Model D

[Petter]

A type is defined by three large-scale brain networks (or subsystems) and expressiveness (E)/inexpressiveness (I).

an ESE-like type: E + left CON 2 > VAN > FN (active)

an IEE-like type: E + right aDMN 1 > CON 1 > FN (inactive)

an ILI-like type: I + right FPN 2 > aDMN 2 > FN (active)


------


FN (the frontopolar network), DAN, VAN, CON 1 (mirror neurons), CON 2 (the ventral stream), FPN 1, FPN 2 (the fronto-temporal network), DMN 1 (dmPFC), DMN 2 (vmPFC)

large-scale brain networks 2.png

large-scale brain networks 3.jpg


------


dichotomies

1. deliberateness/perfectionism (goal-oriented) vs. tolerates disorder ... or single-tasking vs. multitasking (BA10: active vs. inactive)

2. task-oriented vs. people-oriented ... or self vs. others (CON << FPN vs. CON+FPN ... CON << DAN/VAN vs. CON+DAN/VAN)

3. the external world vs. the internal world (CON vs. DMN ... DAN/VAN vs. DMN)

4. the dorsal stream vs. the ventral stream

5. the left hemisphere vs. the right hemisphere

6. high energy/quick decisions vs. low energy (E vs. I ... dopamine sensitivity ... the sympathetic nervous system vs. the parasympathetic nervous system ... 16PF: Liveliness, F)

7. decision-making vs. problem-solving (DMN >> FPN vs. DMN+FPN or DAN/VAN+FPN)

8. openness to change vs. traditional/habitual behavior (PFC vs. the striatum)


------


* There are more than 16 personality types. See page 16

* Model A does not work. See page 13, post #487 and #488

* previous versions of Model D: see post #41

[seriousguy]

ILI's strongest functions have Fe+ (maximization of positive emotions), but weakest function have Fe- (minimization or avoidance of negative emotions), did you base your findings on your personal observations of different ILIs or it's just hypothetical (based on certain axioms)? In the same manner, IEI's strongest functions would have Te- (business logic of risk and entrepreneurship... which supervisor LIE shares), but weakest functions would have Te+ (logic of use and rational management of resources.... which conflictor LSE shares). In what sense it is strongest / weakest? Ability / Inability to hold a lot of information for a long time or competency / incompetency in its usage when it is required in the environment? How the conscious / unconscious functions are determined here? That is, what makes Fe+ unconscious, but Fe- conscious in an ILI?

What are Bukalov's "Shadow functions"? You said (if I understand correctly) when one strong function is strengthened then every strong functions are strengthened (thus NiTiNeFe would be strengthened), this contradicts the inert/contact subtype system where strengthening of Ni (in an ILI) would lead to the strengthening of NiFiNeFe (notice the Ti vs Fi difference). How do you explain that?

I am lost to understand (and couldn't follow) how you notated the subtypes (e.g., LII-2,7), can you elaborate?

[Petter]

ILI's strongest functions have Fe+ (maximization of positive emotions), but weakest function have Fe- (minimization or avoidance of negative emotions), did you base your findings on your personal observations of different ILIs or it's just hypothetical (based on certain axioms)?

This model is mainly based on my personal observations, but also on research made by various socionists. Yes, ILI's Fe+ is a 4D function. However, it is the most unconscious secondary function. Also, we cannot look at Fe+ in isolation. It is actually the exchange of information (aspects) between Ni and Fe that causes +/-. I agree with Tsypin regarding this.

In the same manner, IEI's strongest functions would have Te- (business logic of risk and entrepreneurship... which supervisor LIE shares), but weakest functions would have Te+ (logic of use and rational management of resources.... which conflictor LSE shares). In what sense it is strongest / weakest?

Yes, IEI's NiTe are strong functions. But it is ILI's Te- that you sometimes see in IEI, not LIE's Te-. Model D uses accepting/producing functions.

'Strongest' corresponds to 4-dimensional, 'weakest' corresponds to 1-dimensional.

Ability / Inability to hold a lot of information for a long time

This is about dimensionality.

or competency / incompetency in its usage when it is required in the environment?

This is not necessarily related to dimensionality.

