How is taking interest in theoretical models the sign of 3D Ti-? It just seems Ti- valuing to me.Originally Posted by Petter
I meant that IEIs tend to take some theory as granted without validating it through actual evidence and facts, and then spit it everywhere. And, their models tend to be highly subjective, coming from their experience (and what they have studied through books / articles) alone. How is that "creativity"? (especially if compared to LII's 4D Ti-)
"Valued functions" is a widely misinterpreted concept in Socionics (and MBTI). Super-Id corresponds to "I want", so we do not usually observe these functions in a type. We observe the mental functions most of the time.
This is accurate:
"Verbal (discursive) functions (or overvalued) belong to clusters of ego and super-Id. They provide the active exchange of information between people. Information on these functions is interesting, and easily discussed. They tend to self-development.
Non-verbal (working, cooperative) functions belong to the blocks of super-ego and id. Aspects of these functions are not negotiable, prefer to receive help through action, deeds. Activity is limited to immediate needs and demands of society."
The fact that IEIs come up with (theoretical) models proves a 3D Ti- and creativity.I meant that IEIs tend to take some theory as granted without validating it through actual evidence and facts, and then spit it everywhere. And, their models tend to be highly subjective, coming from their experience (and what they have studied through books / articles) alone. How is that "creativity"? (especially if compared to LII's 4D Ti-)
LII's and ILI's models also come from personal experiences and books.
You said super-id functions are not observed in a type, and yet it seems "verbal" (ego and super-id) is conscious? Can you write down which functions of an IEI are conscious and unconscious? (in a similar fashion I have written down 1D-4D functions) I personally find 1D Se- conscious in me (or more verbalized) than 2D Se+, like I would openly order / push someone, raise my voice, shout, give physical threats, able to know who is stronger / powerful, etc. but I clearly don't verbalize information on clothes or physical qualities at all.
Then what's the difference between LII's Ti- 4D models and IEI's Ti- 3D models? As an IEI, I clearly see the lack of creativity / situation in Ni of ESI/LSI as they are confident in their predictions and apply the same norms everywhere.The fact that IEIs come up with (theoretical) models proves a 3D Ti- and creativity.
LII's and ILI's models also come from personal experiences and books.
There is a difference between what you want to talk about and what you actually talk about.
Ego: you want to talk about these things, and you do
Super-Ego: you don't want to talk..., but you do
Super-Id: you want to talk..., but you don't
Id: you don't want to talk..., and you don't
IEI: Ni-, Fe+, Si-, Te+ and Ne+, Ti-, Se+, Fi- ... these are conscious or mental functions.Can you write down which functions of an IEI are conscious and unconscious? (in a similar fashion I have written down 1D-4D functions)
This is about Te and/or Fi-.I personally find 1D Se- conscious in me (or more verbalized) than 2D Se+, like I would openly order / push someone, raise my voice, shout,
If you find a conscious 1D Se-, then you should also be able to find a 3D conscious Ne-. Do you?
How? When? To whom?give physical threats,
In what sense?able to know who is stronger / powerful
Do you see more "SLE" than "SEE" in IEI?, etc. but I clearly don't verbalize information on clothes or physical qualities at all.
How is Se+ in the ILE according to you?
First of all, there is a difference between an accepting function and a producing function.Then what's the difference between LII's Ti- 4D models and IEI's Ti- 3D models?
Here's one way of looking at it:
Issue 1/2015 of the 'Socionics, Mentology and Personality Psychology' journal
http://socioinfo.ru /article/48-obrabotka-informatsii
This article connects Bukalov's concept of dimensionality with J. Feldman's levels of intelligence. 1D, 2D, 3D and 4D correspond to levels 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 and 7-8.
1: one object
2: many objects
3: one process
4: many processes
5: one map
6: many maps
7: one system
8: many systems
Are you comparing with ESI's/LSI's FeNi or TeNi? If someone has a weak FeNi, then he or she is not aware of social dynamics (backstabbing etc). That is not the case with ESI.As an IEI, I clearly see the lack of creativity / situation in Ni of ESI/LSI as they are confident in their predictions and apply the same norms everywhere.
Last edited by Petter; 07-23-2016 at 06:31 AM.
