Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Signed Information Elements and Mathematics

  1. #1
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Signed Information Elements and Mathematics

    While working on some problems in mathematics, I happened to be reflecting upon the ways in which the signed information elements are used in the process of doing mathematics, mentally, socially, and otherwise. Feel free to offer constructive feedback, as I know that there are other people who are interested in this topic. Of course, all of these processes are inter-related and not truly separate. However, I'm just trying to capture a gist of them.

    Logic

    +Ti (Process/Positivist Causal-Determinist): Understanding the limitations imposed by uniform structure, and maximizing compliance with logical instructions

    217411.image0.jpg 31d17122b9e49d56b357fc68f7c38441.jpg

    -Ti (Result/Negativist Holographic-Panoramic): Grasping all angles of conceptual schematic structures, and synthesizing minimal structures to answer questions

    PMC3367694_rstb20120103-g2.png ZS7OUb5.jpg

    -Te (Process/Negativist Dialectical-Algorithmic): Narrowing down to the minimal means to accomplish something, monitoring processes to ensure their working order

    1200px-Max_paraboloid.svg.png how-to-choose-a-network-monitoring-software.png

    +Te (Result/Positivist Vortical-Synergetic): Noticing what something could be used for, and attempting promising methods to attain the best result possible

    bill-gates-chilhood.jpg 1*Wr3cdGudU95fOLbTi0oQrA.png


    Intuition

    +Ne (Process/Positivist Causal-Determinist): Curiosity about prospective implications, generating different possibilities from structural circumstances

    sL17t.png original-3520096-3.jpg

    -Ne (Result/Negativist Holographic-Panoramic): Looking at a problem from a more interesting angle, overturning structural assumptions that limit what is possible

    813Y5STLuTL.jpg 11+Waterfall.jpg

    -Ni (Process/Negativist Dialectical-Algorithmic): Apprehending sequential patterns in events, extrapolating associations to understand their development

    a61a3369-e787-4bc2-9607-7a15873e572d.gif factflow.gif

    +Ni (Result/Positivist Vortical-Synergetic): Keeping in mind the positive end goal for a problem, using it as inspiration to fuel new approaches and attempts

    cathedrals-prog.jpg Famous+Hilbert+Talk+in+1900+Presented+the+23+problems+for+research.jpg


    I'll start with Logic and Intuition and add Sensorics and Ethics next due to file attachment limitations.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Varlawend; 01-14-2019 at 06:22 PM.

  2. #2
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Signed Information Elements and Mathematics

    Sensorics

    +Se (Process/Positivist Causal-Determinist): Making use of mathematics for its social influence, organizing math around its prestige and benefit

    britishtheor.jpg DO1zMFoU8AA2yTa.jpg

    -Se (Result/Negativist Holographic-Panoramic): Forming structural hierarchy of strength, understanding the power math grants in competition

    corporate-hierarchy-structure-chart-clipart__k8413855.jpg 140530-F-RN211-003.JPG

    -Si (Process/Negativist Dialectical-Algorithmic): Staying grounded in the human condition of discomfort of problem solving, using math to relieve immediate care issues

    tensed-handsome-man-thinking-hard-at-home_1262-5881.jpg 800px_COLOURBOX2704644.jpg

    +Si (Result/Positivist Vortical-Synergetic): Directly observing the working state of the problem, designing towards a particular material end product

    Construction-Site-Security.jpg PHOTOS-BY-TOMAS-KRAL-PCM-JARA-VARELA4.jpg


    Ethics

    +Fi (Process/Positivist Causal-Determinist): Educating in math to improve human lives and relations, making sure math is used for a good purpose

    gambianewphoto.jpg math-genius-turns-down-1m-prize.jpeg

    -Fi (Result/Negativist Holographic-Panoramic): Using the integrity of math to protect oneself and loved ones, systematizing one's moral duties

    250px-Public_key_encryption.svg.png Xray.jpg

    -Fe (Process/Negativist Dialectical-Algorithmic): Orienting around the higher human purpose in mathematics, incorporating math into one's purpose or role

    Let+no+one+ignorant+of+geometry+enter+here.jpg Pythagoras.jpg

    +Fe (Result/Positivist Vortical-Synergetic): Sharing the enthusiasm of math with others, generating joy and excitement around mathematics

    b47f182b-f5d0-4b14-b2a9-72de0e6c6fe2.jpg 116096.jpg
    Attached Images Attached Images

  3. #3
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think Gulenko’s sign descriptions are correct, but I like Bukalov’s notation system better because its symmetry works better IMO. They make more sense in terms of quardra values. The Gulenko version claims that duals value and seek different IEs, which goes against Model A concepts.