How the conscious / unconscious functions are determined here? That is, what makes Fe+ unconscious, but Fe- conscious in an ILI?

First of all, ILI's Fe- is actually semi-conscious. Model D is in a sense two Model As. Fe- "pushes" Fi- to unconsciousness, and Fi+ "pushes" Fe+ to unconsciousness.

What are Bukalov's "Shadow functions"?

Read about Model B here (I use Bing machine translation):

http://socionic.info/pdf/as498.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...TIM_and_Socion

You said (if I understand correctly) when one strong function is strengthened then every strong functions are strengthened (thus NiTiNeFe would be strengthened), this contradicts the inert/contact subtype system where strengthening of Ni (in an ILI) would lead to the strengthening of NiFiNeFe (notice the Ti vs Fi difference). How do you explain that?

Yes, my subtype system contradicts the inert/contact subtype system. But I don't think the inert/contact subtype system is accurate.

I am lost to understand (and couldn't follow) how you notated the subtypes (e.g., LII-2,7), can you elaborate?

The first number refers to strong/weak. ILI-1,? has very strong strong functions, but very weak weak functions :-)

The second number refers to extroversion/introversion, and consequently how much someone uses the secondary functions. ILI-?,10 is an ambivert. And ILI-?,1 is very introverted. LIE-?,1 is very extroverted.

[seriousguy]

This model is mainly based on my personal observations, but also on research made by various socionists. Yes, ILI's Fe+ is a 4D function. However, it is the most unconscious secondary function. Also, we cannot look at Fe+ in isolation. It is actually the exchange of information (aspects) between Ni and Fe that causes +/-. I agree with Tsypin regarding this.

I agree about -+ signs, but how is ILI's Fe+ a 4D function is beyond me.

Yes, IEI's NiTe are strong functions. But it is ILI's Te- that you sometimes see in IEI, not LIE's Te-. Model D uses accepting/producing functions.

As you mentioned the link to the Victor's descriptions of -+ signs, I assumed Te- should be same for the quadra, so how is ILI's Te- different from LIE's Te-? What do you mean by "sometimes"? How you know when an IEI is using his unconscious 4D Te-?

'Strongest' corresponds to 4-dimensional, 'weakest' corresponds to 1-dimensional.

Every functions in the "strongest" is 4D and every functions in the "weakest" is 1D? What about 2D and 3D functions? In your ILI's diagram, you mentioned Ni+Te- as the ego functions (and Ne-Fi+ as second Ego), but Te- isn't there in the strongest / weakest list, what's its dimensionality?

This is about dimensionality.

So, an ILI can easily retain the Fe+ information for a long amount of time due to its 4D nature?

First of all, ILI's Fe- is actually semi-conscious. Model D is in a sense two Model As. Fe- "pushes" Fi- to unconsciousness, and Fi+ "pushes" Fe+ to unconsciousness.

Similarly, Ni+ will push Ne- to unconsciousness?

The first number refers to strong/weak. ILI-1,? has very strong strong functions, but very weak weak functions :-)

The second number refers to extroversion/introversion, and consequently how much someone uses the secondary functions. ILI-?,10 is an ambivert. And ILI-?,1 is very introverted. LIE-?,1 is very extroverted.

I would be something like IEI-2,3.

[Petter]

I agree about -+ signs, but how is ILI's Fe+ a 4D function is beyond me.

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).

As you mentioned the link to the Victor's descriptions of -+ signs, I assumed Te- should be same for the quadra, so how is ILI's Te- different from LIE's Te-? What do you mean by "sometimes"? How you know when an IEI is using his unconscious 4D Te-?

The general description of Te- is the same for all types. But a weak Te- is different from a strong Te-, and an accepting Te- is different from producing Te- etc.

"Sometimes" or occasionally you see Te- in IEI. I just meant that it is less often than the conscious functions.

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

Every functions in the "strongest" is 4D and every functions in the "weakest" is 1D? What about 2D and 3D functions? In your ILI's diagram, you mentioned Ni+Te- as the ego functions (and Ne-Fi+ as second Ego), but Te- isn't there in the strongest / weakest list, what's its dimensionality?

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.

