absurd, for the obvious fact that while adherents to model X obviously do not agree on every minute detail or typing, they agree on the general principles of the phenomena being modeled and discussed. and this is the same thing that is true for many (obviously, not all) users of model A. and it is this that, possibly, makes it from a useless crackpot theory into a theory that might have some external applicability. notice that i said "might;" i'm unconvinced personally that it does.




i will not respond to any replies to this post.

Model X is going to change the way human's live.

[crazedrat]

Edited for clarity:
I agree with most of that niffweed, but you don't address the possibility Model X and Model A are infact the same thing. And that's actually what's going on here. Let's pretend I have a big group of people together that don't know about the word "R.E.M.". Okay? So they then start to study sleep and come across this phenomenon of "R.E.M.". But instead of calling it R.E.M., they instead call it "SPIKEY SLEEP". Okay? Now another sleep doctor comes up to this big group of people and says "No dudes, there is no SPIKEY SLEEP. There is R.E.M. sleep". What happens? You get two people in a meaningless argument over the exact same thing. The SPIKEY SLEEP people don't know what they're arguing against. Neither does the R.E.M. dude. I side with the R.E.M. sleep people out of instinct, because I think before you make new words up you should learn the old ones. You can make up your own mind which side you're on.
Further edit for further clarity:
Beyond this, you can give something a name, and then continue to discover things about it after you've recognized its existence. This doesn't change what you knew about it beforehand, it only elaborates. Lets say you've never seen water freeze before. Okay? You know what water is, you've just never seen it freeze. So then you see water freeze. Now you don't rename water into something new, just because you've seen a new thing that it can do. Right? So when we do discover something new about Model A, which may or may not be truly new to Model A (Because we don't know everything about Model A, as we don't read russian), what we do is we try and 'work it in and elaborate on Model A'. We don't ditch Model A altogether. Okay?
This part is sort of irrelevant now, though, because I don't think people have learned Model A yet. We still have Archon saying Model A strictly views Ni as "TIME", and shit like that.

[Hitta]

I agree with most of that niffweed, but you don't address the possibility Model X and Model A are infact the same thing. And that's actually what's going on here. Let's pretend I have a big group of people together that don't know about the word "R.E.M.". Okay? So they then start to study sleep and come across this phenomenon of "R.E.M.". But instead of calling it R.E.M., they instead call it "SPIKEY SLEEP". Okay? Now another sleep doctor comes up to this big group of people and says "No dudes, there is no SPIKEY SLEEP. There is R.E.M. sleep". What happens? You get two people in a meaningless argument over the exact same thing. The SPIKEY SLEEP people don't know what they're arguing against. I side with the R.E.M. sleep people out of instinct. You can make up your own mind which side you're on.

Its the solution to our economic problems.

[Hitta]

Okay, that does make sense I guess (the overwhelming use of abstract language is killing me but that's everywhere). Why then is this superior to Model A? I mean, why would one take the time to learn about Model X after one has already learned Model A?

The only difference I noticed between this forum and the Socionix forum is the lack of Deltas there. But it didn't seem like they were talking about Socionics in a new or different way. The same conversations were going on.



Building an accurate foundation for Socionics? The Russians didn't do that yet? And if they did, then shouldn't the focus of these forums be much more heavily on translating rather than trying to create new understandings? How are people arguing with something they don't understand yet?

I guess in my mind I keep thinking that the Soviets built this awesome psychological model and the Cold War kept everyone in the West from knowing it. We don't need new models or anything like that because all of this work has already been done.

I guess maybe I should head to the Classic Socionics forum or something.



Well how can there be a role function in Model X at all? People use these functions, healthy or unhealthy, for two minutes or two hours. I suppose proponents of Model X would say it's less productive to focus on functions people rarely and barely use or how they use them if you're trying to type or understand someone. So with a person with role Ti like myself, the focus should be more on the valuing of Te than the suspect Ti usage?

Its a solution to the drug problems.

[Hitta]

If you are using a different method to type people with model X, then the studies exploring Model A cannot be applicable to model X as well.

Its a solution to violent wars.

[Hitta]

I saw model rat in action the other night. It's pretty accurate.

Its a solution to sexual abuse.

[Hitta]

I guess I'm an obnoxious idiot that doesn't know what they're talking about, then! how sad for me, whatever will I do?????????????????

Its a solution to depression and suicide.

[Hitta]

Yes, and you put a preference on some ways of processing information over others but that doesn't mean that you can't process a type of information in an alternative, less preferred way if you really must.

Its a solution to masturbation.

[Hitta]

Niffweed's missive hinges on pretending he understands other people's motives and generalizing them into oblivion. Whoever thinks the "Socionix crowd" doesn't deal in reality can come to the forum and see for themselves.

Its a solution to divorce and cheating husbands/wives.

[Hitta]

IT'S MODEL X!!!!!!

[ArchonAlarion]

No buddy. You don't understand model A. That's now how Model A works, that's retarded. Tell me how many official texts on Model A you've read? Answer please? Let us all acknowledge that we don't study Model A, because we don't read russian. Let's all do that right now.
Notice I just typed up a massive paragraph critiquing what it means to 'use' a function at all; and explaining the meaningless confusion we're having over this word.

Uhg.

When I say... "mainstream model A" I am referring to the common stuff spouted by most people here. You may be the tzar of fucking model A, madmousie, but that doesn't mean whats called "model A" around here is what you adhere to (my response to hitta below explains more).

I'm sure there is interesting russian information out there and if you have shit that will blow my mind from here to kingdom come and make me rethink everything, than by all means link me up.

Thats incorrect. ENTp doesn't consciously(well if you every studied some of Gulenkos and Bukalovs work on dimensionality then it does a little bit) show Te in model A.

I have looked into the dimensionality of functions and it seems useful. And maybe "unconscious" Te makes some sort of sense. However, unconscious Fe would not imo.


Okay, this is all coming down to "HEY WAITA MINUTE! THATS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING OF MODEL A!!!@!@!"

Which is wonderful imo because its shows the variety of theories often labeled "model A approved" that may actually be mutually exclusive.

I feel that model A means nothing more (presently in this little pisspot community) than a loose attachment to various articles/theories and a general belief in at least limited use of all 8 elements.

[crazedrat]

And that is basically all it means to us, because we cannot read russian. It would be good if we focused on helping us all understand Model A better.