Demonstrative and Mobilizing functions are Accepting NOT Producing.

[Soupman]

You are now mistaking superego relations with extinguishment

How?

Super-ego is swapped ego/super-ego and id/super-id blocks.
Contrary is swapped ego/id and super-ego/super-id blocks, with the introverted functions being stronger.

Not the same.



Define same time? super-ego and ego are both conscious blocks so you have free will to access them at any time. Technically they cannot be used at the same time since they process different information, NF/ST in my case, but you can freely alternate between the two at will depending on which is more useful in context.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...rego-relations

Valentina Meged, Anatoly Ovcharov However, at closer distances these relations develop into rivalry between the partners. Each one tries to impress the other, to show him his own importance or priority in some area. Difficulties in understanding lead to loss of trust and warm feelings for each other as well as hope that at some point you will be understood correctly. Partners are thus forced to try to readjust to one another, to constantly seek common ground, but the balance in these relations is achieved only for a short period of time. Partners react to each other very sharply and overly emotionally and can unintentionally cause each other pain. Sometimes it seems like the other partner is doing everything in order to spite you. Mutual frustration can develop into acute conflicts, especially in more intimate relations and clashes of personal interests. Mutual deafness manifests in the absence of proper attention to the interests of one another and repeated attempts to impose one's own point of view. A need to rest from such relations arises, after which partners sometimes establish contact again. Lack of understanding and support typically leads to gradual cooling of these relations.

What's written here is what makes these relations difficult because "Superego information" competes with "Ego" information bizarrely because the two perspectives actually share the same orientation. Superego types always seem like their are saying the wrong things because they prefer to formulate things in a different manner which undermines what the Ego prefers.

Take "Ne" and "Se" for example in terms of information:
*Ne looks at general patterns as it formulates and understands its world making observations.
*Se looks at general details whilst formulating its understanding of its world making observations.

Because both elements are conscious - they are capable of being "focused on", so for one to be ON the other has to be OFF, therein the confusion and frustration in both Superego and Business relations. IEE will find SEE frustrating at close distances because they'll ignore the "Ne" from IEE suppressing them instead pay attention to obscure details formulating their world in a manner that isn't familiar and not quite right (the same frustration is felt in reverse). Without being an intentional douche-bag there's always the feeling that the other person is trying to undermine you, but also they don't understand you understanding things from an alien perspective. It's actually draining to suppress your ego, turning off so you can consciously focus on paying attention to opposite information. We only process information in the style of our superego when we feel it's absolutely necessary to do so.

For example, you'll only use "Se" informationally when you find it absolutely important to pay attention to minor details as accurately as their are, making broad observations; whereas SEEs (and SLE) by default are always taking minor details seriously and they only look at broad patterns when it's necessary (hence their Ne is turned off).

The ID functions instead are always in the background, unconscious surfacing as necessary. Information wise, they are just the EGO area but examined with a different lens.

[ooo]

Yes. And dichotomies need to add value to the model. Accepting/Producing adds no value in the conscious blocks because it's correlated 100% with other dichotomies, specifically dimensions. And in the unconscious, it's not understandable how 3D accepting functions operate compared to 4D accepting in the conscious blocks.

Accepting/Producing is not really a dichotomy but you're right, none really cares to explain accepting/producing. I'm noting though that if you keep the accepting functions as they are they're the same of your Contrary, but inverted upside down, and if you value dimension instead, you'll have the same order of your Quasi, but inverted, and if you mirror the functions, as you've noticed, you'll find your mirror.

Accepting/producing looks like a rather interesting way to distinguish conscious and unconscious functions, if you have the same dimensionality of your Quasi you can distinguish the two by studying what sort of information they can produce or instead are firm on; base is accepting and 4d, it takes more to be shaken, while creative is producing and 3D, more prone to build bridges and change course based on external things, so 2 Quasis will have opposite ways to be firm and producing, even if they share the same dimensionality. You can say it's because of conscious/unconscious functions, but once the functions of the unconscious become conscious, you're just making a type switch, as you've shown in your first codes. Now, an EIE is supposedly totally another type, not just the shadow of an IEE, so their information content and flow should be different as well.

[Tigerfadder]

If I were to pick them it would be
Accepting : Lead, Ignoring, Mobilizing and PolR
Producing: Demonstrative, Creative, Suggestive and Role

[niffer]

Lol domr I noticed that you never validate or properly acknowledge other people's viewpoints. People are consistently being unnecessarily rude to you here but that's probably why. I mean a conversation like this seems pointless to have.

[Tigerfadder]

So accepting/producing can be used to explain ITR. Duals have the opposite of them, so for example the ILE got suggestive Si- which is the lead of the SEI. The suggestive is producing and lead is accepting. So the 4D lead is rejecting bad suggestions from the 1D suggestive.

In benefit the benefactor is producing with the Creative which is the same as which goes to the Suggestive which is also producing of the benefitter.

It just gets so complex doing all these computations.

[Tigerfadder]

In each block, there is a stronger function. That stronger function is in control of the block, at least in the conscious blocks. Base and Role function are stronger than Creative and Vulnerable so they control the blocks. e.g. an Si>Fe is more focused on understanding the human condition Si while Si<Fe is more focused on influencing humans Fe.

By symmetry, the unconscious blocks should be the same. This makes sense intuitively, that someone who is a conscious perceiver is an unconscious judger and vice-versa. In the current system, the demonstrative is stronger than ignoring functions so it wouldn't be possible for the ignoring function to accept all the information from the demonstrative function. This is a BIG PROBLEM in the current model; unexplained.

It is said that demonstrative is lower energy (?) meaning we spend generally less energy into this function.

Below is my revised Modal A diagram, where I added 2 axes. With this change, the flow of information is the same between conscious and unconscious blocks in terms of I/E.

Horizontal axis is Conscious/Unconscious
Vertical axis Introverted/Extraverted
Flow of information from Producing to Accepting
[Function Strength / Dimensions]

IEE fixed

[1] Ti ---|--> Se [2] (Super-Ego)
[3] Fi ---|--> Ne [4] (Ego)
----------|----------
[3] Ni ---|--> Fe [4] (Id)
[1] Si ---|--> Te [2] (Super Id)

Unfixed IEE (Status Quo)

[1] Ti ---|--> Se [2] (Super-Ego)
[3] Fi ---|--> Ne [4] (Ego)
----------|----------
[3] Ni <--|--- Fe [4] (Id)
[1] Si <--|--- Te [2] (Super Id)

The problem with this diagram is that it says the person prefers weaker functions in the unconscious block while they prefer stronger functions in the conscious block. In addition, the Quasi-identical is the only other type with the same dimensionally to their functions. But if you try creating the Quasi-identical while preserving the current accepting/producing dichotomy, it won't be possible.

Derived EIE Quasi-Identical

[1] Si <--|--- Te [2] (Super-Ego)
[3] Ni <--|--- Fe [4] (Ego)
----------|----------
[3] Fi ---|---> Ne [4] (Id)
[1] Ti ---|---> Se [2] (Super Id)

This model says that your quasi-identical should be an introvert because their conscious introverted functions are producing but that isn't the case.

Derived EIE Quasi-Identical Fixed

[1] Si ---|--> Te [2] (Super-Ego)
[3] Ni ---|--> Fe [4] (Ego)
----------|----------
[3] Fi ---|--> Ne [4] (Id)
[1] Ti ---|--> Se [2] (Super-Id)

This diagram makes sense. By having demonstrative and mobilizing, all one has to do is swap ego<->id and superego<->super-id to go between Quasi-Identicals.

The more I think about it, the more confident I get that this change is correct. This change gets rid of the entire accepting/producing dichotomy by incorporating the information into preference between introversion vs. extroversion.

I just do not get what this solves?

[Tigerfadder]

Where is this from?