So, an ILI can easily retain the Fe+ information for a long amount of time due to its 4D nature?

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.

Similarly, Ni+ will push Ne- to unconsciousness?

No, because Ne- does not interfere with Ni+. However, all functions that a person is currently not using, are unconscious. That is not the same thing as Ego, Id etc.

[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.

[Muddy]

For example, ILI can spend months or years on a new theoretical model (Ti-) but has no patience whatsoever for concrete technical problems, like repairing the car (Ti+).

I can relate to this all to well lol. I can very easily delve in to something abstract like a video game and very quickly learn and master all the mechanics, but when it comes to stuff like figuring out how to use a pallet jack for the first time my brain leaves my head.


Anyway I'm very interested in hearing more tidbits about the types like this if you have anyway.

[Petter]

I can relate to this all to well lol. I can very easily delve in to something abstract like a video game and very quickly learn and master all the mechanics, but when it comes to stuff like figuring out how to use a pallet jack for the first time my brain leaves my head.

lol, very true... I think this is because one needs all the concrete details of a product (Se-) in order to figure out how it works (Ti+). But ILI is almost never in the here and now (Se).

Anyway I'm very interested in hearing more tidbits about the types like this if you have anyway.

Here's an example: Bill Clinton is an SEE law professor (!?). That makes no sense if we use Model A. But if some SEE subtypes use a strong SiTe quite often, then it doesn't seem strange any more.

[Muddy]

Here's an example: Bill Clinton is an SEE law professor (!?). That makes no sense if we use Model A. But if some SEE subtypes use a strong SiTe quite often, then it doesn't seem strange any more.

I actually made this observation too with people whom I've suspected to be SEE, in that a lot of them seem to take interest in careers that deal with law. You could be on to something here.

[seriousguy]

Can you give the simplified descriptions of every function (as Viktor's descriptions are long and even ambiguous)? For example, how is IEI's 2D +Se different from 1D -Se? Poor ability to grasp the concrete details of the world (-Se), but relatively better ability to push themselves for work and force other people (+Se)? For example, I am extremely lost most of the time and live in my head, and my stuff gets lost and I don't remember how that happens, but I have good reactivity / responsiveness and general pushiness.

IEI:
==

4D: -Ni, +Fi, +Ne, -Te
3D: +Fe, -Ne, -Ti, +Ni
2D: -Si, +Ti, +Se, -Fe
1D: +Te, -Se, -Fi, +Si

[Muddy]

Ok so I just make sure I'm understanding this correctly so I'm going to show how I'm interpreting the LIE as an example. I'm going to assume Si=comfort for the sake of this post.

LIE has 4D Si- and 1D Si+, which means the LIE is very good at projecting Si outwards toward the environment but at the same time very lacking when it comes to the deeper essence of Si. I know some people who go to great lengths to try to "craft" comfort by buying expensive furniture and talk a lot about trying to relax, yet at the same time they are some of the most restless people I know and you can never really seem to get in a state of comfort around them. I always assumed these people where Si creative types but I wondering they could be LIEs under this model, since they seem very adept with one aspect of Si (making the physical environment comfortable) yet very lacking in another (having a carefree attitude, not worrying about things).

Let's also look at ILI again. Ti and Ne are ILI's strongest functions that are pushed at outward due to them being minus functions. Does this mean we will get mostly Ti and Ne kinds of topics when talking to an ILI, where they discuss a lot of ideas and theories? LIE in comparison has Te and Si as its strongest outwardly pushed functions, so does that mean we will get a lot of talk on earthy, practical matters when talking to an LIE? It's seems to me that mirror types are far more different then each other under this model then what Model A would suggest.

[Petter]

Can you give the simplified descriptions of every function (as Viktor's descriptions are long and even ambiguous)? For example, how is IEI's 2D +Se different from 1D -Se? Poor ability to grasp the concrete details of the world (-Se), but relatively better ability to push themselves for work and force other people (+Se)? For example, I am extremely lost most of the time and live in my head, and my stuff gets lost and I don't remember how that happens, but I have good reactivity / responsiveness and general pushiness.