  4. #4
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    I think Gulenko’s sign descriptions are correct, but I like Bukalov’s notation system better because its symmetry works better IMO. They make more sense in terms of quardra values. The Gulenko version claims that duals value and seek different IEs, which goes against Model A concepts.
    Thanks for your feedback.

    -I'm not familiar with Bukalov's notation system and how it compares with Gulenko's. That said, I don't particularly prize symmetry. While symmetry is clearly important, the asymmetric aspects of reality interest me just as much because they hint beyond our understanding, and beyond the adequacy of our concepts.

    -Quadra values are a very complex topic indeed, because they are reflected across multiple levels: in individuals, in organizations, in eras, etc.

    -I don't think Gulenko's Model G goes against Model A in the abstract, though it does rename certain things, such as "values", which were quite questionable in their precise formulation anyways. This may give it the appearance of going against it. Model G could be seen as one particular instantiation of Model A with some added structure, and there are of course many ways to do this (not just Gulenko's, though I've found his useful).

    -I'm not sure what you mean by duals seeking different IE's. It seems to me that everyone seeks different IE's based on their particular needs. It is true that Gulenko doesn't prize the duality relation as much as some other Socionists do though; this could be the genesis of what you are referring to. You seem to mean something more systematic, but I don't recall it from my studies.

  5. #5
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
    Thanks for your feedback.

    -I'm not familiar with Bukalov's notation system and how it compares with Gulenko's. That said, I don't particularly prize symmetry. While symmetry is clearly important, the asymmetric aspects of reality interest me just as much because they hint beyond our understanding, and beyond the adequacy of our concepts.

    -Quadra values are a very complex topic indeed, because they are reflected across multiple levels: in individuals, in organizations, in eras, etc.

    -I don't think Gulenko's Model G goes against Model A in the abstract, though it does rename certain things, such as "values", which were quite questionable in their precise formulation anyways. This may give it the appearance of going against it. Model G could be seem as one particular instantiation of Model A with some added structure, and there are of course many ways to do this (not just Gulenko's, though I've found his useful).

    -I'm not sure what you mean by duals seeking different IE's. It seems to me that everyone seeks different IE's based on their particular needs. It is true that Gulenko doesn't prize the duality relation as much as some other Socionists do though; this could be the genesis of what you are referring to. You seem to mean something more systematic, but I don't recall it from my studies.
    Like he thinks SLIs seek Ne+ in this system. That just doesn’t make sense to me. That’s what I mean by lack of symmetry and going against Model A.

  6. #6
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Like he thinks SLIs seek Ne+ in this system. That just doesn’t make sense to me. That’s what I mean by lack of symmetry and going against Model A.
    Interesting, my studies of Model G would suggest that SLI's seek both +Ne and -Ne.

    -On their functional chart, for example, their Suggestive/Manipulative function is labeled as -Ne. This is what is usually seen as the dualizing function, the function by which the type can be controlled and where they seek stable, long-term habits. This is the Program function of their IEE dual, so I'm not sure what you mean.

    e.g.
    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Gulenko
    6. Manipulative function -I - intuition of possibilitiesHe loves when his abilities and achievements are appreciated. If his results are not noticed, then all desire to try is lost. If his abilities are not needed for a long time, then he may even get sick. Needs new, unusual problem situations that distract him from the gray of everyday life. If the event is not interesting to him, then he will not be concerned about his business or simply turn off. He needs to be encouraged and inspired to work, otherwise he relaxes and falls into melancholy. Without new exciting goals, his physical tone drops. You need to speak with him in the language of compliments and praise, to assure you of the imminent success. His condition is optimal when success now and then eludes, although it is somewhere very close by.


    -It is also true that SLI have the comfortable working relationship with +Ne, their Semi-Dual function. This can extend into Semi-Dual displacement into the adjacent installation of Researchers, meaning that SLI can learn to operate the function of +Ne with considerable facility in a working environment, should this be necessary, but they are not dualized by it.

