Four-type subtype theory

[Petter]

I know that is not model B; it is Hitta's interpretation of it which is what I find useful. I believe the idea that there is a + and a - element in each IM originated from that. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Viktor Gulenko introduced +/- functions in Model A. Aleksandr Bukalov uses +/- (and external/internal) functions in Model B in order to explain Process and Result types.

Dimensionality =/= strength. Dimensionality just tells the breadth of scope an element has. How nuanced, or not, their usage of it is.

Okay, so what is "strength" according to you?

Yes, dimensionality tells the breadth of scope an element has, or how nuanced it is. But that is not due to a skillset (of the element/function). LII's Ti seems very sophisticated since it considers many aspects of, for example, mathematical definitions. It spends more time on a subject, so it digs deeper.

I'll try to explain better: LII-Ne, the only logic IM they have available, and that they are proficient in, is -Ti (although they are also somewhat proficiend at -Te ignoring, but only in an accepting role). Thus, that is what one will be able to observe most from them. By contrast, LII-Ti, having strengthened the logic pathway, will have all logic elements (+Ti, -Ti, +Te, -Te) to choose from, and thus it is likely that in the event that they focus on logic (due to being a normalizing DCHN subtype for example) they will not appear as theoretical and mathematical (-Ti).

Hitta's interpretation is inaccurate (in my view) so "will have all logic elements (+Ti, -Ti, +Te, -Te) to choose from" does not make any sense. What causes +/- in this interpretation?

[mclane]

Viktor Gulenko introduced +/- functions in Model A. Aleksandr Bukalov uses +/- (and external/internal) functions in Model B in order to explain Process and Result types.

But does Bukalov think that for example, the base of LII is -Ti/+Te (a plus and minus element in the same function)?

Okay, so what is "strength" according to you?

Certainly not the same as dimensionality. It just so happens that the 4D functions are also the strongest, but they are different parameters. I would define strength as the ability to use a certain function consistently. For example, the HA can have great strength, only that it cannot be used consistently like the ego functions or the demonstrative, so it is not defined as a "strong function".

Yes, dimensionality tells the breadth of scope an element has, or how nuanced it is. But that is not due to a skillset (of the element/function). LII's Ti seems very sophisticated since it considers many aspects of, for example, mathematical definitions. It spends more time on a subject, so it digs deeper.

Now I would make another distinction. Actual skill with a function would be IMO another different parameter (apart from dimensionality and strength). Again, it just so happens that a person is most skilled at their strong, 4D functions, but this will not always be the case. For example, I've seen people use their role very proficiently.

Hitta's interpretation is inaccurate (in my view)

Why?

so "will have all logic elements (+Ti, -Ti, +Te, -Te) to choose from" does not make any sense. What causes +/- in this interpretation?

It's just how I think I've figured out how the accepting subtype works. All the logic functions in LII-Ti get an energy kick, and they can use all of them (all the + and - versions).

[Petter]

But does Bukalov think that for example, the base of LII is -Ti/+Te (a plus and minus element in the same function)?

No

Certainly not the same as dimensionality. It just so happens that the 4D functions are also the strongest, but they are different parameters. I would define strength as the ability to use a certain function consistently. For example, the HA can have great strength, only that it cannot be used consistently like the ego functions or the demonstrative, so it is not defined as a "strong function".

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-of-the-Psyche

"Related to the idea of function strength and weakness is the idea of dimensionality of functions. Dimensionality is a well-known way of describing the characteristics of the different positions of Model A in a systematic way. The concept was proposed by Kiev socionists (Bukalov, Yermak) and is now widely applied by socionists across the former Soviet Union."

This is my view as well. Dimensionality is just a more sophisticated way of describing the differences between functions 1, 2, 3 and 4 (or 5, 6, 7 and 8).

What do you mean by "HA can have great strength"?

Now I would make another distinction. Actual skill with a function would be IMO another different parameter (apart from dimensionality and strength). Again, it just so happens that a person is most skilled at their strong, 4D functions, but this will not always be the case. For example, I've seen people use their role very proficiently.

Yes. LIIs are usually more skilled at (for example) mathematics than other types due to more experience. But that is not directly related to a high-dimensional function (Ti). It is not as if LII mathematicians get stronger and stronger Ti (or "higher dimensionality").

Why?

+/- is caused by the blocking of functions/aspects according to most socionists (and me), so Te+/Ni- is not possible. Unless he used completely different definitions of +/-. But then it is Model H instead of an interpretation of Model B.

[mclane]

No

Then it is Hitta's own contribution.

What do you mean by "HA can have great strength"?

Great situational strength. In fact, especially in producing subtypes, HA can eclipse base when it is used. But it cannot be used all the time; it sort of runs out of gas.

Yes. LIIs are usually more skilled at (for example) mathematics than other types due to more experience. But that is not directly related to a high-dimensional function (Ti). It is not as if LII mathematicians get stronger and stronger Ti (or "higher dimensionality").

Don't agree. Another thing that higher dimensionality means is that a person can acquire more skill in a particular function. So for example, in the 4D functions, one can become a real "magician" (this term I've read in some russian sources). In contrast, for the 2D functions, they can also be "mastered", but they will always be 2D functions. Think about it this way: somebody majors in physics while another person minors just in electromagnetism. The person that majors in physics will also know electromagnetism, and be possibly a master at it. However, will they actually be better than the one that just knows electromagnetism? They can be better or not, but just having the major does not instantly mean that they are better than the person with the minor. IOW: A 2D function skill can be more proficient than a 4D function skill, only that with less breadth.

