It depends on the situation. It could be Te+ or Te-. Orders about specific things is Te+ . IEI's Te+ is a weak mental function in Model D.
You can use the vital functions whenever you want as well. The problem is that you start thinking about Te- and 30 seconds (or perhaps a bit more) later you have automatically switched to Ti-, without you even noticing it.
All cognitions (and thereby cognitive functions) interact with emotions, so Se- could indirectly be used to change the emotional state in someone. Fe is different though, since the function itself considers emotional responses.Give the examples. Would emotional pressure also requires other functions (such as Se-)?
I think both the mental and vital functions can be used unconsciously. The Leading function could be an exception.If I am able to "pass" some information or act on it whenever I want, then I consider it conscious. If I need something from someone, then I can order them (Te+ or Te-?), and I don't need to "think" about it or expecting it from someone. Does "not thinking about it, but doing it naturally" makes something unconscious (even when it is doing the job just fine)?
My view on conscious and unconscious functions correponds with SSS's view. The vital functions are actually semi-conscious and we are able to use them consciously. But... see comment above.
Yes, Model D is the same as Model A in this respect.I am referring to Model A's mental/vital theory, but your theory doesn't seem to differ either, especially as you said mental functions are verbalized.
Yes, you are describing a weak and unconscious Se-. ILI openly complains about immigrants, criminals...I also fear people getting physically close to me but I don't exaggerate about physical threats openly. Does that make my Se- unconscious? (because I am not "verbalizing" the information)
Correct. I prefer mental/vital.But then wouldn't it be a matter of degree of consciousness/unconsciousness rather than calling one function entirely conscious/unconscious?
Hmm? SLEs giving orders? My experience is different. I think they influence people either directly via physical dominance or indirectly via "salesman tactics".No, I am referring to Socionics' understanding of Se. And, yes, I don't see much SLEs pushing people around, rather they give orders.
My point is that there is no special "force" that SLE uses. SLE is mostly in the here and now, so he/she will be automatically be dominant. When IEI is in "NiFe land" the SLE has seized an opportunity in the real/physical world.(I always thought it was due to Se accepting, as Se producing push people directly) Indirect consequence? You mean Se is kind of verbalized through Fe/Te when someone orders others? (so in my case I am using Te/Fe and indirectly Se when I am ordering someone? Either way, I have offended LII with it... thought it was due to their Se PoLR)
That's 1D Te+. Te- is about the best/most efficient way when you are strategizing/visualizing (Ni+) something.In that manner, IEI would be perfectly capable of taking the best / most accurate action due to 4D Te-? But IEIs report taking the wrong routes / methods and just "go with the flow", like even when they can easily see the consequences of something, they have trouble deciding the most efficient way to reach there. How do you explain that? Is it due to their 2D Ti+ (or 1D Te+)?
It could be useful for understanding subtypes in Model D. ILI-1,x could have level 8 Ni+, Ti-, Fe+ and Ne-... while ILI-10,x could have level 7 Ni+, Ti-, Fe+ and Ne-.It appeared to me that you were referring to that theory to prove your point, so I asked how it applies in your theory / understanding of dimensionality.
This is too general. It could be other functions as well.If I give an advice on the best possible option to take to achieve something or whether it is possible or not, would I be using Ni+ (as you said it is blocked with Te) or Ni-Te-?
Can you explain this part a bit further?How to separately apply the dimensionality here without taking the nature of combined functions? So, for example, it doesn't make sense to call Te- 4D, but rather better to call Ni-Te- 4D (and make it explicitly clear that we are talking about this particular aspect of information).
You: "your model is nothing but an alternative perspective to Model A"-+ signs were added later as far as I know, and I don't know how these IEIs differ from each others. What exactly you are asking?
What do you mean by this?
How do you think my view differs from socionists' views.I get the sense from you that you are putting your personal understanding on conscious/unconscious, dimensionality, etc. rather than what is agreed by most socionists, but I could be wrong.
How do you describe a "valued" function?But, it's more like they have a different understanding of valued/unvalued functions, so you are ought to explain your understanding, so they don't get confused by your model. You need to understand that these are separate language game (especially if people who are coming from MBTI / Socionics, they would get confused or get the wrong understanding, which means you won't achieve your purpose rather increase their misunderstanding. Got my point?). Do you have arguments for why Hitchens is ILI?
Hitchens... well, he's an intellectual with strong opinions, but let's stay on topic.
Id functions are private and they are used sporadically. IEI can play chess just as well as ILI can strategize about social relations. However, IEI's Ni+ is one of the Ignoring functions.But you said that Te- is 4D? Basically, they are not interested in chess (because Te- is unconscious), but if they play it, then they can naturally start using Te-? (and then they would be great at it due to the logical deduction nature of Te?) In the similar manner, every unconscious function can be "used" for good purpose, but they need to be "forced" from the outside? For example, in Model G, Se- is considered a strong function for an IEI (in terms of energy), but it needs to be supplied from the outside, this is why they can be very pushy when drive by strong emotions.
I am very skeptical of Model G. DarkAngelFireWolf69 needs to convince his fellow socionists first.
Both. It doesn't matter... both. And it is actually the aspects rather than the functions that causes +/-.Te- or Te+? Do you put the shared aspect of functions in both -+ signs, or you consider them entirely separate functions?
Both are about logical deduction. Te- makes decisions about prior Ni+ thoughts. Come up with a scenario at work/in school where you try to "outsmart" your colleagues. Those decisions will be sophisticated (3D/4D).If logical deductions belong to both Te- or Te+, then the difference between Te- and Te+ would be that the former is about taking the most efficient route (through logical deduction) and latter would be deducting the conclusion using the factual information / evidence? I can see IEIs lacking in both areas to be honest.
Okay, now I see what you mean. I should not have used "in isolation". I just meant that you cannot discuss Ni+ without recognizing that Te causes '+'. Hence, saying that IEI's Ni in Model A has both '+' and '-' is incorrect.Dimensionality is the same as Model A. What I don't understand how you associate 1D-4D with isolated functions when they can't be talked in isolation? Why not simply say IEI's NiFe is 4D, NiTe is 3D? To me it seems like you are putting symmetry where it doesn't exist or they don't matter anymore.
Yes... but I just want an accurate model.So, you are trying to defy the stereotypes that have arisen due to the blind faith in Model A (and other factors)?
I am convinced that Model D is accurate, but it takes time to validate a new model. First things first, people should begin to estimate the strength/sophistication of NiFe vs. NiTe, SiTe vs. SiFe etc.Are you confident enough that Model D isn't crude approximation either and the dimensionality/conscious/unconscious would apply to every subtype? Dimensionality and conscious/unconscious can't be changed due to environmental factors? Did you base your model on hypothetical scenarios or you have actually observed people in real-life? For example, in order to validate it, I need to meet at least 10 people of all the types (with subtype variations).



Reply With Quote