  7. #7
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
    Interesting, my studies of Model G would suggest that SLI's seek both +Ne and -Ne.

    -On their functional chart, for example, their Suggestive/Manipulative function is labeled as -Ne. This is what is usually seen as the dualizing function, the function by which the type can be controlled and where they seek stable, long-term habits. This is the Program function of their IEE dual, so I'm not sure what you mean.

    e.g.

    -It is also true that SLI have the comfortable working relationship with +Ne, their Semi-Dual function. This can extend into Semi-Dual displacement into the adjacent installation of Researchers, meaning that SLI can learn to operate the function of +Ne with considerable facility in a working environment, should this be necessary, but they are not dualized by it.
    Oh, hm. I’m not that familiar with Model G. He may have updated or tweaked his understanding then, as he’s done several times with the +/- system apparently. Either it was in conversation with @Olimpia or on one of his brochure translations where I remember it being talked about that duals prefer the more familiar non-dual IE over what they “need”, which makes sense, but I still don’t agree with ascribing those in light of entire quadra values. I agree though with what you said about the comfortable working relationship with the semi-dual function etc., the stronger version of their IEs, and that also fits all signage paradigms afaik.

    Another aspect of the symmetry I was talking about with Bukalov’s version AKA Model B (which Gulenko also adopted at some point) is that it allows the 4 quadras to be linked in a continuous lattice structure, so it’s not just arbitrary symmetry either lol. This breaks apart with the Gulenko version.

    If you haven’t seen Model B you might want to take a look. It’d be kind of ironic to not be interested in it if you’re interested in mathematics.

  8. #8
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    Oh, hm. I’m not that familiar with Model G. He may have updated or tweaked his understanding then, as he’s done several times with the +/- system apparently. Either it was in conversation with @Olimpia or on one of his brochure translations where I remember it being talked about that duals prefer the more familiar non-dual IE over what they “need”, which makes sense, but I still don’t agree with ascribing those in light of entire quadra values. I agree though with what you said about the comfortable working relationship with the semi-dual function etc., the stronger version of their IEs, and that also fits all signage paradigms afaik.

    Another aspect of the symmetry I was talking about with Bukalov’s version AKA Model B (which Gulenko also adopted at some point) is that it allows the 4 quadras to be linked in a continuous lattice structure, so it’s not just arbitrary symmetry either lol. This breaks apart with the Gulenko version.

    If you haven’t seen Model B you might want to take a look. It’d be kind of ironic to not be interested in it if you’re interested in mathematics.
    -Yeah, he probably updated his model. I know he's done this with his +/- system. Duals only prefer the non-dual IE in a limited sense: the sense of using it as a tool in a comfortable working environment. Otherwise, the dual IE exerts a greater influence since it provides more energetic support and is in phase in terms of Process/Results.

    -I don't think Gulenko's model breaks any of these symmetries. Bukalov's model is indeed very interesting. However, when it comes to mathematical understanding of Socionics, I would have to recommend the work of @thehotelambush which incorporates group theory, lattice theory, hypercube geometry and even more advanced mathematics to give an even more general formulation of Socionics than that of Bukalov.

    https://wholesocionics.herokuapp.com/

    The PDF of the paper can be found at the bottom of the above webpage.

  9. #9
    Olimpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Europe
    TIM
    So/Sx Introvert
    Posts
    7,961
    Mentioned
    717 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)

    Default

    I would assume that people appreciate both + and - versions of their Dual-seeking IE, but naturally the one of their Dual would be preferable.

    So in the above example, SLI would appreciate both + and -Ne, but their Dual IEE preferring -Ne, they'd also prefer -Ne.

    In a similar vein, an IEE can employ both + and -Ne if necessary (especially if they are Ne subtype, "boosted" Ne). But the IEE will still primarily operate with -Ne.


    In Semi-Duality, both people will adapt to the other in some way, realizing that the other individual prefers the other notation. So, more than usual, they will operate from the other "direction". But it won't be permanent, only limited to that relation (or similar ones, like Activity).