+/- is caused by the blocking of functions/aspects according to most socionists (and me), so Te+/Ni- is not possible. Unless he used completely different definitions of +/-. But then it is Model H instead of an interpretation of Model B.

+Te/-Ni? Who has said this would be valid? No type would have this configuration. -Te/+Ni is what gamma NT's have. But what Hitta says, is that is is actually -Te/+Ti and +Ni/-Ne. In other words; IM elements are composed of a + and - part. This is what I did not know where he got it from. If it is his own contribution, props to him, because this is what I've tested and concluded to be correct. He noticed the similarity between certain clubs of different quadras, and the only explanation for this is what Hitta proposed.

[Petter]

Then it is Hitta's own contribution.

Yes

Great situational strength. In fact, especially in producing subtypes, HA can eclipse base when it is used. But it cannot be used all the time; it sort of runs out of gas.

Can you give me a concrete example of this?

Don't agree. Another thing that higher dimensionality means is that a person can acquire more skill in a particular function. So for example, in the 4D functions, one can become a real "magician" (this term I've read in some russian sources). In contrast, for the 2D functions, they can also be "mastered", but they will always be 2D functions. Think about it this way: somebody majors in physics while another person minors just in electromagnetism. The person that majors in physics will also know electromagnetism, and be possibly a master at it. However, will they actually be better than the one that just knows electromagnetism? They can be better or not, but just having the major does not instantly mean that they are better than the person with the minor. IOW: A 2D function skill can be more proficient than a 4D function skill, only that with less breadth.

Dimensionality is not about being good at certain subjects, and we cannot make them stronger (i.e. "higher dimensionality"). Dimensionality is an innate quality of the functions (according to SSS), which was your previous argument... and I have partially changed my mind.

+Te/-Ni? Who has said this would be valid? No type would have this configuration. -Te/+Ni is what gamma NT's have. But what Hitta says, is that is is actually -Te/+Ti and +Ni/-Ne. In other words; IM elements are composed of a + and - part. This is what I did not know where he got it from. If it is his own contribution, props to him, because this is what I've tested and concluded to be correct. He noticed the similarity between certain clubs of different quadras, and the only explanation for this is what Hitta proposed.

I meant -Ti, +Te / +Ne, -Ni. I don't think his version of + and - is accurate. For example:

"+Ti/-Te: Betas and Gammas use this functional continuum. It is a judging function so it doesn't have anything to do with the area of expertise. The functions involves common sense intelligence. This function attempts to find the "proper" way to do something; using the social decorum and repetitious logic as a backbone for solving problems. They usually believe there is a right way to proceed; and this right way is usually based upon a pattern of accepting certain standards."

This does not correspond to ILI's -Te, but it corresponds to LSE's +Te.

[mclane]

Can you give me a concrete example of this?

I've observed that HA can be as strong as base or demonstrative for short period of time (it is "activated" that's why HA is also called "activation"). The problem with HA is that when a person engages in it, they forget about their porl. An example would be how ENxj's can become very aggresive for a short period of time, but later get lesions and cramps as a result. Or how an IEI might contruct a very logically sound argument, but that has shoddy usage of the actual facts of a situation.

Dimensionality is not about being good at certain subjects, and we cannot make them stronger (i.e. "higher dimensionality"). Dimensionality is an innate quality of the functions (according to SSS), which was your previous argument... and I have partially changed my mind.

It does not tell the strength, but it tells the capacity one has for a certain function.

I meant -Ti, +Te / +Ne, -Ni. I don't think his version of + and - is accurate. For example:

"+Ti/-Te: Betas and Gammas use this functional continuum. It is a judging function so it doesn't have anything to do with the area of expertise. The functions involves common sense intelligence. This function attempts to find the "proper" way to do something; using the social decorum and repetitious logic as a backbone for solving problems. They usually believe there is a right way to proceed; and this right way is usually based upon a pattern of accepting certain standards."

This does not correspond to ILI's -Te, but it corresponds to LSE's +Te.

To be honest, hitta's explanations in that thread are a bit dubious. I do not go by them. The "true model A" image though, is spot on.

[Petter]

I've observed that HA can be as strong as base or demonstrative for short period of time (it is "activated" that's why HA is also called "activation"). The problem with HA is that when a person engages in it, they forget about their porl. An example would be how ENxj's can become very aggresive for a short period of time, but later get lesions and cramps as a result. Or how an IEI might contruct a very logically sound argument, but that has shoddy usage of the actual facts of a situation.

Weak functions (1D, 2D) often pay too little attention to an object or a situation, so our behaviors come across as inappropriate. It is either too much or too little of something. This is probably why you have observed a "strong", i.e. exaggerated, HA.

My view is that IEI's Ti+ is low-dimensional but Ti- is high-dimensional.

To be honest, hitta's explanations in that thread are a bit dubious. I do not go by them. The "true model A" image though, is spot on.

What causes +/- in the "true model A", though? And what kind of +/- do you suggest?