Model D

[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,

[Petter]

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?

I wrote Te because I didn't know if it was TeNi or TeSi. It depends on the situation.

When someone orders or push someone to do what they want, what functions (or combinations) they use?

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-.

What about emotional pressure? Fe-Se-?

Emotional pressure would be Fe- or Fe+. It depends on the situation.

Physical fight / violence? Se-Ti+?

Yes.

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.

It makes no sense if you find a conscious Se- and a conscious Ne+. How do distinguish between conscious and unconscious functions?

What conscious/unconscious theory are you referring to?

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

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".

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.

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.

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),

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).

and poor Se+ Fi- (bad social skills, not good social navigation, not able to talk about personal things)

Yes, and this corresponds with Model D.

... my Fi+ is good though (good manners / ethics, able to understand who likes / dislikes me). How does Model D explain that?

Your Fi+ is 4D, the 8th function, main system.

What would be my subtype?

I have no idea. You suggested a subtype in a previous post.

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).

An accepting function tries to understand an aspect of reality. A producing function uses that information and wants to create something with it.

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.

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

It is off topic... it was just an example of the difference between 3D and 4D.

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.

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.

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,

What? In what way is IEI with Ni as a Leading function the same as IEI with Ni- and Ne+ as Leading functions?

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.

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,

Strategizing involves some kind of decisions, right? ---> Te-! IEI is not particularly interested in chess. There is a reason for that.

plus you have mentioned initially that Te is about "facts and logical deductions"... how so?

What do you mean? Te is also about making decisions (which is closely related to logical deductions).

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).

No, you are wrong. Te+ is about concrete and specific facts (Trivial Pursuit etc.). IEI's Te+ 1D PoLR.

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,

In what way is your understanding of dimensionality and conscious/unconscious different from mine?

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,

"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.

Model A is a crude approximation. Model D is much more accurate.

[seriousguy]

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-.

Te+ or Te-? Because Te+ is unconscious for me in this model, so I won't be able to easily order whenever I want?

Emotional pressure would be Fe- or Fe+. It depends on the situation.

Give the examples. Would emotional pressure also requires other functions (such as Se-)?

It makes no sense if you find a conscious Se- and a conscious Ne+. How do distinguish between conscious and unconscious functions?

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)?

What conscious/unconscious theory are you referring to?

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.

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".

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)

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.

But then wouldn't it be a matter of degree of consciousness/unconsciousness rather than calling one function entirely conscious/unconscious?

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).

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)

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.

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 is off topic... it was just an example of the difference between 3D and 4D.

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 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.

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).

What? In what way is IEI with Ni as a Leading function the same as IEI with Ni- and Ne+ as Leading functions?

-+ 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?

In what sense am I screwing the original defintions of conscious/unconscious, dimensionality...?

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.

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, 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?

Strategizing involves some kind of decisions, right? ---> Te-! IEI is not particularly interested in chess. There is a reason for that.

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.

What do you mean? Te is also about making decisions (which is closely related to logical deductions).

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.

No, you are wrong. Te+ is about concrete and specific facts (Trivial Pursuit etc.). IEI's Te+ 1D PoLR.

Yes, IEIs are shitty when it comes to deciding the accurate fact from the bunch of factual information.

In what way is your understanding of dimensionality and conscious/unconscious different from mine?

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.

"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.

So, you are trying to defy the stereotypes that have arisen due to the blind faith in Model A (and other factors)?

Model A is a crude approximation. Model D is much more accurate.

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).

[Petter]

Te+ or Te-? Because Te+ is unconscious for me in this model, so I won't be able to easily order whenever I want?

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.

Give the examples. Would emotional pressure also requires other functions (such as Se-)?

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.

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)?

I think both the mental and vital functions can be used unconsciously. The Leading function could be an exception.

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.

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, Model D is the same as Model A in this respect.

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)

Yes, you are describing a weak and unconscious Se-. ILI openly complains about immigrants, criminals...

But then wouldn't it be a matter of degree of consciousness/unconsciousness rather than calling one function entirely conscious/unconscious?

Correct. I prefer mental/vital.

No, I am referring to Socionics' understanding of Se. And, yes, I don't see much SLEs pushing people around, rather they give orders.

Hmm? SLEs giving orders? My experience is different. I think they influence people either directly via physical dominance or indirectly via "salesman tactics".

(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)

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.

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+)?

That's 1D Te+. Te- is about the best/most efficient way when you are strategizing/visualizing (Ni+) something.

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 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-.

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-?

This is too general. It could be other functions as well.

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).

Can you explain this part a bit further?

-+ 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?

You: "your model is nothing but an alternative perspective to Model A"

What do you mean by this?

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 think my view differs from socionists' views.

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?

How do you describe a "valued" function?