    So, with an SEI, the IEE will be led to use more +Ne around/for them, and the SEI will use more +Si for the IEE. But outside of that constellation, they will primarily focus on the other notation.
    New Youtube [x] Get Typed! [x]
    Celebs [x] Theory [x] Tumblr [x]

    *********** 21-04-19:
    "Looks like a mystic that just arrived to battle and staring out at the battle, ready to unleash"



  10. #10
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Olimpia View Post
    I would assume that people appreciate both + and - versions of their Dual-seeking IE, but naturally the one of their Dual would be preferable.

    So in the above example, SLI would appreciate both + and -Ne, but their Dual IEE preferring -Ne, they'd also prefer -Ne.

    In a similar vein, an IEE can employ both + and -Ne if necessary (especially if they are Ne subtype, "boosted" Ne). But the IEE will still primarily operate with -Ne.


    In Semi-Duality, both people will adapt to the other in some way, realizing that the other individual prefers the other notation. So, more than usual, they will operate from the other "direction". But it won't be permanent, only limited to that relation (or similar ones, like Activity).

    So, with an SEI, the IEE will be led to use more +Ne around/for them, and the SEI will use more +Si for the IEE. But outside of that constellation, they will primarily focus on the other notation.
    That's essentially how I would understand it as well, and how I hypothesized it to work in Model A2 several years ago.

    In Model G duals do share the same signs (both are either Process or Result), which may indicate that your dual's version is the one you seek. Unfortunately this also means that Model G excludes the semidual's version completely. This asymmetry/incompleteness is a step backwards from Model A.

  11. #11
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ... Aka Model B / Bukalov lol.

  12. #12
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    In Model G duals do share the same signs (both are either Process or Result), which may indicate that your dual's version is the one you seek. Unfortunately this also means that Model G excludes the semidual's version completely. This asymmetry/incompleteness is a step backwards from Model A.
    I've heard this said a number of times lately, but it is only a misconception that seems to have unfortunately spread. That's not necessarily your fault; maybe this is because people have tried to understand Model G using either:
    -old papers from nearly 30 years ago
    -modern type charts taken out of context which don't well represent the model as a whole

    Let's take LII as an example, since it is presumably your type (and, incidentally, Victor Gulenko's), because giving a concrete example might make things clearer. The fact of the matter is that LII's have access to both +Fe and -Fe in Model G. Both are sought/used in different ways, and it is most assuredly not the case that either function is excluded. Above, sbbds seemed to claim that Gulenko excluded +Fe from the LII, and now, thehotelambush seems to be claiming that Gulenko excludes -Fe from the LII. Both of these claims are factually incorrect, and therefore a claim that Model G is a step backwards from Model A on those assumptions is unsound. However, you may have different reasons for not wanting to use it.

    +Fe would be the Suggestive/Manipulative function to -Ti (LII) in the sense of its energetic flow (both +Fe and -Ti are involutionary, or left spinning). Here is some of what this means:
    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Gulenko
    6. Manipulative - driven, stable, internal. Long-term memorization patterns of behavior, habits. The position of the power supply, sets a smooth way to control the type.
    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Gulenko
    2. Social relations.

    These relations include Duality, Activity, Super-ego, and Conflict. These relations are designed for fitting into society, creating a family, making a circle of friends, finding one's social group. These relations put a load on type's vital functions (positions 3, 4, 5, 6).

    2. 1. Light social relations.

    Duality – Family with few children that lives separately from relatives. In the foreground is convenience, application of minimum of effort while achieving maximum results in getting along in the household.
    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Gulenko
    4. Decelerating-accelerating relations.

    These relations are similar to a swinging pendulum, but in contrast with relations of resonance they do not require compulsory attuning from partners. Such an adjustment is automatic after a while. The movement goes from minus (deceleration) to plus (acceleration) in the first half of the cycle of interaction and then swings in the opposite direction in the second half of the cycle.

    Adaptation of partners to each other takes place more smoothly and naturally than in relations of resonance. Thus another name for these types of relations is "symbiotic relations". Symbiosis is a mutually beneficial co-existence based on cooperation. The main recommendation for symbiotic relations: "surrender to the will of the waves," do not try to prove anything to each other, strictly separate duties, behave the way you want to and allow for your partner to do same.

    4.1 Duality - in-phase energy oscillations of opposite temperaments. Dual relations provide for the greatest degree of life comfort to both partners.


