Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
If +Ni is expressed in the id function then it is clearly unvalued. I have no qualms with that statement, as it would support what I said earlier about valuing -Ni over +Ni.

Gulenko who designed this system, believes that +Ne and -Ni are expressed together as a single function. -Ne and +Ni, etc. +Ne and +Ni would never support each other and would be anti-complimentary.

He also believes that the 7th function is as much of a PoLR as the 4th, in that the person almost completely ignores input from it. If +Ni is in the ILEs id, then an ILE would have little use for it.
I don't know a lot about +/- nor the notations and how it is derived too well. I could be wrong about the +Ni. I think the notation I have seen is based on function blocking. T with N, S with F etc... Whether or not it's switched for unvalued functions I'm not sure. Is there a article about how the notation is derived for the functions?

I don't disagree with having -Ni either, it's just in this particular case these two descriptions fit me somewhat.

As a whole I accept that real development is both linear progression followed by breakthroughs, but I definitely want to be involved in breakthroughs myself.