Model D

[seriousguy]

Are you referring to these?

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Victor-Gulenko

I think Viktor descriptions are quite good, but they are not perfect. I (and many socionists) claim that +/- is a consequence of the blocking of aspects/functions, so Se+ sees details about subjects: clothes, hairstyle, someone is dancing, someone is flirting etc, and Se- sees details about objects: a nice car, someone is muscular, physical threats, someone is kicking a ball etc. This is the main difference between Se+ and Se-. The difference between 2D and 1D is norm vs. experience.

I think IEI's mental Se+ vs. vital Se- is the most obvious difference. Types with mental Se+ do not talk about the minus aspects of Se, like physical threats.

Yes, those descriptions are long and seem different to yours, for e.g., Se+ about clothes, hairstyles, etc. it didn't mention this aspect anywhere, so you need to write your short descriptions here.

What about "volitional sensing, how much force, power or pressure is required" aspect of Se? Is it Se+ or Se-? Regarding dimensionality: How is IEI's Ti- and ILI's Fi+ conscious/mental functions and (especially this) 3D? Because I understand the creativity / situation of 3D as the ability to use appropriate information for the required situation (without any prior experience of the situations) and understanding the scope of the information, which IEI clearly don't do it naturally in regards to Ti- as they just indulge in abstract system / models without going anywhere?

[Petter]

Yes, those descriptions are long and seem different to yours, for e.g., Se+ about clothes, hairstyles, etc. it didn't mention this aspect anywhere, so you need to write your short descriptions here. What about "volitional sensing, how much force, power or pressure is required" aspect of Se? Is it Se+ or Se-?

These are approximate descriptions of the functions. However, Model D is based on Jung's/Berens' cognitive processes (with some improvements), so (for example) I think Se+ and Se- are only indirectly related to "psychological space" and "material space".

Sensing of forms (Si-): harmony, aesthetics, beauty
Sensing of perceptions (Si+): cosiness, comfort, pleasant sensations
Material space (Se-): strength, power, control
Psychological (virtual) space (Se+): profit, benefit, gain
Intuition of Time (Ni-): destiny, prevision, fatefulness
Dynamics of actions (Ni+): topicality, timeliness, tendencies
Ethical intuition (Ne-): potential, personality traits, understanding, insight
Object intuition (Ne+): alternatives, possibilities, interpretation, guess, obviousness
Logic of learning or Logic of exploration (Ti-): system, regularity
Logic of management or Logic of control (Ti+): right, rule
Logic of processes (Te-): processes, technologies
Logic of objects (Te+): things, objects
Territorial ethics (Fi-): influence, rapprochement, repulsion
Ethics of understanding (Fi+): sympathy, affection, benevolent relation
Emotions of sensations (Fe-): emotional force, energy boiling, emotions passed over through tactile, taste or other sensor vocabulary (sour expression, sugary voice, he makes me sick...)
Emotions of events (Fe+): play of feelings, absence of sensory component in vocabulary

Regarding dimensionality: How is IEI's Ti- and ILI's Fi+ conscious/mental functions and (especially this) 3D? Because I understand the creativity / situation of 3D as the ability to use appropriate information for the required situation (without any prior experience of the situations) and understanding the scope of the information, which IEI clearly don't do it naturally in regards to Ti- as they just indulge in abstract system / models without going anywhere?

3D: "Situation is applicable to all the strong functions. They are capable of developing new relations, effectively using the exceptions to the rules, generalizing information into patterns - of generating new knowledge and experience. According to Novikova, the mode of perception is the dynamic present - reactions to the situation accounting for trends and possible developments."

The fact that you, an IEI, show an interest in a new theoretical model and ask many questions, is a very strong indication of a 3D Ti-.

What do you mean by "without going anywhere"?

[seriousguy]

The fact that you, an IEI, show an interest in a new theoretical model and ask many questions, is a very strong indication of a 3D Ti-.

How is taking interest in theoretical models the sign of 3D Ti-? It just seems Ti- valuing to me.

What do you mean by "without going anywhere"?

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-)

[Petter]

How is taking interest in theoretical models the sign of 3D Ti-? It just seems Ti- valuing to me.

"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."

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-)

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.

[seriousguy]

"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."

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.

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.

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.

[Petter]

You said super-id functions are not observed in a type, and yet it seems "verbal" (ego and super-id) is conscious?

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

Can you write down which functions of an IEI are conscious and unconscious? (in a similar fashion I have written down 1D-4D functions)

IEI: Ni-, Fe+, Si-, Te+ and Ne+, Ti-, Se+, Fi- ... these are conscious or mental 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,

This is about Te and/or Fi-.

If you find a conscious 1D Se-, then you should also be able to find a 3D conscious Ne-. Do you?

give physical threats,

How? When? To whom?

able to know who is stronger / powerful

In what sense?

, etc. but I clearly don't verbalize information on clothes or physical qualities at all.

Do you see more "SLE" than "SEE" in IEI?

How is Se+ in the ILE according to you?

Then what's the difference between LII's Ti- 4D models and IEI's Ti- 3D models?

First of all, there is a difference between an accepting function and a producing function.

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

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.

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.

[seriousguy]

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.

I will come back to it later.

This is about Te and/or Fi-

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+?

If you find a conscious 1D Se-, then you should also be able to find a 3D conscious Ne-. Do you?

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.

How? When? To whom?

General threats of violence / aggression if I find someone pushing me or showing aggression or telling me things to do I fucking hate already.

In what sense?

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.

Do you see more "SLE" than "SEE" in IEI?

How is Se+ in the ILE according to you?

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?

I don't know anything about Se+ in ILE.

First of all, there is a difference between an accepting function and a producing function.

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).

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 have heard of this theory before, but how it applies in real life? Is it even possible to empirically validate it?

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.

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,