I will come back to it later.
Te- or Te+? How are you taking it in isolation when you said yourself that functions can't be discussed in isolation? When someone orders or push someone to do what they want, what functions (or combinations) they use? What about emotional pressure? Fe-Se-? Physical fight / violence? Se-Ti+?This is about Te and/or Fi-
No. I find somewhat Ne+ conscious (i.e., finding possibilities in the objects, using metaphors to explain, etc.), but I am skeptical about your conscious / unconscious theory.If you find a conscious 1D Se-, then you should also be able to find a 3D conscious Ne-. Do you?
General threats of violence / aggression if I find someone pushing me or showing aggression or telling me things to do I fucking hate already.How? When? To whom?
I can "feel" the energy around people without their actual demonstration of the strength, for example, if someone moves fast, talk loudly, give orders, have manly voice, etc. I would perceive him as stronger than someone who seems timid and languid, failing to assert themselves and getting lost in the physical space, etc. I would find them weak.In what sense?
Not sure about IEIs, but I see more "SLE" than "SEE" in me. Better Se- Ti- (able to order people what to do for me, push them and become persistent), and poor Se+ Fi- (bad social skills, not good social navigation, not able to talk about personal things)... my Fi+ is good though (good manners / ethics, able to understand who likes / dislikes me). How does Model D explain that? What would be my subtype?Do you see more "SLE" than "SEE" in IEI?
How is Se+ in the ILE according to you?
I don't know anything about Se+ in ILE.
Can you mention your own understanding of accepting and producing, and how it is relevant here? (don't give me the links, I have already read them, but failed to understand how it applies in "real" people) To be specific, tell me the difference in Te- producing (as in IEI) and Te- accepting (as in LIE).First of all, there is a difference between an accepting function and a producing function.
I have heard of this theory before, but how it applies in real life? Is it even possible to empirically validate it?Here's one way of looking at it:
Issue 1/2015 of the 'Socionics, Mentology and Personality Psychology' journal
http://socioinfo.ru /article/48-obrabotka-informatsii
This article connects Bukalov's concept of dimensionality with J. Feldman's levels of intelligence. 1D, 2D, 3D and 4D correspond to levels 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 and 7-8.
1: one object
2: many objects
3: one process
4: many processes
5: one map
6: many maps
7: one system
8: many systems
I find it funny how you see these functions. In some instances, you talk about functions in isolation, and yet you explain in terms of combined functions. To me, your model is nothing but an alternative perspective to Model A, but you are screwing the original definitions (i.e., conscious / unconscious, dimensionality, etc.) to fit your theory, as if you don't agree with the basic terminologies of Socionics, i.e, you explained how NiTe is strategizing about the objects and then you said Te- is 4D for an IEI just because they are capable of doing that, but you failed to explain how you reached at this point and how this necessarily make Te- a 4D function when "strategizing" could simply be attributed to Ni, plus you have mentioned initially that Te is about "facts and logical deductions"... how so? How it changes the opinions of the majority who think that IEIs tend to have poor grasp on factual information? (due to Te PoLR, which is clearly 4D in your model). You kept saying that the concept of dimensionality is same in your model and Model A, yet it's impossible for me to validate the new dimensionality that you have associated with functions, because I have a different prior knowledge of dimensionality, conscious / unconscious, etc. Basically, I want to know what you are trying to gain from this model, and how it will help people in further polishing their understanding on typology,Are you comparing with ESI's/LSI's FeNi or TeNi? If someone has a weak FeNi, then he or she is not aware of social dynamics (backstabbing etc). That is not the case with ESI.
Last edited by seriousguy; 07-23-2016 at 04:34 PM.
I wrote Te because I didn't know if it was TeNi or TeSi. It depends on the situation.
It depends... N.B. Model D uses Jungian descriptions of Se. It does not use Socionics "force". If you physically push someone then you are using Se-. If you order someone then it is Te+ or Te-.When someone orders or push someone to do what they want, what functions (or combinations) they use?
Emotional pressure would be Fe- or Fe+. It depends on the situation.What about emotional pressure? Fe-Se-?
Yes.Physical fight / violence? Se-Ti+?
