Could the Function Ordering be Different from Model A?

[jason_m]

Consider an LII as an example. Could it be possible that LII function ordering is better captured by the following?

1. Leading: Ti.
2. Creative: Ne.
3. Role: Se.
4. Vulnerable: Fi.
5. Suggestive: Fe.
6. Mobilizing: Si.
7. Ignoring: Te.
8. Demonstrative: Ni.

The reason that this might make more intuitive sense is that there is more symmetry in this model. For instance, in the LII above, the strongest function contrasts the weakest function (which is judging), seeks another judging function and is contrary to another judging function. Perhaps Ausra Augusta missed something when creating Model A... What do you think?

[Taknamay]

..."symmetry"? Is there something I am not getting here? >_>

[jason_m]

..."symmetry"? Is there something I am not getting here? >_>

See how the left column is (supposed to contain) all judging functions and the right column all perceiving functions... That is what I mean by "symmetry"...

[EyeSeeCold]

Does it matter?

Superficial and cosmetic ordering is different from the actual dispositions caused by psychological orientation. I can't tell if you're referring to the former, latter or both.

[jason_m]

Does it matter?

Superficial and cosmetic ordering is different from the actual dispositions caused by psychological orientation. I can't tell if you're referring to the former, latter or both.

How do you distinguish something "cosmetically superficial" from something "mathematically elegant"?

[krieger]

no.

[Korpsy Knievel]

If that's the case she completely misread Jung in the course of plagiarizing his work.

[The Ineffable]

1. Leading: Ti.
2. Creative: Ne.
3. Role: Se.
4. Vulnerable: Fi.
5. Suggestive: Fe.
6. Mobilizing: Si.
7. Ignoring: Te.
8. Demonstrative: Ni.

The reason that this might make more intuitive sense is that there is more symmetry in this model. For instance, in the LII above, the strongest function contrasts the weakest function (which is judging), seeks another judging function and is contrary to another judging function. Perhaps Ausra Augusta missed something when creating Model A... What do you think?

No because opposite IAs don't conflict by themselves (they are actually very close), but as functions [1]. Then as functions, they trully conflict when one is Accepting and the other Producing. Please use the square of opposites as an analogy to understand how is it conceptually sensible.
---

Quantifiers make a huge difference. Imagine this case: Person A believes that all substances are composite, person B believes that all things are composed of simple parts, therefore not all substances are composite [2]. This corresponds to the Base (for goor reasons also called "Program") function role of generalizing a certain aspect to all facets of the universe. But now what? We have two people of diverging absolute beliefs, but who can't prove anything to each other for the simple fact that their the universals can never be proved (it would require knowledge of everything), it is a life-long goal that can only refine knowledge, but never be complete. I my experience, persons of opposite Base end-up in endless unfruitful debates, just not in conflict.
Situation: one can be right or both can be wrong.

Now imagine a person C who has no universal opinion on the topic, but evidence that in particular cases one of the two is incorrect or unapplicable. This immediately dismisses the opposite universal view entirely, and that happens precisely because that view is universal. A single exception is sufficient to create strict opposition and self-righteousness in person C, which corresponds to our PoLR/Vulnerable function: the opposite universal simply cannot be accepted.
---

[1] - one thing is the idea itself, a different thing is if and how it applies.
[2] - refer to Kant's second conflict of transcendental ideas, in the Critique of Pure Reason.

[krieger]

[The Ineffable]

Analogies always give headaches to Ne-PoLRs. labcoat, I just got an idea, let's ask the administration for a "NSFSeC" tag (not suitable for Se-Creative types). I would use it.

[krieger]

[The Ineffable]

I my experience, persons of opposite Base end-up in endless but fruitful debates.

Crap, scratch that. Excuse my blunder, it's endless *unfruitful* debates. The former can be observed in Id interactions (ie. Ne and Ni), not Super-Ego.

[rat1]

The function "ordering" is just qualitatively describing functions. The functions are qualitatively different for every type; that is Se for ESFp is different than Se for INTp; but there is no order in how they are processed. They all happen simultaneously. If there were an order, you would be looking at 256 potential types. Since we have 16, there is no order. But you can add order to the function "order" and get more types - that is what subtype does, places order by grouping functions into blocks. Really there is confining block between functions until you place a subtype onto the type.