    None of the above precludes the LII having a different sort of relationship to -Fe in Model G, and in fact this is precisely what occurs. In 1996, Gulenko and his wife wrote a fascinating paper called "Вторичная установка на вид деятельности" in which they explain the notion of Semi-Dual displacement in adjacent installations. This notion is critical to understanding Gulenko's model. Semi-Duality is a comfortable working relationship and it is also frequently the case that a person will use their Semi-Dual function (-Fe) if they are working in their instrumental installation, which is the Humanitarian installation for LII:

    From the 1996 paper:
    In addition to the primary installation on the type of activity it makes sense to allocate and secondary, in which a person also seeks to realize their abilities. It is adjacent to the primary one and is characterized not so much by the generation of ideas, as by business-likeness and realism.

    It should be noted that in the secondary sphere of activity a person then realizes himself successfully, if he does not lose a strong connection with his native, primary installation. In fact, work is being done at the junction of two installations. And here it is important to keep the proportion: to interfere in the area of ​​their secondary interests so that its main carriers do not reject you as a hostile invader.
    How to determine the secondary installation in the type?
    The combinatorial-dichotomic analysis of the socionic model shows that it has two sides - value and instrumental. We are interested in this case instrumental, working positions - 2, 3, 5, 8, that is, the whole right side of the position chart, if we use the Kiev numbering.
    If the instrumental positions are filled with humanitarian aspects (E, R, I, T), then the secondary installation of the type is humanitarian. Its representatives are the types PT, LI, FR, SE. When instrumental positions are filled with managerial aspects (F, S, P, L), a group of secondary managers is formed - IL, TP, ES, RF.
    By completing the instrumental part of the model with the scientistic aspects (I, T, P, L), we get a group of secondary scientific researchers - ET, RI, FL, SP. When performing a similar operation with social aspects, we will complete the classification by a group of secondary socials - PS, LF, IR, TE.
    From the point of view of intertype shifts, this tendency can be called self-predualization, by analogy with the term self-dualization, which has long been an input for socionics. The difference between these two processes is that a person self-dualizes to achieve psychological comfort in an informal communicative environment, and self-semi-dualizes for a comfortable formal, working activity.
    Let us trace the semi-dual shift in all types of socion.
    1. Humanitarian displacement.

    An entrepreneur often chooses a job as an educator, likes to mess with children, reminding in this of a Humanist.
    The analyst seeks to find strict laws in psychology, to inspire people to a new ideology, emotionally and fascinatingly feeds the material, which is similar to the Mentor.
    A politician is not averse to submitting himself to a thin, melancholic person, weak and defenseless, who needs a strong support, which is a shift towards Lyrics.
    The mediator is often extroverted, makes compliments to people's abilities, and gives advice on difficult psychological situations, like a counselor.
    Gulenko also describes Semi-Duality briefly here:

    3. Working relations.

    This group includes Semi-duality, Direct Request (benefit), Business (look-alike), and Reverse Supervision. Working relations create productive teams of co-workers and collaborators who share a common pragmatic goal and skillfully distribute responsibilities and assignments. Communication in these relations puts a load on instrumental functions - 2, 3, 5, 8 positions.

    3.1 Light work relations.

    Semi-duality - Relations of comfortable business collaboration. In semi-dual pair everything can be discussed and arranged in a way that interests of both partners are respected equally.

    4.3 Semi-duality - lag by a quarter period, transition from Duality to Extinguishment. Decreasing distance difficulties with adaptation arise because you will have to overcome the opposition of values and tastes. Partner does that which was expected of him but with an obvious delay.
    Here is also a more recent article (2017) on the topic explaining more of the reasons behind the importance of Semi-Dual and Mirage shifts, which allow the type to spin in the opposite direction (the left spinning LII will become right spinning in a subordinate sense, this is NOT SHOWN on the type chart but it will allow the LII to access -Fe):