It makes no sense if you find a conscious Se- and a conscious Ne+. How do distinguish between conscious and unconscious functions?No. I find somewhat Ne+ conscious (i.e., finding possibilities in the objects, using metaphors to explain, etc.), but I am skeptical about your conscious / unconscious theory.
What conscious/unconscious theory are you referring to?
Those are very obvious aspects of aggression. All people are capable of reacting like that, so it is not an indication of a conscious Se-. A weak and conscious Se- (like ILI's) gets annoyed by people who are too close. There are constantly exaggerations about physical threats. An ILI could say: "all immigrants are thieves".General threats of violence / aggression if I find someone pushing me or showing aggression or telling me things to do I fucking hate already.
The fact that you notice these aspects of Se- (and Te, and Fe) does not mean that it is conscious. And a vital function also think about these things consciously (according to Vladimir Yermak). The question is how much attention you give to these aspects of Se-, and how much you talk about it.I can "feel" the energy around people without their actual demonstration of the strength, for example, if someone moves fast, talk loudly, give orders, have manly voice, etc. I would perceive him as stronger than someone who seems timid and languid, failing to assert themselves and getting lost in the physical space, etc. I would find them weak.
You are probably referring to Judging (mbti), i.e. Fe and/or Te. Again, SLEs (and thereby Se-) do not push people around. LSEs and LIEs do that. "Force" is just an indirect consequence of extroverted sensing. And I do not agree with all descriptions of F (Se).Not sure about IEIs, but I see more "SLE" than "SEE" in me. Better Se- Ti- (able to order people what to do for me, push them and become persistent),
Yes, and this corresponds with Model D.and poor Se+ Fi- (bad social skills, not good social navigation, not able to talk about personal things)
Your Fi+ is 4D, the 8th function, main system.... my Fi+ is good though (good manners / ethics, able to understand who likes / dislikes me). How does Model D explain that?
I have no idea. You suggested a subtype in a previous post.What would be my subtype?
An accepting function tries to understand an aspect of reality. A producing function uses that information and wants to create something with it.Can you mention your own understanding of accepting and producing, and how it is relevant here? (don't give me the links, I have already read them, but failed to understand how it applies in "real" people) To be specific, tell me the difference in Te- producing (as in IEI) and Te- accepting (as in LIE).
LIE's Te- is mainly interested in business projects. For example, LIE wants to understand the most efficient way to produce something, so he/she uses Te-. He/she then uses Ni+ to see/realize the consequences of Te- decisions. He/she creates a new understanding of his/her efficient method.
IEI's Ni+ is mainly interested in seeing the consequences of some imaginary actions (i.e. scenario thinking). He or she uses Te- to decide the best or most accurate action.
It is off topic... it was just an example of the difference between 3D and 4D.I have heard of this theory before, but how it applies in real life? Is it even possible to empirically validate it?
It depends on how you look at it. Ni+ and Ni- are either separate functions or two versions of Ni. It really doesn't matter. However, you must realize that Ni+ is a consequence of Ni blocking with Te. That is a basic premise in Model D.I find it funny how you see these functions. In some instances, you talk about functions in isolation, and yet you explain in terms of combined functions.
What? In what way is IEI with Ni as a Leading function the same as IEI with Ni- and Ne+ as Leading functions?To me, your model is nothing but an alternative perspective to Model A, but you are screwing the original definitions (i.e., conscious / unconscious, dimensionality, etc.) to fit your theory, as if you don't agree with the basic terminologies of Socionics,
In what sense am I screwing the original defintions of conscious/unconscious, dimensionality...?
I agree with the basic terminologies of Socionics. The problem is that 95% of all people on this forum (and other forums) uses, for example, valued/unvalued functions completely wrong. Then you can get insane typings like LSI for Christopher Langan, "the world's smartest man", or ESI for Christopher Hitchens. Btw, both are ILI.
Strategizing involves some kind of decisions, right? ---> Te-! IEI is not particularly interested in chess. There is a reason for that.i.e, you explained how NiTe is strategizing about the objects and then you said Te- is 4D for an IEI just because they are capable of doing that, but you failed to explain how you reached at this point and how this necessarily make Te- a 4D function when "strategizing"
could simply be attributed to Ni,
What do you mean? Te is also about making decisions (which is closely related to logical deductions).plus you have mentioned initially that Te is about "facts and logical deductions"... how so?
