Quadra Progression

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[strrrng]

It is true that, in real life, Introverted information can't be separated from Extroverted one, at least separated information can't be assimilated by humans - one can't say "that" without knowing what it is, for example. Even less probable is to talk about fields without objects they're between.
Therefore, information is assimilated in blocks of two IEs, that doesn't make an IE different from another with the same name but paired differently.

the fact that information cannot be processed in exclusivity, only reaffirms the idea that the same IE will manifest differently in neighboring quadras. aiss is right, that the +/- dichotomy gives a more intuitive picture of these differences.

all you're really saying, is that Ne = Ne. and that is fine, in the most rudimentary, abstract sense; but when you look at functions in operation, it doesn't hold up.

[strrrng]

an example of this, is how delta Ne differs from alpha Ne. the former utilizes -Ne, which is basically about winnowing down potential to arrive at a more stable foundation; +Fi expansively builds interpersonal relations, so that these qualities can remain in place without being limited (the "undefined hierarchy"). conversely, alpha utilizes +Ne, which is centered around generating potential from itself (infinite recursion); -Ti compliments this through refining and segregating structure, so that the broadest context can be achieved without sacrificing relevancy.


it also makes sense in regard to quadra progression, but that takes more detail than I'm willing to go into right now, to explain.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[strrrng]

Let's not disrupt ourselves with Fi and Ti: it is your opinion that -Ne and +Ne are different anyway.

it's my opinion that Ne functions in respectively different ways in alpha and delta, and that the +/- dichotomy describes it well.

So it appears that you say that Delta Ne is used to narrow-down potential to a more precise scope. Then I don't understand, how Alpha Ne "generates potential" from itself?
In the first case, Delta Ne, it seems like you're talking about information Ne processes, thing that I agree with, but in the second case with "Ne itself", what's that?

not "Ne itself," but potential itself; like, as soon as a potential is established, a potential will emerge from that, and so on; it is -Ti that works as an eliminator and sorts out the proper contexts for the different ideas (as alpha, being democratic, will try to encompass as much as possible; whereas delta is driven more by tangible stability, etc., which potential is always referenced back to).

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[strrrng]

You are right! But that happens in the full ensemble with the Rational function, that's not done by Ne alone. The result is a process of the Ego functions working in tandem, all this is easy to understand: the bulk of information is limited through Ne/Fi to the subjective valid area determined by Fi which is Internal, while Ti, being External, forces the investigation into redundancy, if applicable (yes, "if applicable", because the External property of Ti may dictate abandonment as well, the reason why Ne+Ti types can understand much faster whether they are in a dead-end compared to Ne+Fi). Perfectly correct your description, but perfectly sensible the explanation through the Model.

yeah, the idea is that a -IE assumes a +IE to block it.

Now the problem with the plus/minus idea: you suggest that the limitation of Delta Ne is based on the Minus sign no matter what. OK. What characteristics these "minus" sign has? If it is true that the "minus" alone creates this limitation, why the hell does the "plus" of the Se/Fi do the same thing on Se? Because it's exactly the same thing, while Se+Fi limits itself in an accepted range, Se+Ti follows the imperativeness of the "minus" in this case!

-Ne manifests in delta as an emergent result of a broader functional group. if you know the +/- sign of one quadra function, all the rest can be extrapolated.

the minus sign is eliminatory and regressive, the positive sign expansive and creative -- basically the difference between assuming that something needs to be whittled down and built upon. but again, the signs don't work exclusively, as one always assumes the other (+Ne/-Ni, etc.).

re Se: in gamma you have +Se blocked with -Fi. -Fi is filtering through the remnants of what beta left behind, building more specific, implicit relations between people, as a solid core to proceed from. +Se expands outward, creating broader, less mutable boundaries to use as reinforcements for this process, and propel the activity toward a more pragmatically stable state, as things transition to delta.

with beta, you have -Se and +Ti. boundaries are being broken down and redefined here, so that only the most essential elements remain for practical implementation; +Ti is consolidating structures to 'tie up loose ends' so that everything is in its proper place when the sequence of action is effectuated (+Fe).

[Aiss]

In theory, Ne blocked with Ti or Fi is the same. In practice, it's impossible to distinguish them because IEs always work together. We can attempt to derive purely theoretical descriptions of Ne alone, but they won't be of any use. You need to analyze the block for that.

One way that +/- might be more useful than blocks (i.e. saying "-Ne" instead of "Ne blocked with Fi") would be in analyzing IM pathways. I think there might be something to it, that despite the alternative pairing being weaker and the difference in dimensionality, polarity also affects its functioning. So in EII using role and creative would result in -Ne +Ti, which is the "unnatural" combination. The question is if polarity is determined by IEs used in the moment, or IEs it's blocked with (sociotype). The latter seems to make more sense since while we can use our role with creative (most obvious in supervision), I don't think the nature of the IEs involved changes, I'd rather expect they're differently developed. In which case the "unnatural" pairings would be possible to use, but unstable, never becoming part of sociotype.

[Gilly]

So in quadra progression, a quadra's + functions are the functions they share with the previous quadra, ie the ones "leaving" the trend, while the - functions are the ones shared with the next quadra, the ones coming into the trend.

[Aiss]

The reverse happens in quadra regression. Possibly, in progression, after (+) function there isn't much to add, whereas after (-) function in regression, there is nothing left to take away.

Also, I've seen the interpretation of +/- in which (+) functions maximized positive aspects and (-) functions minimized negative aspects, so for example +Ni maximizes opportunities and -Ni minimizes risks - not sure if I agree with it completely, but the idea is interesting. I think it was in context of quadra values.

[Gilly]

Makes sense considering Gamma's use of Ni vs. Betas: Beta is trying to foresee difficulties and obstacles in accomplishing their single-minded purpose, while Gammas are trying to foresee fluctuations that may foster change or help push their pursuits forward.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Ne+ having an idea
Ti- playing around with expressing the idea in terms of words and rules
Ti+ manifesting ideological support towards the rules; considering them more than just possibilities
Se- playing around with ways of asserting the rules
Se+ really taking action in regard to them
Fi- coming to terms with your responsibilities in light of the effects of your actions

[strrrng]

So in quadra progression, a quadra's + functions are the functions they share with the previous quadra, ie the ones "leaving" the trend, while the - functions are the ones shared with the next quadra, the ones coming into the trend.

Not necessarily. Beta has +Fe and +Ti, whereas alpha has -Fe and -Ti.

The rule is basically: neighboring quadras have the same orientation of unshared functions (i.e. beta and alpha both having +Ne/-Ni and -Se/+Si).


But when you take into account that unconscious functions' orientation is inverted (i.e. beta having +Ne/-Fi and +Si/-Te), then it makes a bit more sense that the previous quadra's 'remains' would be kept, albeit in different form, on a latent level.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[strrrng]

Isn't that what he said? Beta only shares Ti and Fe with the previous quadra, while Alpha shares Ne and Si, I suppose.

So in quadra progression, a quadra's + functions are the functions they share with the previous quadra, ie the ones "leaving" the trend, while the - functions are the ones shared with the next quadra, the ones coming into the trend.

The rule is basically: neighboring quadras have the same orientation of unshared functions (i.e. beta and alpha both having +Ne/-Ni and -Se/+Si).

.

[stanprollyright]

You're all saying the exact same thing in different ways.

[silverchris9]

You're all saying the exact same thing in different ways.

That's socionics for you!

[Aiss]

Not necessarily. Beta has +Fe and +Ti, whereas alpha has -Fe and -Ti.

The rule is basically: neighboring quadras have the same orientation of unshared functions (i.e. beta and alpha both having +Ne/-Ni and -Se/+Si).


But when you take into account that unconscious functions' orientation is inverted (i.e. beta having +Ne/-Fi and +Si/-Te), then it makes a bit more sense that the previous quadra's 'remains' would be kept, albeit in different form, on a latent level.

I think the point was: Alpha and Beta both value Ti/Fe, but they're (-) in Alpha and (+) in Beta (progressing quadra). (+) element is no longer valued in the next quadra.

Also, Betas don't have +Ne/-Fi, or +Si/-Te - unconscious functions orientation isn't inverted. For IEI:

- +
+ -
+ -
- +

or -/+, and so on, in model B.

[strrrng]

I think the point was: Alpha and Beta both value Ti/Fe, but they're (-) in Alpha and (+) in Beta (progressing quadra). (+) element is no longer valued in the next quadra.

hence, "shared functions of different orientation, unshared functions of the same orientation."

Also, Betas don't have +Ne/-Fi, or +Si/-Te - unconscious functions orientation isn't inverted. For IEI:

- +
+ -
+ -
- +

or -/+, and so on, in model B.

edit: you're right. I was confused because of the premise that each function pair necessitates its inverse; but this picture, bestowed by the reliable source named hitta, cleared it up.

thread

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Aiss]

hence, "shared functions of different orientation, unshared functions of the same orientation."

I meant that it was Gilly's original point, at least that's how I understood it initially and I still think it was meant this way.

[strrrng]

yeah, I thought he was referencing the same orientation. either way, it's cleared up now.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Aiss]

Each side, we have done mistakes:
- the supporters of the +/- dichotomy in saying that there are two versions of each function
- the opponents of +/-, at least me, in saying that this can't be considered an additional property

The first one is not more true that saying that LII Ne is "a different Ne" than ILE Ne. The second is like denying the block positioning, saying that Producing Ne manifests the same way as Accepting Ne - therefore LII and ILE behave identically.

LII has -Ti and +Ne in ego.
ILE has +Ne and -Ti in ego.

So, the first one is saying that LII Ne is the same flavour as ILE Ne, but the differences between base/creative function still apply. On the other hand, Delta NFs use the other brand of Ne. (Note: I neither agree nor disagree with it being different in nature, it's possible it's only in usage.)

So:
- Ne/Si is the Accepting function in Alpha; Fe/Ti is the Producing function in Alpha
- Fe/Ti is the Accepting function in Beta; Se/Ni is the Producing function of Beta
- Se/Ni is the Accepting function in Gamma; Te/Fi is the Producing function in Gamma
- Te/Fi is the Accepting function in Delta; Ne/Si is the Producing function in Delta

Unless you're using different meaning of accepting/producing that functions 1, 3, 5 and 7 vs 2, 4, 6 and 8, I don't get it. LII has Ti accepting and Ne producing under usual definition.

[krieger]

- Ne/Si is the Accepting function in Alpha; Fe/Ti is the Producing function in Alpha
- Fe/Ti is the Accepting function in Beta; Se/Ni is the Producing function of Beta
- Se/Ni is the Accepting function in Gamma; Te/Fi is the Producing function in Gamma
- Te/Fi is the Accepting function in Delta; Ne/Si is the Producing function in Delta

This only goes for Process types. But I'm sure you've just redesigned the meaning of Accepting/Producing to make your personal little system fit.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Aiss]

You misunderstood:

Block means block, we're talking about different ones, you use the meme (because there's no convention) of "block" = "psyche block" while I don't.

Edit: idem about Accepting/Producing and so on, check the context, please.

It's possible I didn't get your meaning - as I've stated I might - but it doesn't change the fact that the following:

Each side, we have done mistakes:
- the supporters of the +/- dichotomy in saying that there are two versions of each function
- the opponents of +/-, at least me, in saying that this can't be considered an additional property

The first one is not more true that saying that LII Ne is "a different Ne" than ILE Ne. The second is like denying the block positioning, saying that Producing Ne manifests the same way as Accepting Ne - therefore LII and ILE behave identically.

... is completely untrue. Saying that there is +Ne and -Ne means LII and ILE use the same flavour of Ne, but different from Delta NFs. Unless you've meant "LII and IEE" or "EII and ILE", which I thought unlikely since you've repeated it later. This doesn't touch upon the rules of positioning.

I still do not understand what you mean by Accepting/Producing, and context doesn't clear anything up. You claim Alpha quadra has Ne/Si accepting. LII and ESE (half of said quadra) have Ne/Si producing. Same goes for other quadras. Unless you redefined the dichotomy, it doesn't work. If you did, please provide the definition (and use different name, if possible).


Edit: OK, I see what you mean about the whole socion... but then it seems there's no need to use accepting/producing analogy, what you're saying is more or less that (+) expands, (-) limits.

[krieger]

I still do not understand what you mean by Accepting/Producing, and context doesn't clear anything up. You claim Alpha quadra has Ne/Si accepting.

Yes, he seems to have tailored the meaning of Accepting/Producing to suit his aims, thus rendering his post impossible to interpret.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Aiss]

The quadra values, therefore the quadra "ego functions", correspond to the Base and Creative ones, apparently. I never found some evidence of some "expansion" or "limitation", neither in the types or quadras, although I don't deny such thing. Maybe you're right, on the other hand I have the feeling that the connotation of "plus" and "minus" made you fly too high again...

Yeah, well, the first time I appreciated +/- it was in context of quadra values (Quadra values according to Gulenko).

What I mean is that +/- may be *analogical* to accepting/producing, but it isn't the same (and probably shouldn't have the same name). Result types have quadra-accepting (+) functions as producing, same for (-). That alone is reason enough to use this dichotomy independently.

I'm not going to defend alternative names for +/-, but overall there's a relation with maximizing positives and minimizing negatives. This leads to, respectively, covering broader field and using stricter criteria. Your analogy with accepting/producing works in that (-) functions are better suited for "creating" (providing "end product", in a way) than (+) functions (operating on a wider scope), but in my opinion it doesn't add to the nature of +/-, it's part of it. In quadra progression, the scope is extended (- becomes +, + disappears). In quadra regression, the scope is reduced (+ becomes -, - disappears). This is the core of process/result (evolutionary/involutionary) dichotomy.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

If +/- exists and Base/Creative does, Process/Results forms from their combination. To acknowledge the first two and deny the latter is non-sensical.

[krieger]

Process types seek explanations of objective phenomena (things occuring or manifesting in reality) and find these explanations through subjective efforts (piecing together things from experience).