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Gulenko
    This question is not just interesting, but also practically important. In life it happens that a person is forced to work not in his typical setting, but in the opposite of his type or adjacent one. What pattern of behavior should he then focus on?
    The answer here is this. In the opposite installation, it is advantageous for the type carrier to act on the adaptation equivalent block (equivalent displacement in the direction of “superego”). And in the adjacent installation - according to the dual temperament, that is, to prefer a semi-dual or mirage displacement.
    For example, the Analyst, having fallen into the managerial setting, will carry out decentralization and delegation of authority as an Administrator. But the Critic, on the contrary, will develop authoritarianism, like a Marshal. A mentor in a social environment, in order to gain a foothold there, will be a cautious moralizer, like a keeper. But the Advisor will follow the path of the accommodating and comfortable Mediator.
    But why should the “biased” Analyst not act according to the identical temperament, that is, as an Inspector or Humanist? After all, it would seem that this is justified by the fact that it is not necessary to change the balanced energy.
    Apparently, in some way the sign of “quest - deklatimnost”, the nature of which is also largely energy, influences. The fact is that when choosing the strategy of the Inspector (or Humanist), the Analyst needs to change the quest for declaring (and also the negativism for positivism), which is very energetically expensive.
    Of course, you can not blindly reject the alternative hypothesis - the displacement around the order ring. “Questimnost - declaringness” does not change. In this case, the Analyst in management will be likened to the Master, and in the humanitarian sphere, Lyrics. However, what to do with rationality? Earlier it was known that this feature is largely associated with compatibility at close distances, and therefore a change in its polarity is equivalent to a loss of recharge from the outside. My opinion is that such an offset, that is, the order or revision ring, is possible, but unstable and difficult to fix (if at all) to fix. And that means for confident adaptation is not justified.
    As a living example, I will cite the personal growth of aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska. More information about his psychological features can be found in the documentary “Capital” by Alexey Pivovarov. In terms of non-verbal reactions and style of judgment, I would attribute Deripaska to the Inspector sociotype.
    Tracking its activity, we observe a clear shift of the LSI towards the LIE. In other words, the Inspector with dominant inclinations took place as a successful businessman. Thus, this or that subtype is formed, and then fixed. Overcoming difficulties, some people soften, others harden. On the basis of the same type completely different personalities are lined up.
    I hope this adds clarity to Model G because misinformation on the subject abounds. If it's not clear, then I will be happy to further explain things because I personally find this model to be very important.
    Last edited by Varlawend; 01-15-2019 at 11:20 PM.

  13. #13
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
    I've heard this said a number of times lately, but it is only a misconception that seems to have unfortunately spread. That's not necessarily your fault; maybe this is because people have tried to understand Model G using either:
    -old papers from nearly 30 years ago
    -modern type charts taken out of context which don't well represent the model as a whole

    Let's take LII as an example, since it is presumably your type (and, incidentally, Victor Gulenko's), because giving a concrete example might make things clearer. The fact of the matter is that LII's have access to both +Fe and -Fe in Model G. Both are sought/used in different ways, and it is most assuredly not the case that either function is excluded. Above, sbbds seemed to claim that Gulenko excluded +Fe from the LII, and now, thehotelambush seems to be claiming that Gulenko excludes -Fe from the LII. Both of these claims are factually incorrect, and therefore a claim that Model G is a step backwards from Model A on those assumptions is unsound. However, you may have different reasons for not wanting to use it.

    +Fe would be the Suggestive/Manipulative function to -Ti (LII) in the sense of its energetic flow (both +Fe and -Ti are involutionary, or left spinning). Here is some of what this means:





    None of the above precludes the LII having a different sort of relationship to -Fe in Model G, and in fact this is precisely what occurs. In 1996, Gulenko and his wife wrote a fascinating paper called "Вторичная установка на вид деятельности" in which they explain the notion of Semi-Dual displacement in adjacent installations. This notion is critical to understanding Gulenko's model. Semi-Duality is a comfortable working relationship and it is also frequently the case that a person will use their Semi-Dual function (-Fe) if they are working in their instrumental installation, which is the Humanitarian installation for LII:

    From the 1996 paper:

    Gulenko also describes Semi-Duality briefly here:



    Here is also a more recent article (2017) on the topic explaining more of the reasons behind the importance of Semi-Dual and Mirage shifts, which allow the type to spin in the opposite direction (the left spinning LII will become right spinning in a subordinate sense, this is NOT SHOWN on the type chart but it will allow the LII to access -Fe):



    I hope this adds clarity to Model G because misinformation on the subject abounds. If it's not clear, then I will be happy to further explain things because I personally find this model to be very important.
    My information also comes from the Youtube interviews on Model G and the diagrams that Ben Vaserlan has made, both of which were created in the last few years.