No, you are wrong. Te+ is about concrete and specific facts (Trivial Pursuit etc.). IEI's Te+ 1D PoLR.How it changes the opinions of the majority who think that IEIs tend to have poor grasp on factual information? (due to Te PoLR, which is clearly 4D in your model).
In what way is your understanding of dimensionality and conscious/unconscious different from mine?You kept saying that the concept of dimensionality is same in your model and Model A, yet it's impossible for me to validate the new dimensionality that you have associated with functions, because I have a different prior knowledge of dimensionality,
"IEI is a people person". That is only partly true. "ILI is like a robot" That is not true at all. ILI understands people better than SEI.etc. Basically, I want to know what you are trying to gain from this model, and how it will help people in further polishing their understanding on typology,
Model A is a crude approximation. Model D is much more accurate.
Te+ or Te-? Because Te+ is unconscious for me in this model, so I won't be able to easily order whenever I want?
Give the examples. Would emotional pressure also requires other functions (such as Se-)?Emotional pressure would be Fe- or Fe+. It depends on the situation.
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)?It makes no sense if you find a conscious Se- and a conscious Ne+. How do distinguish between conscious and unconscious functions?
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.What conscious/unconscious theory are you referring to?
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)Those are very obvious aspects of aggression. All people are capable of reacting like that, so it is not an indication of a conscious Se-. A weak and conscious Se- (like ILI's) gets annoyed by people who are too close. There are constantly exaggerations about physical threats. An ILI could say: "all immigrants are thieves".
But then wouldn't it be a matter of degree of consciousness/unconsciousness rather than calling one function entirely conscious/unconscious?The fact that you notice these aspects of Se- (and Te, and Fe) does not mean that it is conscious. And a vital function also think about these things consciously (according to Vladimir Yermak). The question is how much attention you give to these aspects of Se-, and how much you talk about it.
No, I am referring to Socionics' understanding of Se. And, yes, I don't see much SLEs pushing people around, rather they give orders. (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)You are probably referring to Judging (mbti), i.e. Fe and/or Te. Again, SLEs (and thereby Se-) do not push people around. LSEs and LIEs do that. "Force" is just an indirect consequence of extroverted sensing. And I do not agree with all descriptions of F (Se).
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+)?IEI's Ni+ is mainly interested in seeing the consequences of some imaginary actions (i.e. scenario thinking). He or she uses Te- to decide the best or most accurate action.
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.It is off topic... it was just an example of the difference between 3D and 4D.
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-? 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).It depends on how you look at it. Ni+ and Ni- are either separate functions or two versions of Ni. It really doesn't matter. However, you must realize that Ni+ is a consequence of Ni blocking with Te. That is a basic premise in Model D.
-+ 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? In what way is IEI with Ni as a Leading function the same as IEI with Ni- and Ne+ as Leading functions?
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.In what sense am I screwing the original defintions of conscious/unconscious, dimensionality...?
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?I agree with the basic terminologies of Socionics. The problem is that 95% of all people on this forum (and other forums) uses, for example, valued/unvalued functions completely wrong. Then you can get insane typings like LSI for Christopher Langan, "the world's smartest man", or ESI for Christopher Hitchens. Btw, both are ILI.
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.Strategizing involves some kind of decisions, right? ---> Te-! IEI is not particularly interested in chess. There is a reason for that.
Te- or Te+? Do you put the shared aspect of functions in both -+ signs, or you consider them entirely separate functions? 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.What do you mean? Te is also about making decisions (which is closely related to logical deductions).
Yes, IEIs are shitty when it comes to deciding the accurate fact from the bunch of factual information.No, you are wrong. Te+ is about concrete and specific facts (Trivial Pursuit etc.). IEI's Te+ 1D PoLR.
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.In what way is your understanding of dimensionality and conscious/unconscious different from mine?
So, you are trying to defy the stereotypes that have arisen due to the blind faith in Model A (and other factors)?"IEI is a people person". That is only partly true. "ILI is like a robot" That is not true at all. ILI understands people better than SEI.
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).Model A is a crude approximation. Model D is much more accurate.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote