Model D

[seriousguy]

Fe+ isn't just about "maximizing the positive". Fe+ always interacts with Ni-, which is about scenario thinking and fantasy. ILI's Fe- oversimplifies decisions in "the real world" (Si+), but he or she spends a lot of time speculating about different social scenarios and decisions. For example, LIIs are often completely lost in various social situations. That is not the case with ILIs. We understand the social dynamics (NiFe), but we have no energy to be social in the here and now (SeFi and SiFe).

It seems you are talking about the information exchange without their actual energy spending (or exchange)? (so a 'strong' function would simply mean more 'information' for it without actual energy for it) ILIs are capable of strategizing about the social dynamics (NiFe), but they really don't have the energy to be actively engaged in social world (which you correlates with SeFi and SiFe). By that logic, IEIs would be capable of strategizing about the effects of their actions on objects (NiTe), but they don't have much energy for manipulating the object (or perform day-to-day tasks) here and now (SeTi and SiTe), right? Are you aware that Model G also makes a distinction between information exchange and energy exchange? Did you take some ideas from it?

IEI uses Ni+Te- when he or she plays chess, i.e. strategizes about objects (Ni-Fe+ is about subjects).

Gotcha, but how that Te- would be 4D in this case?

Yes, there are only 4D (strongest) and 1D (weakest) functions in that diagram. Dimensionality is the same in Model D and Model A, so for example, IEI's Se+ is 2-dimensional. ILI's Te- is 3D, and ILI's Fi+ is also 3D. Neither of those are strongest, in Model D and Model A.

Here, IEI's Se+ is 2-dimensional, so Se- would be 1-dimensional? How is the dimensionality same in Model D and Model A? If ILI's Fi+ is 3D, then IEI's Tii+ would be 3D as well? Can you explain a bit how these 3D and 2D functions are distinguished in terms of quality?

The concept of dimensionality in Model D is exactly the same as in Model A. There is no difference between main functions and secondary functions.

But you mentioned that ILI's Fi+ is 3D (which is not the case in Model A), how do you explain that?

I like your model; you seem to explain certain aspects through combined IEs, but you need to reduce the ambiguity (dimensionality issue for example).

[Petter]

It seems you are talking about the information exchange without their actual energy spending (or exchange)?

What kind of energy are you referring to? I just meant "energy to process information", i.e. 1D vs. 4D. I did not mean energy in the context of Model G, libido or consciousness.

(so a 'strong' function would simply mean more 'information' for it without actual energy for it) ILIs are capable of strategizing about the social dynamics (NiFe), but they really don't have the energy to be actively engaged in social world (which you correlates with SeFi and SiFe).

This is equally true for IEI.

By that logic, IEIs would be capable of strategizing about the effects of their actions on objects (NiTe), but they don't have much energy for manipulating the object (or perform day-to-day tasks) here and now (SeTi and SiTe), right?

This is true for IEI as well as ILI.

Are you aware that Model G also makes a distinction between information exchange and energy exchange? Did you take some ideas from it?

Yes, I have been a member of a Model G Facebook group for a year, even though I am a bit skeptical of Model G. No, I have not taken ideas from it.

Gotcha, but how that Te- would be 4D in this case?

Yes, IEI's Te- is indeed 4D.

Here, IEI's Se+ is 2-dimensional, so Se- would be 1-dimensional? How is the dimensionality same in Model D and Model A?

I meant that the general concept of dimensionality is the same in Model D and Model A.

If ILI's Fi+ is 3D, then IEI's Tii+ would be 3D as well?

Yes

Can you explain a bit how these 3D and 2D functions are distinguished in terms of quality?

Situation/creativity vs. norm... the concept is the same in Model D and Model A.

But you mentioned that ILI's Fi+ is 3D (which is not the case in Model A), how do you explain that?

Because Model A is incomplete... it's a crude approximation.

I like your model; you seem to explain certain aspects through combined IEs, but you need to reduce the ambiguity (dimensionality issue for example).

In what way is dimensionality in Model D ambiguous?

[seriousguy]

What kind of energy are you referring to? I just meant "energy to process information", i.e. 1D vs. 4D. I did not mean energy in the context of Model G, libido or consciousness.

Yeah, I meant "energy to process information".

Yes, IEI's Te- is indeed 4D.

Basically you are saying that IEI has very good competency (high dimensionality) to think about the objects strategically, for e.g., you've given the example of chess, would that mean IEIs can be good chess players? (as that requires mostly "strategizing" and not much manipulation of objects)

In what way is dimensionality in Model D ambiguous?

What I meant is that you didn't explicitly mention the dimensionality of the functions in your diagram, but you now explained it, so nvm.

[Petter]

Basically you are saying that IEI has very good competency (high dimensionality) to think about the objects strategically, for e.g., you've given the example of chess, would that mean IEIs can be good chess players? (as that requires mostly "strategizing" and not much manipulation of objects)

Yes, especially young IEIs who are still developing NiTe. Adult IEIs are most likely not interested in chess, and consequently they will never be good at it.

What I meant is that you didn't explicitly mention the dimensionality of the functions in your diagram, but you now explained it, so nvm.

Yes, I chose strong and weak instead of dimensionality because I am addressing the MBTI community as well.