Answer this question. What is the difference between the relationship of the Base Function, which is strong/bold (4D) & accepting, and Creative Function, which is strong/cautious (3D) & producing, compared to the relationship of the Demonstrative function, which is strong/bold (4D) & producing, and Ignoring, which is strong/cautious & accepting?

What happens when the accepting function is stronger than the producing?
What happens when the accepting function is weaker than the producing?
In other words, what effect does accepting/producing have with the strength of the function.

If you get rid of accepting/producing, then you don't need to answer this. That is the problem that this solves.

2 more points. If you want to be very rigerous, then you also need to explain where accepting/producing comes from and why it's in the model. With regards to the latter, no one ever uses accepting/producing when describing types or ITR so it's not used hence it has no point of being in the model.

Gulenko's energy model.

Im not sure that, lets take ILE, there is a feed within the blocks with accepting and producing. Ne is the base on which accept reality the way a 4D accepting Ne does. Ti producing 3D creative with help of sometimes a demonstrative forceful approach of producing to aid. Ignoring is accepting but since we already have a 4D accepting Ne in play it overrule the 3D ignoring accepting.

I find looking at the ITR dynamic from producing/accepting fascinating.

[Bertrand]

it sounds like you're asking what does the accepting/producing dichotomy add, and are looking for an explaination of how it functions in 2 cases: 1) when the accepting function is higher dimensionality than the producing one, e.g.: base compared to creative, and then 2) when the producing function is higher dimensionality than the accepting one, as is the case with demonstrative vs. ignoring.

Originally, Aushra Augusta suggested that accepting functions focus on obtaining a picture of reality, and producing functions create some sort of 'new' product that is molded to that cross-cut of reality obtained by the accepting function.

keeping in mind dimensionality is a spatial metaphor for the amount of territory a function covers. so when the base function is 4d, it means it covers the broadest array of ground, accounts for information in a global sense. when it is accepting it means it is the lens through which the person views the world. thus we have a 4d picture of the world, i.e.: this is to say it describes what we mean by the base function, that it structures their overall worldview, and is as complex and wide reaching such a structure can be

when the demonstrative function is producing and 4d, and unconsciously realized, i.e.: as a byproduct of the creative function. what is meant is the demonstrative is a product, i.e.: the result of a producing function that also exists in a 4d capacity, meaning it covers a very broad range. In other words, demonstrative information is information that is unconsciously realized as a byproduct of the creative function that is 4d in character, i.e.: extremely broad ranging in its character, capable of capturing all potential factors that comprise the possible dimensions of a piece of information

You seem to be suggesting that there is some tension between a stronger accepting function and producing and vice versa, but its not like there's some battle over control: you can "produce" a lower dimensional piece of information based on a higher res picture, derived from accepting, and vice versa, i.e.: you can produce a higher dimensional piece of information based on a lower res piece of information. an example of this would be: SLI has creative Te, so they're explaining things that spin out as 4d products of Ti, but are produced as 3d products of Te. This is what happens when you give explanations that tell people only what they need to know. They comport with 4d Ti, i.e.: they do not contradict it, they are consistent and even add to it, but they don't proceed from Ti, they proceed from Te. This is considered "elegant" because the nature of Te "crops" that which is superfluous at the moment (it is not producing a solution for all time, only that moment). The Ti product is itself a 4d piece of information, but the Te product does not transcend time, it is why it is static at that moment. Te in creative position reaches into the dynamic flux and pulls out "cases" i.e.: snapshots of information and captures and relays them in the form of explanations, in the process adding to the Ti body of knowledge, but unconsciously. It is very similar to Ti in the creative position but the difference is in how Ti creates a bottom up structural method that can be used by anyone and is not situation dependent. This creates a 4d Te "solution" or "explanation", which in its extreme form is like theories that extend in time such as Einsteins theory of relativity etc

what you're really asking extends to the core of the theory, but I would suggest trying to digest the above linked article as well as this one before totally discarding accepting/producing, if that is in fact what you're advocating. I think what happened is you set up a prior contradiction on the basis of an assumed premise that was wrong about what dimensionality, function strength, and accepting/producing are really about

[Soupman]

@Betrand thanks for the post as usual. Great explanation through out.

BTW a little factoid caught my eye when you say our 3D "creative Te" only gives people what they need to know - that's so true. We care about relevant facts. We don't feel the need to waste time with extraneous details, but we know all those extraneous with our demonstrative Ti - which are our general solutions, general understanding of how everything fits together.

[niffer]

We care about relevant facts. We don't feel the need to waste time with extraneous detail

I'm hoping you're not lumping in Bertrand the textwall master when you say "our" here.

Some Te creatives are like this but not always.

[Soupman]

I'm hoping you're not lumping in Bertrand the textwall master when you say "our" here.

Some Te creatives are like this but not always.

You caught me there, good observation

On pure facts "Te creatives" do care about facts, nevertheless there's the intellectual Si and Ni which contributes to the wall and often accompanies itself with "Ti" as in Bertrand's whole explanation.

[Bertrand]

You caught me there, good observation

On pure facts "Te creatives" do care about facts, nevertheless there's the intellectual Si and Ni which contributes to the wall and often accompanies itself with "Ti" as in Bertrand's whole explanation.

yeah I mean if I could I would reduce everything to a one line slogan but its just not possible depending on the complexity of the material, keeping in mind the goal and what's being worked with. honestly its a reflection of the pupil 9/10 times. I think on some level they know this and its irritating, they call it "being talked down to" because of its implicit charge of inferiority, but it hasn't risen to the level of consciousness that this is what's going on. niffer essentially is mad I can't break it down further, because it implies shes dumb so I have to spell it out. its like get over it, and don't read the block if it upsets you, but put the blame where it belongs. tomes are written because people are ignorant and recalcitrant

[niffer]

niffer essentially is mad I can't break it down further, because it implies shes dumb so I have to spell it out.

I actually think you're dumb because it's like you're incapable of being concise and have no consideration for the audience.

its like get over it, and don't read the block if it upsets you

I usually don't.

It's not just that they're in a block, it's that your ideas are convoluted and redundant most of the time too, if not completely misguided.

On top of that, you're emotionally toxic and pathetic, and incapable of not taking every chance to be passive-aggressive that you can get.

[Bertrand]

@Betrand thanks for the post as usual. Great explanation through out.

BTW a little factoid caught my eye when you say our 3D "creative Te" only gives people what they need to know - that's so true. We care about relevant facts. We don't feel the need to waste time with extraneous details, but we know all those extraneous with our demonstrative Ti - which are our general solutions, general understanding of how everything fits together.

yeah totally, if people care to really think about what is left out it says as much as what is included. I always get accused of leaving stuff out but its all there by implication, people just process information differently so for them its like this black box. I sympathize but at the same time I feel like I could never make a point if I had to address every possible question or unknown prior to making my point. its like I would literally have to start from the beginning every single time. I find that super disorienting, rather I just try to estimate the approximate knowledge level of whoever I'm speaking to. I honestly don't know how Ti types do it. A lot of times to speed things up I just make analogies, "this is like that" that way people can link their understanding to something and skip ahead working with that substitute analogy as the basis for whatever is at hand going forward

[niffer]

@Soupman You have yet to answer my question directed towards you from a couple posts above.

Accepting/producing doesn't seem to be very well fleshed-out to me so far. Regardless of the OPs position, it further highlights it to me. I would like to see examples of this dichotomy playing out in reality outside of theory. It's vague and meaningless otherwise, and if nobody can come up with anything supporting it, it may as well be discarded.

[Soupman]

@Soupman You have yet to answer my question directed towards you from a couple posts above.

Accepting/producing doesn't seem to be very well fleshed-out to me so far. Regardless of the OPs position, it further highlights it to me. I would like to see examples of this dichotomy playing out in reality outside of theory. It's vague and meaningless otherwise, and if nobody can come up with anything supporting it, it may as well be discarded.

@niffer
....continued

Sorry I got lost in other questions, nevertheless I'll try to explain succinctly as possible:

Accepting information is always the foundation and there people in sync (rationality) always want to make sure the base point is unanimously agreed upon (if not disorientation will build). ILI and ILE will focus on establishing base-ideas, base observations on whatever they are thinking about; they make prepositions about that thing and need to come to an agreement. On producing information they are more flexible - open to information so long as it doesn't antagonize what their prepositions are; and are very open to whatever is complementary to their point, if given a hundred and one reasons to reject a project ILI will take 'em, when rationals (LIE & LII) debunk one, they always have the other to fall back on and they don't get annoyed... ILE will take mutually a hundred and one justifications to support a project, re-justifying how it'll work.

Now rationals, for example LII and LIE have their accepting vs producing in reverse. To summarize they need reason on forefront justifying their direction and focus. They need to establish a main reasoning line to fall on, and need to keep this sturdy and stable without much endless questioning - they are slower to come to this and slower to change their mind (without irritation). On producing matters they are very flexible, open to all complementary ideas and perspectives supporting their reasoning. LII will re-explain ideas a couple of ways, and aren't afraid of discarding viewpoints so long as they remain complementary to how they view things. LIE will always be open to a hundred perspectives on their projects but don't want their reasons scrutinized.

The accepting vs producing conflict happens quite obviously with irrationals pondering "irrelevant" ideas from the basis of rationals, since they are slower to come to focus. Whilst rationals want to get direction and which looks like looking for conclusions firstly for irrationals. LIE will be most irritated by ILI who'll start to pick apart their projects, and they'll feel like they are invading their personal space for reasoning. However oddly ILIs are figuratively "conservative" in their outlook minimizing chaotic viewpoints - when LIEs won't want such a restrictive outlook; LIE will find ILE's lack of immediate focus annoying but find they aren't too bad with plenty of complementary ideas and observations (ILEs will notice that LIEs are sensitive to their reasons being picked apart with questions critiquing justifications). LIE and LII will find common ground in accepting information - but can get irritated with the introversion vs extroversion angle (LIIs looking to fit everything together whilst LIEs want evidence, supporting facts in reasoning).

[niffer]

I mean I guess I could see it as one way of conceptualizing rational/irrational types and how they process things. It seems odd to leave it as a dichotomy with the functions labeled rather than framing it as more of a concept. But sure...

[Bertrand]

I don't think anyone cares if you discard what you don't understand in the first place, at least as long as you don't get aggressive about taking it away from other people because you don't think you need it and therefore no one does

[niffer]

But you guys have never explained why you need it yourselves either lol

[Bertrand]

I don't strictly speaking need it, but I don't see that as sufficient reason to declare it useless and merit discarding either

you're now doing precisely what I said not to do, which is be aggressive about what people do or do not need

if you want to ignore accepting/producing thats fine, but you don't need to wage war on the concept as if its somehow wrong

which is basically what domr is doing, which is sort of quixotic and amusing when I feel like their effort would be better spent elsewhere, but lest I be a hypocrite to each their own

[niffer]

if you want to ignore accepting/producing thats fine, but you don't need to wage war on the concept as if its somehow wrong

is this a joke

[niffer]

Well don't get in people's way of testing its usefulness then.


Not that you are per se.

[Bertrand]

you guys are like playing out a ridiculous stereotype that socionics was designed to unwind

in any case I don't care, its not like anyone's going to adopt your recommendations anyway

and even if they did, I wouldn't shed a tear for accepting/producing. my only dog in this fight is the deeper concept about how you go about conducting your business in general, but perhaps thats a lost cause too, so I won't continue