Result types seek explanations of subjective phenomena (experiences) and find these explanations by constructing representations of the objective world.

In Process, subjectivity is the antecedent and objectivity is the consequent. The latter is explained in terms of the former.
In Result, objectivity is the antecedent and subjectivity is the consequent. The latter is explained in terms of the former.

+ = antecedent
- = consequent
Accepting = subjectivity
Creating = objectivity

[Aiss]

"+", corresponding to the Base function, the long-term agenda; "-", corresponding to the Creative function, the steps, the methods used.

That's yet another way of looking at it. I like it. It may actually be one of the aspects of it that works better for quadras than for individual types.

The difference stands in that "minimization" stuff, which I *think* I disagree with - they're very ambiguous.

My opinion on the Process/Result matter is very straightforward: this dichotomy doesn't exist. The match with +/- and Producing/Accepting is circumstantial, so I can't say anything about that.

I don't understand.

All of these refer to the same issue. In my understanding of +/-, maximization/minimization implies process/result *and* quadra values discussed earlier. I tried to explain how, but I guess it's one of these non-shareable (*khemfieldkhem*) elements.

I think evolutionary/involutionary, as described in forms of thinking (yeah, I know, it's getting old) is a somehow better version of process/result. Think of what you said earlier about quadra +/- values being like base/creative (and forget Reinin's descriptions while you're at it). In process types, their quadra's values are in sync with their own placement of ego functions. In result types, they're reversed. If quadra's agenda supersedes individual one in any way, it would cause a difference in information metabolism of result types in comparison to process types. That is assuming that base/creative, or rather accepting/producing, is indeed a good analogy for +/-.


Edit: I got distracted when writing, I see labcoat already made this point in his first post. That's basically what I think as well on the matter of process/result, there's a lot going for this dichotomy, a lot of concepts meeting on this point, all of which affect IM. I'll look at the other post in a while.

[krieger]

+/- and Accepting/Creating have in common that they both signify processes with a beginning and end. In this sense, it makes sense to say Result types have "reversed" processing in some way.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

The problem is that the gap is filled with ballast, currently, both the wiki (probably Russian sources) and labcoat descriptions on Precess/Result are bogus and they contradict type descriptions.

So far you seem to perfectly fit my image of a Process type: prone to getting obsessed with whatever issue is currently in front of their nose.

As randomly as you type, I am not in any way surprised if my view of Process/Result doesn't fit your typings. I also have no idea what you are talking about in regard to them not fitting with type descriptions.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Aiss]

The problem is that the gap is filled with ballast, currently, both the wiki (probably Russian sources) and labcoat descriptions on Precess/Result are bogus and they contradict type descriptions.

Could use a bit of cleaning, sure. -Ti should be able to reduce redundancy, right?

Then, I have this thought, but I didn't think much about it: I fear that we may not mix quadra dichotomies with type dichotomies and then function dichotomies without entering into an infinite loop of redundancy. You know, we create combinations of existing dichotomies, then we combine the result again with the existing ones and with each other, and so on, having the illusion that we're on something, but there's a repetition in the process.

No, not at this point yet, I think. If we start with model A alone, then add +/- dichotomy, modifying quadra values appropriately, we still haven't touched type except adding polarity (but didn't consider any consequence of it!). Now the polarity is determined by block combination, which - together with valuing - determines quadra. So far it's complete. We have ended up with some types having (+) base functions and some (-) base functions. Now let's have a look at intertype relations (which haven't been affected by +/-). The first group is in right supervision rings, the second in left. This may or may not matter, but is another aspect to be considered. Now we could say (+) functions are long-term goals and (-) methods (as you did, or, as labcoat put it, processes with beginning and end, in a way). We see that the information flow in these groups is likely different. In other words, (+) accepting types are different from (-) accepting types.

My point is, the moment you add polarity, you have a basis for this dichotomy independent of Reinin, and it coincides with other issues. Socionics is a tightly bound system, exactly because there are so few possible combinations.

It's also not some "mathematics of socionics" alone - thinking styles are apparently based on empirical observation, though explained using dichotomies. Not derived from them. There's a difference between cause-effect or dialectical-algorithmic thinkers (+) and holographic or vortex thinkers (-).

I'm also warning you that we don't have the freedom to make any combination we like, not without leaving the touch with reality. For example combining weak and subdued functions with the others creating new monster types that actually don't exist in reality and that are impossible by natural laws (eg Ne + Te & whatever human mind can imagine). We have to stay on type descriptions and personality of real people.

Wait, it's my job to warn people of dire consequences resulting from not keeping to the facts...

But seriously, I think it's all related to balance in the psyche and +/- help in understanding it, especially in context of impossibility of type change. We know that elements in certain position have certain aspects (accepting/producing, valued/unvalued, etc.), but not how other elements it's grouped with affect it.