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.



Reply With Quote