[Taknamay]

Well I see the rational/irrational type dichotomy as "means" versus "ends." Hence, the "accepting" and "producing" functions.

For rational types,

Basic (irrational) information ---> Complex (rational) conclusions

For irrational types,

Complex (rational) information ---> Basic (irrational) conclusions

[glam]

Consider an LII as an example. Could it be possible that LII function ordering is better captured by the following?

1. Leading: Ti.
2. Creative: Ne.
3. Role: Se.
4. Vulnerable: Fi.
5. Suggestive: Fe.
6. Mobilizing: Si.
7. Ignoring: Te.
8. Demonstrative: Ni.

The reason that this might make more intuitive sense is that there is more symmetry in this model. For instance, in the LII above, the strongest function contrasts the weakest function (which is judging), seeks another judging function and is contrary to another judging function. Perhaps Ausra Augusta missed something when creating Model A... What do you think?

it's a topic i wish i understood better, but Model A's functions are deliberately arranged to show specific information paths. if you look you can see the information path always alternates between an Introverted element and an Extroverted element (e.g. → → → → back to → etc. for an IEI's Mental ring). you can also see that the information always goes Accepting function → Producing function, meaning that information of a certain kind cannot be Produced without first Accepting some other kind of information. and so on.

i think Model A is trying to show how information is passed along and transformed within the psyche, and you can see how these complementing and conflicting flows of information go along with the intertype relationships. if you take Duality, you see that their information flows are perfectly complementary, e.g. IEI's Mental ring is → → → , and SLE's Mental ring is → → → , which are two flows of perfectly complementary information going in the same direction (/ → / → / → /). the same is true for duals' Vital rings. in the case of IEI's Conflictor LSE, their Mental ring goes → → → . this is the same information as IEIs Mental ring, but the information is going in the exact opposite direction, which causes information "clashing" - hence why they are not compatible types. (ETA: besides the psyche and intertype relationships, information transfer can also be observed on a wider, "real world" scale through phenomena such as quadra progression.)


Work of Model A

(→)	1	→	2	→
	↑		↓		Mental Ring
(←)	4	←	3	←
(←)	6	←	5	←
	↓		↑		Vital Ring
(→)	7	→	8	→

this article might help a bit: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...lation-Model-A

i don't see how the arrangement you suggest would necessarily bring anything new to the table. it would interfere with the information flows that Model A is attempting to demonstrate - which is not necessarily a bad thing, you would just have to show why your arrangement is an improvement upon the current setup of Model A.

[ArchonAlarion]

Jason maybe you are just saying this:

1. Leading: Ti.
2. Creative: Ne.
3. Vulnerable: Se.
4. Role: Fi.
5. Suggestive: Fe.
6. Mobilizing: Si.
7. Ignoring: Te.
8. Demonstrative: Ni.

The ordering is certainly cosmetic, unless it is stated that the order represents a functional distinction, such as weaker or stronger.

Are you suggesting that the descriptions of role and vulnerable should be reversed (my model above), or that in some quantitative terms, Fi is weaker than Se (for LII)?

For the first option, I'd have to hear your descriptions to make a judgement. For the second option, wouldn't that imply the same switch for Te and Ni as well?

[Taknamay]

Right. I can only see two reasonable ways to go:

Left are accepting, right are producing.









OR

Left are homoverted, right are heteroverted.

[ArchonAlarion]

I'm a homovert

[Ave]

Jason maybe you are just saying this:

1. Leading: Ti.
2. Creative: Ne.
3. Vulnerable: Se.
4. Role: Fi.
5. Suggestive: Fe.
6. Mobilizing: Si.
7. Ignoring: Te.
8. Demonstrative: Ni.

Thats what labcoat thinks Jason is saying!

[The Ineffable]

Thats what labcoat thinks Jason is saying!

LOL, seems like labcoats philosophical problem is what number each function fundamentally is

[krieger]

Thats what labcoat thinks Jason is saying!

no, i don't and didn't. what are you even talking about.

LOL, seems like labcoats philosophical problem is what number each function fundamentally is

there you go again, agreeing with things that are patently untrue.