Hitchens... well, he's an intellectual with strong opinions, but let's stay on topic.

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.

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.

I am very skeptical of Model G. Gulenko needs to convince his fellow socionists first.

Te- or Te+? Do you put the shared aspect of functions in both -+ signs, or you consider them entirely separate functions?

Both. It doesn't matter... both. And it is actually the aspects rather than the functions that causes +/-.

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.

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).

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.

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.

So, you are trying to defy the stereotypes that have arisen due to the blind faith in Model A (and other factors)?

Yes... but I just want an accurate model.

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).

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.

[seriousguy]

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.

Specific things? If I tell someone to give me the glass of water, it will be Te+ and if I explain the steps then it will be Ti+? What about Te- then? Which kinds of orders require Te-? General orders? Give me examples.

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.

I see what you mean, and I can relate to the forgetting about Te- after few seconds or minutes. Maybe one can use the vital function if forced from the outside? (in an example of chess, because in this case one MUST use Ni+Te- considering that these two functions are required for strategizing and taking the best action)

I think both the mental and vital functions can be used unconsciously. The Leading function could be an exception.

Using mental functions unconsciously? How?

Yes, you are describing a weak and unconscious Se-. ILI openly complains about immigrants, criminals...

What about ILI's 1D Se+? How it differs from IEI's 2D Se+? Give me examples. Also, in your Model D, an LII would have 4D Se+, but 1D Se-? They would know which person can benefit them, but they have zero skills when it comes to pushing people, right?

Hmm? SLEs giving orders? My experience is different. I think they influence people either directly via physical dominance or indirectly via "salesman tactics".
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.

Yes, I meant they naturally use the aggressive tactics to get what they want, and live in here and now.

That's 1D Te+. Te- is about the best/most efficient way when you are strategizing/visualizing (Ni+) something.

So... you are saying IEIs are capable to strategize or know about the best/most efficient methods, but unable to follow through?

This is too general. It could be other functions as well.

Let's say I am advising my colleagues that they should study from xyz books in the given time as that will help them "outsmart" other colleagues. What functions would I be using?

Can you explain this part a bit further?

How are you calling Te- a 4D function for an IEI when the dimensionality is supposed to be applied to an isolated function?

You: "your model is nothing but an alternative perspective to Model A"

What do you mean by this?

Model A doesn't have -+ signs, but dimensionality and consciousness/unconsciousness, if you map functions to Model A's position / blocks, you would get (for an IEI):

4D: Ni- (ego), Fi+ (id)
3D: Fe+ (ego) Ne- (id)
2D: Si- (super-ego) Ti+ (super-id)
1D: Te+ (super-ego) Se- (super-id)

So, basically you further distributed the 1D-4D dimensionality to -+ signs, making it two Model As. Btw, are you sure that Ne+ is 4D and conscious, and Ne- is 3D and unconscious for an IEI? Can you give me real-life examples? In Model A, for example, it is assumed that Ignoring function is used along with Demonstrative, so Ne- belongs to super-id. Conscious here would mean able to use it constantly (and not for just a moment or "30 seconds" as you put it earlier). Ne+Ti- belongs to ego block, right? (this is why IEI can look very much like an LII or ILE)

By "an alternative perspective", I mean that your Model doesn't necessarily contradicts Model A (similarly how Model G doesn't contradict it and seems to explain functions in a different manner... internalities, externatilies, etc.,) or am I wrong?

How do you think my view differs from socionists' views.

Because it seems to me that dimensionality was supposed to apply on isolated functions not the -+ signs formed through combination of functions, so here applying the dimensionality to -+ signs would only lead to confusion, for example, you haven't explained yet how Te- is 4D for an IEI... in comparison to which type? You said strategizing requires taking decisions, thus Te- would be used, but how that's the sign of 4D? How to quantify it? For example, I can see how Fe is 4D for an SEE and 1D for an ILI who are unable to make facial expressions in a normative way. How +Fe is 4D for an ILI? If it's just a matter of strategizing about social issues, then it doesn't make sense to call Fe+ 4D at all, just say that Ni- (or Ni+) is 4D. It just seems to me you arbitrary applied this dimensionality to functions in order to either create the symmetry or just to match the standard.

How do you describe a "valued" function?

A "valued" function would be the one we can use with psychological comfort and has positive effects on our psyche, so the weak valued functions, even if they are hard to use on our own (unless we put so much efforts), if supplied from the outside, we feel good about it.

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.

Ni+ is ignoring because it's unconscious (or subconscious)? Did Ni+ get the + sign because it is formed by the combination of NiTe?

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).

"Scenario" seems to be coming from Ni+. Also, Te- is used with Ni+, right? So, when an IEI is playing the chess, he is basically relying on the vital functions?