IEI:
==


4D: -Ni, +Fi, +Ne, -Te
3D: +Fe, -Ne, -Ti, +Ni
2D: -Si, +Ti, +Se, -Fe
1D: +Te, -Se, -Fi, +Si

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.

[Petter]

Ok so I just make sure I'm understanding this correctly so I'm going to show how I'm interpreting the LIE as an example. I'm going to assume Si=comfort for the sake of this post.


LIE has 4D Si- and 1D Si+, which means the LIE is very good at projecting Si outwards toward the environment but at the same time very lacking when it comes to the deeper essence of Si.

Si- sees sensing aspects of objects, and Si+ sees sensing aspects of subjects. That's the main difference.

I know some people who go to great lengths to try to "craft" comfort by buying expensive furniture and talk a lot about trying to relax, yet at the same time they are some of the most restless people I know and you can never really seem to get in a state of comfort around them.

This sounds like the SLI :-) SLI has Ignoring Si+.

I always assumed these people where Si creative types but I wondering they could be LIEs under this model, since they seem very adept with one aspect of Si (making the physical environment comfortable) yet very lacking in another (having a carefree attitude, not worrying about things).

They could be LIEs as well. LIE has PoLR Si+, and a 4D Si-.

Let's also look at ILI again. Ti and Ne are ILI's strongest functions that are pushed at outward due to them being minus functions.

It isn't true that Ti and Ne are ILI's strongest functions. We must use plus and minus functions. ILI's strongest functions are Ni+, Ti-, Ne- and Fe+.

What do you mean by "pushed at outward"?

Does this mean we will get mostly Ti and Ne kinds of topics when talking to an ILI, where they discuss a lot of ideas and theories?

No, you will get NiTe and NeFi topics. Some ILIs, like Dario Nardi (ILI-4,9 or ILI-4,10), will sound remarkably similar to IEEs. I actually typed him as an IEE.

LIE in comparison has Te and Si as its strongest outwardly pushed functions, so does that mean we will get a lot of talk on earthy, practical matters when talking to an LIE?

No, TeNi and TiSe. Business projects and technology.

It's seems to me that mirror types are far more different then each other under this model then what Model A would suggest.

YES! Here is one (of many) example: LIE gets along very well with SLE, but ILI and SLE rub each other the wrong way. ILI's Fi+ annoys the SLE, and SLE's Ti+ annoys the ILI.

[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?

[Muddy]

It isn't true that Ti and Ne are ILI's strongest functions. We must use plus and minus functions. ILI's strongest functions are Ni+, Ti-, Ne- and Fe+.

What do you mean by "pushed at outward"?

I already knew that ILI only has 4D Ti- and Ne- and not 4D Ti+ and Ne+. I got lazy and didn't put the minus there since I said earlier I was talking about the minus functions.

In the link that explains the +/- functions it describes minus functions as being applied globally and having an outward direction, which to me sounded like - functions are pushed more visibly outward towards the environment a.k.a extroverted in sense while it says + functions are applied internally. Therefore it seemed to me like the strong - functions would be the kind of subjects a person would must likely talk about while the + functions are what they would think about , since - functions are described as having the direction as outward and + functions outward. Perhaps I need a little more clarification on what exactly the +/- functions are because that's what it sounded like to me.

Edit: I say that you mentioned + functions as applying to subjects while - to objects. Is that the main difference between +/-?

Also I side note I can definitely see myself having better Se- then Se+. You can ask me what was the color of someone's shirt a minute after seeing them and I probably wouldn't remember. I always take note of possible physical threats however.

[Muddy]

So basically the shadow ego is like our "second" type, and therefore we should expect mirage types to share a lot of similarities? Just for convenience I'm going to list them.

ILE is similar to IEI
ESE-EII
SEI-SLE
LII-LSE
EIE-ESI
LSI-LIE
SEE-SLI
ILI-IEE

I'm also curious how the shadow ego would effect other relations. Would this mean look-a-like types get along better then expected since their shadow ego's are dual to one another? How would this impact benefit relations since the beneficiary's shadow ego is conflict to the benefactor's ego?

[Tigerfadder]

I think sometimes people create 'new' theories to justify their own ideas. What is this really then to take +/- signs, remove them from where they originally come fram (model A) to create a new model?

[Petter]

I think sometimes people create 'new' theories to justify their own ideas. What is this really then to take +/- signs, remove them from where they originally come fram (model A) to create a new model?

+/- comes just as much from Model B. The concept was introduced by Gulenko, and he is using it in Model G. +/- was discussed extensively during the '90s, but socionists never agreed on the cause and the placement of the signs in Model A. Does ILI have Ne+ or Ne- as the Ignoring function in Model A? +/- never worked in Model A, and there is a good reason for that: plus and minus is a consequence of the blocking of aspects/functions.

This is my view as well:

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...Plus_and_minus

[Muddy]

I had another thought on this model in regards to the romance styles of the types. I think its possible that the romance style of the shadow might be a type's secondary romance style. LIE for example has Se in it's shadow ego and therefore may have some Aggressor behavior mixed in with its primary Victim behavior. Going down the types you would get:

ILE- Infantile, Victim
SEI- Caregiver, Aggressor
ESE- Caregiver, Infantile
LII- Infantile, Caregiver

EIE- Victim, Aggressor
LSI- Aggressor, Victim
SLE- Aggressor, Caregiver
IEI- Victim, Infantile

SEE- Aggressor, Caregiver
ILI- Victim, Infantile
LIE- Victim, Aggressor
ESI- Aggressor, Victim


LSE- Caregiver, Infantile
EII- Infantile, Caregiver
IEE- Infantile, Victim
SLI- Caregiver, Aggressor

[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"?

[Petter]

I already knew that ILI only has 4D Ti- and Ne- and not 4D Ti+ and Ne+. I got lazy and didn't put the minus there since I said earlier I was talking about the minus functions.
In the link that explains the +/- functions it describes minus functions as being applied globally and having an outward direction, which to me sounded like - functions are pushed more visibly outward towards the environment a.k.a extroverted in sense while it says + functions are applied internally. Therefore it seemed to me like the strong - functions would be the kind of subjects a person would must likely talk about while the + functions are what they would think about , since - functions are described as having the direction as outward and + functions outward. Perhaps I need a little more clarification on what exactly the +/- functions are because that's what it sounded like to me.

+/- are related to process/result and positivist/negativist Reinin dichotomies. No, they are not related to extraversion/introversion, but 'minus' is pushed more towards the environment. It is more like general knowledge (-) vs. specific knowledge (+).

Edit: I say that you mentioned + functions as applying to subjects while - to objects. Is that the main difference between +/-?

No, I meant that Feeling/Ethics is about subjects and Thinking/logic is about objects. An IEE's Ne (Ego: NeFi) will focus on possibilities which are related to subjects. An ILE's Ne will focus on possibilities which are related to objects.

Also I side note I can definitely see myself having better Se- then Se+. You can ask me what was the color of someone's shirt a minute after seeing them and I probably wouldn't remember. I always take note of possible physical threats however.

Are you ILI?

[Petter]

I had another thought on this model in regards to the romance styles of the types. I think its possible that the romance style of the shadow might be a type's secondary romance style. LIE for example has Se in it's shadow ego and therefore may have some Aggressor behavior mixed in with its primary Victim behavior. Going down the types you would get:

ILE- Infantile, Victim
SEI- Caregiver, Aggressor
ESE- Caregiver, Infantile
LII- Infantile, Caregiver

EIE- Victim, Aggressor
LSI- Aggressor, Victim
SLE- Aggressor, Caregiver
IEI- Victim, Infantile

SEE- Aggressor, Caregiver
ILI- Victim, Infantile
LIE- Victim, Aggressor
ESI- Aggressor, Victim


LSE- Caregiver, Infantile
EII- Infantile, Caregiver
IEE- Infantile, Victim
SLI- Caregiver, Aggressor

I agree with you. That's a consequence of Model D. However, I prefer these ones:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...otic-Attitudes

[Muddy]

Are you ILI?

I'm a bit hesitant to firmly decide on a type since I can easily change my opinions upon receiving new information, but I would say ILI is definitely one of the more likely types. All I can say for sure is that I'm most likely in introverted perceiver and most likely a logical type.

[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-)

[Muddy]

The idea of there being 2 dual seeking functions and 2 polrs is pretty interesting to me. Lets use IEI for example. IEI has Se- as its primary dual seeking function and Si+ as its secondary dual seeking. What I think this means is that IEI visibly seeks someone who exerts power and control (Se-), but the deeper motivation behind that is that they want feel safe and comfortable (Si+) and to do so they need someone who can protect them physically. ILE has the same dual seeking functions but are they orientated differently. ILE wants someone who outwardly focuses on comfort and harmony, but inwardly what the ILE really dreams of is having power and control.

I think the same can apply to the polr functions. ILI on the surface hates boisterous emotions (Fe-), but on the inside feels oppressed and inhibited by rules (Ti+). I'm going to hypothesize the real "polr" hit for ILI is not just crazy emotions, but when people get emotional at ILI for not following the rules.

[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.

[Petter]

The idea of there being 2 dual seeking functions and 2 polrs is pretty interesting to me. Lets use IEI for example. IEI has Se- as its primary dual seeking function and Si+ as its secondary dual seeking. What I think this means is that IEI visibly seeks someone who exerts power and control (Se-), but the deeper motivation behind that is that they want feel safe and comfortable (Si+) and to do so they need someone who can protect them physically. ILE has the same dual seeking functions but are they orientated differently. ILE wants someone who outwardly focuses on comfort and harmony, but inwardly what the ILE really dreams of is having power and control.

Why do you think IEI and ILE are different in this regard?

What do mean by "outwardly" and "inwardly"?

Feeling safe is related to physical threats, which is about Se- (not Si+).

I think the same can apply to the polr functions. ILI on the surface hates boisterous emotions (Fe-), but on the inside feels oppressed and inhibited by rules (Ti+). I'm going to hypothesize the real "polr" hit for ILI is not just crazy emotions, but when people get emotional at ILI for not following the rules.

Fe is not about emotions, not even in Socionics. Fe is about 'ethics of emotions'. ILI often thinks SEI's and ESE's Fe- is used as a weapon in patronizing way, and he or she gets pissed off.

Yes, Ti+ is about rules... but ILIs do like rules. However, ILI can break rules much more easily than SLI. And at the same time, ILI gets very upset when other people break the rules. A 1D function is like a child.

[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.

[Muddy]

Why do you think IEI and ILE are different in this regard?

What do mean by "outwardly" and "inwardly"?

Yes, Ti+ is about rules... but ILIs do like rules. However, ILI can break rules much more easily than SLI. And at the same time, ILI gets very upset when other people break the rules. A 1D function is like a child.

What I meant is that ILE "seeks" Si+ in a visible way, while Se- is seeked in a very subtle and primitive way. In other words, every ILE's dream is probably something along the lines of having somebody take care of all their physical needs (Si+ seeking) so they can focus their attention on achieving their goals of world domination (Shadow Se- seeking). IEI on the other hand expects Se- to come directly from others, while Si+ is sought in secret. IEI wants a protector (Se- seeking) so they can feel comfort with their surroundings (Si+ shadow seeking). Keep in mind I'm just brainstorming these ideas so don't take them too seriously.

Also what said about ILI liking rules even though they don't have Ti+ as a valued function has left me confused. Perhaps they like rules because they don't attach any value to them and just use them to get ahead by ignoring rules that don't benefit them and support rules that do? I guess what I should ask is how does 1D Ti+ differ from each other in each of the four 1D functions?

[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.

[Petter]

What I meant is that ILE "seeks" Si+ in a visible way, while Se- is seeked in a very subtle and primitive way. In other words, every ILE's dream is probably something along the lines of having somebody take care of all their physical needs (Si+ seeking) so they can focus their attention on achieving their goals of world domination (Shadow Se- seeking). IEI on the other hand expects Se- to come directly from others, while Si+ is sought in secret. IEI wants a protector (Se- seeking) so they can feel comfort with their surroundings (Si+ shadow seeking). Keep in mind I'm just brainstorming these ideas so don't take them too seriously.

Ok. Btw, brainstorming/critical thinking is the right way forward... instead of just accepting Model A.

Also what said about ILI liking rules even though they don't have Ti+ as a valued function has left me confused.

An "unvalued" function does not mean that you don't like aspects of the function. However, ILI does not like to talk about aspects of Ti+. So "verbal" is a much better name than "valued".

Perhaps they like rules because they don't attach any value to them and just use them to get ahead by ignoring rules that don't benefit them and support rules that do? I guess what I should ask is how does 1D Ti+ differ from each other in each of the four 1D functions?

ILI's Ti+ and Fe- are PoLR. Se+ and Si- are suggestive.

[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.

[Muddy]

@Petter I would like to hear you opinions on what types are likely for me in this system. I'll explain a little bit about myself so you have something to go on.


I think I am an alpha type because I seem to verbalize Ne+ and Ti- a lot if you look at my post history. I also relate to alpha quadra the most. This would seem to point towards ILE or LII as the most likely types but there are some things that don't make sense about either type. I feel I am way too introverted and reserved for ILE to make any sense. Here on the forums I seem plenty capable of generating thoughts and ideas but in the broader sense I think my Ne is actually quite lacking. By that I mean I have great difficulty breaking out of old habits and trying new things even when I'm bored and dying for something to do. I don't know if that is due to low dimensional Ne or something else.

The problem with LII is that while I can appreciate the importance of learning (Ti-), I don't really see that being my base function. I also resonate much more with being a perceiving then a judger. There is ILI but the problem is I don't relate very much to gamma at all and starting to wonder if SEI is possible. I do place a good bit of emphasis on comfort and doing things as I see fit which seems to match with Si+. Another clue is that I seem to conflict with Te base types the most. The only thing though is that there are a lot of stereotypes about SEI that don't seem to fit, such as SEIs being into interior design, cooking, etc. It seems though that in model D those things may be more attributable to Si- then Si+. Any stereotype about SEI is that they are highly sociable, of which I am not. I usually only talk to people if they talk to me first. I would to hear your take on SEI and if it would be a possible type for me.

[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).

[seriousguy]

According to your model, an IEI is ethical because he has strong conscious 3D +Fe (along with strong unconscious 4D Fi+) so it is verbalized more to the outside, similarly, an ILI is logical only because he has strong conscious 3D -Te (along with strong unconscious 4D -Ti), as both have the 4D and 3D version of ethical/logical functions. How does LIE supervise an IEI? (if both share 4D Te-). Does supervision happen between LIE's 3D Te+ and IEI's 1D Te+?

An IEI would be a potential businessman, except he doesn't have any energy for managing any business at all, but he may direct people what needs to be done (due to strong Ni- and Te-).

[Petter]

@Petter I would like to hear you opinions on what types are likely for me in this system. I'll explain a little bit about myself so you have something to go on.

I think I am an alpha type because I seem to verbalize Ne+ and Ti- a lot if you look at my post history. I also relate to alpha quadra the most. This would seem to point towards ILE or LII as the most likely types but there are some things that don't make sense about either type. I feel I am way too introverted and reserved for ILE to make any sense. Here on the forums I seem plenty capable of generating thoughts and ideas but in the broader sense I think my Ne is actually quite lacking. By that I mean I have great difficulty breaking out of old habits and trying new things even when I'm bored and dying for something to do. I don't know if that is due to low dimensional Ne or something else.

The problem with LII is that while I can appreciate the importance of learning (Ti-), I don't really see that being my base function. I also resonate much more with being a perceiving then a judger. There is ILI but the problem is I don't relate very much to gamma at all and starting to wonder if SEI is possible. I do place a good bit of emphasis on comfort and doing things as I see fit which seems to match with Si+. Another clue is that I seem to conflict with Te base types the most. The only thing though is that there are a lot of stereotypes about SEI that don't seem to fit, such as SEIs being into interior design, cooking, etc. It seems though that in model D those things may be more attributable to Si- then Si+. Any stereotype about SEI is that they are highly sociable, of which I am not. I usually only talk to people if they talk to me first. I would to hear your take on SEI and if it would be a possible type for me.

You can be any one of those types. Model D can be very useful for explaining some "borderline" types and subtypes, but the four Jungian dichotomies (or MBTI) are often more useful when you are typing people. Keep it as simple as possible.