    What I recall is that Gulenko briefly mentioned that we do in fact use all 16 elements, but that the use of the "opposite signs" was essentially negligible. Maybe his views have changed, but to my knowledge he hasn't described the other eight functions in any detail. If they were a focus of his research I would expect them to be included in the charts.

    Most of the sources you quote don't seem relevant to this point. They are either about type relations or they precede the definition of Model G by many years. Gulenko was using completely different signs 20 years ago and his views have significantly diverged since then.

    The last one is a bit more promising (despite not mentioning IM elements), do you have a link to the source?

  14. #14
    Olimpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Europe
    TIM
    So/Sx Introvert
    Posts
    7,961
    Mentioned
    717 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    That's essentially how I would understand it as well, and how I hypothesized it to work in Model A2 several years ago.

    In Model G duals do share the same signs (both are either Process or Result), which may indicate that your dual's version is the one you seek. Unfortunately this also means that Model G excludes the semidual's version completely. This asymmetry/incompleteness is a step backwards from Model A.
    How exactly is it incomplete or asymmetrical? I find it makes perfect sense that Semi-Duals do not share the same notations in regards to dual-seeking IEs. It makes sense that the Ni of an ILI would be slightly "different" from the Ni of an IEI.

    Or were you hinting at something else?
    New Youtube [x] Get Typed! [x]
    Celebs [x] Theory [x] Tumblr [x]

    *********** 21-04-19:
    "Looks like a mystic that just arrived to battle and staring out at the battle, ready to unleash"



  15. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    ILI - C
    Posts
    1,810
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Very demonstrative examples in the OP. Thank you.

  16. #16
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Olimpia View Post
    How exactly is it incomplete or asymmetrical? I find it makes perfect sense that Semi-Duals do not share the same notations in regards to dual-seeking IEs. It makes sense that the Ni of an ILI would be slightly "different" from the Ni of an IEI.

    Or were you hinting at something else?
    Think about how it works in Model A. Every type uses Ni, every type uses Ti, etc., they only differ in their relation to the element, which is defined by which function it occupies. This is what "complete" means. Then you can figure out the relations simply by rearranging the functions in a certain way (hence, symmetric).

    In a true 16 element model each type has a distinct leading function (so in that sense yes, "ILI's Ni" is different from "IEI's Ni"), yet it doesn't preclude them using the "other version" of the same element. If you simply leave out half the functions you destroy the completeness and symmetry of the model. Or put another way, you haven't characterized how the types use half of their IM faculties.

  17. #17
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    My information also comes from the Youtube interviews on Model G and the diagrams that Ben Vaserlan has made, both of which were created in the last few years.

    What I recall is that Gulenko briefly mentioned that we do in fact use all 16 elements, but that the use of the "opposite signs" was essentially negligible.
    Does Gulenko actually say in these videos that he thinks people only use the signed information elements not on the chart negligably? If so, can you point out where? If he did say that, then he is contradicting himself, so it sounds rather odd. I will bring this contradiction to his attention, if it exists. The diagrams of Ben Vaserlan are for the most part up to date, so you are doing nothing wrong in using them. However, they only contain so much information, and the information they do contain is rather condensed. They do not represent Model G as a whole; they give only a partial description of each type (and that may be a redundant utterance since it is arguable that all descriptions are partial) and are not sufficient to understand Gulenko's views.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Maybe his views have changed, but to my knowledge he hasn't described the other eight functions in any detail. If they were a focus of his research I would expect them to be included in the charts.
    I agree with you that he hasn't given type descriptions which break down the types into the 16 separate signed information elements. The Model G charts only list the signed information elements consonant with the direction of energy flow, i.e. that share Process/Result. He defines, as I do, the types as signed information elements, in a sense. I was under the impression that this was also the case for you but I could be mistaken.

    The descriptions nonetheless contain *some* information about how the general information element (out of 8) is used, beyond just the sign; the sign refers more to the abstract direction that the type (i.e. the Program function) wishes it to go. This is what I mean about the chart being condensed; because of this condensation, it of course does not fully describe the type, but that is arguably true of any description. One has to make a tradeoff between information and energy priorities in a description and knowing Gulenko, he'd put much less emphasis on information than other Socionists. Overall, Process types want to move things in a Process direction and even their excursions into Result thinking are geared towards this purpose; vice versa for Result types.

