Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
I spoke to both Rick and Gulenko and they both confirmed that Te and Ti conflict, and Fe and Fi etc.
I would still like to see a quote.

The wikisocion quote was written ~10 years ago and needs to be put in context. I don't believe that Te and Ti generally support one another, I would never use that wording now. What I do believe is that they can be used in alternation to build upon one another, as in the scientific method of creating theories and testing them alternatively. But they cannot be used simultaneously, in parallel, and they do clash when you try to do so. This is where they differ from dual elements, blocked elements, benefactors etc.
Okay, I disagree with you. I am not sure if they can be used in parallel, though.

Output in the sense of Model A2 should be understood as action in the same way that perception is input.
What do you mean by 'perception'? Are perceiving functions about input?

Some of my definitions are pretty similar to Model G actually, like +Ne and -Ne for example as potential and possibilities respectively. But all these models are speculative and none have reached widespread agreement yet. (Olga and the Associative Socionics crew should definitely not be taken as an authority on what is mainstream or not.)
I am really skeptical of Model G, including his descriptions of the functions. Gulenko is using positivist/negativist which should be very different from your definitions.

There are four major organizations and schools in Socionics: SRSI (classical), IIS (classical and +/-, and model B), SHS and SSS. I trust Olga when it comes to this, and she knows some of the socionists personally.

The information elements are eight psychological faculties which are responsible for processing "information aspects" or categories of information, similar to the physical senses of sight, touch, hearing etc.
Less often mentioned is that, like the physical senses, each IM element does not accept input uncritically - they also make judgments. That is, just as we dislike and seek to avoid negative physical sensations like pain or abrasive sounds, yet we seek out and enjoy pleasant sensations (good music, tasty food, etc.), each IM element has its own (psychological) definition of "good" and "bad" information.
Each category of information (information aspect) has a utility measure naturally attached to it. A person's type determines their relationship to each of these utility measures, the leading function being the primary way they evaluate how good or bad things are. We attempt to optimize each of these measures through action, hence they are goals.
But the function/IM element (i.e. processing) is still not a goal. However, the aspect (i.e. information) can be a goal ("good" instead of "bad").

Wikisocion says "Every person actively seeks to process information based on [the valued functions]" and
"in situations where we must use [the subdued functions] they tend to produce dissatisfaction and distress in ourselves."
My understanding differs from this in a subtle but important way. As I've written about on my site, I see the IM elements as goals, as well as categories of information that we can focus on. If "using" them means actively focusing on them and trying to achieve their goals, then no this is not what we value or enjoy in my view. What we value is that the goals themselves are achieved. This is what produces the positive feeling associated with the suggestive function. Very often it is actually annoying to have to actively use the suggestive function, it's something that we tend to have trouble with.

Don't all people value "good" information? I don't see how this is related to "valued" / "subdued" functions.