[Bertrand]

there's a difference between "testing somethings usefulness" and loading the dice by rendering a thing useless up front, the "test" is just a sham trial at that point

you've essentially defined it as useless via some failed attempt to understand it in the first place. its like jeez if you hate it that much just let it go, you don't need to convince everyone how bad it is by running "tests" that were always doomed to fail. its just a weird self fulfilling prophecy. if you want to "test" it realize its the difference between mirrors and move on

domr: its a mechanical way to articulate the difference between mirrors, it would be useful if you ever wondered if someone was e or i and had a firm grasp on the mechanics. this would be useful mainly for strong Ti types, who could draw on such a method. for you, its probably worthless, but this is how SEE ends up conflicting with LII and IEE with LSI, etc its that extroverted tendency to try and expand into introverted thinking territory

[niffer]

you're basically saying people should never question the theory though as the alternative, or it's what you're implying.

because in order to question it you need to do that. there's no way around it.

[niffer]

right .... edit your post a million times backpedaling


you seem to be emotionally defending the established structures for no reason other than sentimentality. the dichotomy could be explained by a million other dichotomies like simply the rational/irrational one. why throw my teddy bear away even though it's tattered and worn. wah wah wah. except it's not a teddy bear so it's weird af.


and now you're making some weird empty ad hominem threat about 'conducting business' ... wtf batshit confirmed


maybe all this like reflects how you're afraid of being discarded yourself once you're useless. think about that!

[Bertrand]

alright stay safe

[niffer]

stay retarded

[ooo]

This is dumb honestly, I don't get what's the need to erase accepting/producing but then keep conscious/unconscious, dimensions, and all the other things that are built inside the model. If you keep the conscious and unconscious you're accepting that there are 16 types, and that's what the accepting/producing functions are for, but if you only remove the accepting/producing you're basically creating the same level of products going from the conscious to the unconscious and vice versa, and so what's the need for 16 types, for a division of the conscious/unconscious... and for dimensionality? I asked you this already but niffer closed the thread. Feel free to answer, or not.

[niffer]

I rather like this person's post on the topic, to bring in some more perspective/understanding on this stuff:

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics...l#post20632450

Think it would be interesting to group inert and contact functions according to them being accepting or producing.

Accepting inert functions (Base and Ignoring) - strong 4D and 3D functions; permanently analyse, research and examine information that goes through the corresponding channels. Results of such analysis can be observed mostly indirectly (because functions are accepting) through producing functions. For the same reason (circulation of information being done all internally and in an accumulative way) it may seem to others that person doesn't process information through these functions and their work may be invisible to others (I think this is particularly true for Pi base). Being inert functions, they are rigid and difficult to change, characterized by long reaction ("chew things over" for longer periods of time), strong fixation and remaining relatively constant.

Accepting contact functions (Role and Suggestive) - weak 2D and 1D functions; permanently absorb all the available information through corresponding channels without preliminary analysis or critical approach. Such information is accepted as bunches of data, which can undergo later analysis, but mostly it's not well-ordered and is simply taken for granted. When trying to validate information going through these channels person tends to fall back on citing some authorities (limit oneself by someone else's opinions due to unsophisticated understanding of those information elements), e.g. "I heard this thing on the radio...", "I've read blah-blah-blah in a blog" etc. Being contact they quickly react to external information and easily switch between different portions of information incoming.

Producing inert functions (Vulnerable and Activating) - weak 1D and 2D functions; information accumulated in accepting channels finds its meaning and actualization through producing functions, but hence they are inert, weak and are based on personal experience and values of society (dimensions of experience and norms) information produced becomes pretty much rigid and formulaic. Through these functions system of personal stereotypes concerning society can be formed - personal ideas about what makes an awesome person in a society (Hidden agenda in Super-Id), or ideas about what society permanently demands from an individual and they don't know how to adequately produce it (PoLR in Superego).

This also nicely delineates two 1D functions. We suck at them both, but do it differently. 1D valued Suggestive, which is accepting and contact, naturally and promiscuously downloads and saves everything that comes in its vicinity through corresponding channels without really knowing what to do with all the stuff it swallows, while 1D unvalued PoLR, being producing and inert, experience major difficulties with accumulation and adaptation, thus oriented more at development of behavioral models for reference, which can be used when person faces situations requiring usage of PoLR.

Producing contact (Creative and Demonstrative) - strong 3D and 4D functions; the most mobile and versatile functions, person easily controls internal states and information within those channels and able to use them entirely to their own advantage. Person easily shares information through these functions with others and at the same time easily manipulates it. These functions are responsible for creativity and production of new arrays of information and their products are the most visible to others, so people may mistake them for their base functions. However, such "success" of producing contact functions becomes possible only as a result of scrupulous work of strong accepting inert functions.

[ooo]

#6 Jung mentions that functions are in direct opposite to each other. This is now viewed as the function axis and from this we derive valued/unvalued function. We value the base and creative function and their counterbalances, the mobilizing and suggestive.
#7 Jung never defines the actual strength of functions relative to each other but he makes it clear that the dominant function has to be the strongest or else 2 functions will fight for control. This is where the strong/weak dichotomy comes from.

Yes correct, so how are you able to define what the valued functions are between Base and Demonstrative? Not only they have the same dimensionality, but you say they produce the same content of information, if you remove accepting/producing.

The reason you don't need accepting/producing is because it's built into the model by combing #5 & #7 . The stronger function in each block = accepting, weaker function = producing.

This is not the case for the Super-ego and for the ID.

you need some form of dimensionality to differentiate the dominate function and by extension the stronger block with the dominate function.

Yeah, the dimensionality that you wanted to change? By dimensionality conscious and unconscious are the same, inverted... exactly.

[ooo]

Now you are starting to think. This is the key difference to note. They do not produce the same content. Base and Demonstrative differ in perception/judgement so one is responsible for your strongest data acquisition function while the other is responsible for your strongest decision making process. Because base is valued while demonstrative is not, base will usually be in control, until the demonstrative overules it. This was one of the key discovered I made and the only way to realize this is by removing accepting/producing dichotomy.

lol this makes absolutely no sense but glad you're so convinced about this.

Very easily, you're removing the thing that distinguishes those 2 functions, and claim that they're different because of strength, which is the thing to give them a value. Actually, if you remove that dichotomy, you're left with equal strength between the functions, so you'll have to explain how we give a value to one and not the other in a way that doesn't include strength.

[niffer]

For IRL example, Steve Jobs (LSI). He had laser pin-point precision for detail (Si) and he had to make sure all the details were perfect on all products. He often cared more about the product looking nice than it working, which implies that Si was accepting, not Te.

This is example is okay but you need a clearer one. Steve Jobs was also a business mogul. He made the products for his business, not for fun or to jack off to the Si alone at home without money.

So nice try but it's too ambiguous. Try again.

Also most people think Jobs is EIE on this forum lol (I actually am pleasantly surprised someone also thinks he's LSI-- nice to meet you!)

It'd be better if rather than celebrities (due to disparate opinions on their type) you just tried to recall and describe in detail an irl example from your own life. @domr

[niffer]

That's not correct. Look at Warren Buffet (SLI). He is also in the business to make money but he only invests in stable companies with steady cash flows. He doesn't do speculative investing like other business people. Your view of business moguls is too narrow, you think they all act the same. Truth is there are major differences between different execs based on their personality types.

Ok you are self-sabotaging by bringing up a quasi type though and how you view them as being different. Because you're trying to explain these behaviours using dimensionality right now, and quasis have the same dimensionality. If demonstrative and mobilizing were indeed accepting and functioned like normal dimensionality theory says they should then the types would be more similar not more different in this sense. So you arguing what you are now is nonsensical towards what you're trying to prove.

[ooo]

I'm not. You can distinguish base from demonstrative based on which is valued and which is conscious. Value is defined by which functions are in your ego block and their opposite, hence super-id block.

If the value is defined by strength, as you said, then how the hell do you distinguish base from demo? Yes, value implies the base, but it doesn't tell how we display of what we value. Base and demo have all the same parameters if you erase accepting/producing, so you need to tell the difference between the two from your use of them. And there's no dichotomy for that but accept/producing... value doesn't do that either.

[ooo]

Value and Strength are two difference concepts. Each function has it's own strength (1-4). Value is defined by which functions are in your ego block and their corresponding counterweights, the super-id functions. Value = ego & super-id. Simple.

http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/model_a/

Read Model A. Valued/Unvalued is a distinct dichotomy from Accepting/Producing.


EDIT: Looking over that model, it's interesting that they reduced Modal A from the full dichotomy list to only a partial-list.

You keep twisting rationale based on the problems presented. Kind of tricky to discuss with you.

I'm aware that strength and value are not the same thing, it was you to say that valued functions follow strength, some posts above. Anyway, glad you got it.

Also you need to take a step back and think about why we have valued/unvalued in the model. What is the point? The only reason you need this dichotomy is to create the Quadras. That is all this dichotomy does.

Lol, oh dear.. this is so twisted. It's also the question I've been making to you since the scratch; yeah, what's the reason behind valued/unvalued!? But more to the point, what distinguishes 2 similarly strong functions when one is valued and the other isn't? This is what distinguishes accepting/producing. Value/Invalued doesn't tell you what sort of content is produced out of the functions used.

[niffer]

@ooo with those other dichotomies there's nothing analogous to replace them with. but with accepting/producing, there's at least rational/irrational. and inert/contact too. this makes it pretty redundant.


i guess, i could see accepting/producing (and inert/contact) as ways of elaborating on rational/irrational. that means they don't each constitute things that meaningfully divide like some other dichotomies; they are just elaborations on a single concept. nvm

[ooo]

@ooo with those other dichotomies there's nothing analogous to replace them with. but with accepting/producing, there's at least rational/irrational. and inert/contact too. this makes it pretty redundant.

Yes, but if you keep the model without giving a priority to how those things manifest, then you're saying that a SLE is like an LSE. So you need values to determinate what plays a major role in the psyche, and that will come with accepting/producing, because one function will be a firm principle to you and the other will be a way to elaborate things. Inert contact is just another way to say accepting/producing, ye.

i guess, i could see accepting/producing (and inert/contact) as ways of elaborating on rational/irrational. that means they don't each constitute things that meaningfully divide like some other dichotomies; they are just elaborations on a single concept.

Alright, but this will work case by case, a rational will have an irrational producing/contact, and the opposite for an irrational.

[niffer]

Yes, but if you keep the model without giving a priority to how those things manifest, then you're saying that a SLE is like an LSE. So you need values to determinate what plays a major role in the psyche, and that will come with accepting/producing, because one function will be a firm principle to you and the other will be a way to elaborate things. Inert contact is just another way to say accepting/producing, ye.

Alright, but this will work case by case, a rational will have an irrational producing/contact, and the opposite for an irrational.

Yeah I realized that after about irrational/rational. But then inert/contact is the exact same thing at least, only with mildly different conceptual explanations attached to the same division/functions, as you seem to have noted as well.

This tiny bit of redundancy is not a big deal but even so it's worth addressing. nvm

[ooo]

Yeah I realized that after about irrational/rational. But then inert/contact is the exact same thing at least, only with mildly different conceptual explanations attached to the same division/functions, as you seem to have noted as well.

Yes it's the same thing but they're used for different reasons, inert contact functions are used to find your subtype, you could say that you can find it even with accepting/producing, but they're addressing different things. Accepting/producing comes in help to determine your type, contact/inert to determinate subtype.

This tiny bit of redundancy is not a big deal but even so it's worth addressing.

There's a complexity in here that is fast overlooked without making all the correct passages, me thinks, but I agree it's worth addressing it.

For example I liked the article of the ages you gave me because by saying that we develop our ID first, the idea of focusing on accepting/producing might seem superfluous, but then, if we develop first our IDs, that will become Egos, it will mean we have 16 different IDs, as there are 16 Egos, not 8. Actually, thanks to inert/contact there are more of them.