    In the descriptions you cite, Gulenko only breaks down the analysis into 8 components for each type, and the signs represent the direction flow which, under the subordination of the Program function which defines the type, can be switched with the use of Semi-Dual or Mirage displacement. With this possibility, all 16 functions are included, so their use in this sense is "characterized". You could do a 16 component analysis, or a 32 component analysis, etc. and get more informational precision at the expense of descriptions that are cumbersome and bizarrely particular. The description is at best an orientation. He addressed signed IME's quite a long time ago in the abstract and still makes use of that material; it is not entirely separable from the material of the 8 functions as they stand.

    The 16 signed elements are not a major focus of his current research, which is more focused on testing Socionics hypotheses and applications of Socionics to relationships and business. That said, the use of most of the opposite spinning IME's is pretty negligable in practice. Perhaps that is what Gulenko said in the interview you refer to? This could be one of the reasons he doesn't include them in the chart. If he was including signed IME's spinning in the opposite direction that are used nontrivially by a person, then he would only have reason to include some of them and this would be asymmetric. It's not that they aren't used at all, or that their use isn't characterized, but I don't see a point in wasting time writing a description how an ILI uses +Fe when there are more productive questions to research. Gulenko belongs to the energy paradigm, not the information paradigm; he puts more emphasis on what Socoinics can do, not what we can say about it. His words are geared towards this purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Most of the sources you quote don't seem relevant to this point. They are either about type relations or they precede the definition of Model G by many years. Gulenko was using completely different signs 20 years ago and his views have significantly diverged since then.
    I apologize if I did not make the point clear enough or said things which seem irrelevant; this is often a source of difficulty between Constructive types such as yourself and Restructive types such as me. I will attempt to make the structural connections clearer in communicating with you since they are less my orientation:

    I did cite things about type relations, but I would argue that these are, in fact, relationships between information elements. The type is defined by the signed information element which is its program function. I was actually under the impression that you held this view as well. So, if we take -Ti and -Fe; these two signed information elements have a comfortable working relationship with one another called Semi-Duality.

    Another source of confusion between us might be our different viewpoints on the types and IME's; you seem to hold that the elements are atomistically separate. I hold the view (as does Gulenko) that the information elements and types are holographic, multi-level objects which can be distinguished between one another at a pragmatic level but which have boundaries that are fuzzy to us and which flow into one another. Perhaps this will be a more difficult gap to bridge.

    Some of the cited papers do preceed the definition of Model G, but I would argue that this point is irrelevant. They all contain material which is basically accurate and in current use; while Model G has its divergences, it's not as though all of Gulenko's previous material is rendered functionally inaccurate by his new model, though there might be some subtleties which could use refinement. Is there any information listed in my post which you think disagrees with Gulenko's current views? If so, then I will correct it. His current system of signs has been in use since 1998 (over 20 years ago).

    I would have to sympathize with you on the point that Gulenko's presentation could be clearer; he might partly be at fault for the amount of confusion that exists around his model and I am no apologist for this. He could use some better presenters to clear up the confusion which is partly what I try to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    The last one is a bit more promising (despite not mentioning IM elements), do you have a link to the source?
    Here is a source for you: https://socioniks.net/article/?id=152

    I would argue that what is discussed in this article is not a conversation that can be separated from IM elements. If you are referring to an Inspector, say, then you are referring to +Ti, and the other information elements used by Inspector are not separable from this +Ti (i.e. -Si as used by an LSI is in some sense the same as the information element used by SEI, but in another sense, it's already contained in the unfurling of the +Ti; the boundaries are fuzzy). This difference in Worldview might be the most problematic aspect of your disagreement with Gulenko and I.
    Last edited by Varlawend; 01-16-2019 at 03:10 AM.

  18. #18
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
    Does Gulenko actually say in these videos that he thinks people only use the signed information elements not on the chart negligably? If so, can you point out where? If he did say that, then he is contradicting himself, so it sounds rather odd. I will bring this contradiction to his attention, if it exists. The diagrams of Ben Vaserlan are for the most part up to date, so you are doing nothing wrong in using them. However, they only contain so much information, and the information they do contain is rather condensed. They do not represent Model G as a whole; they give only a partial description of each type (and that may be a redundant utterance since it is arguable that all descriptions are partial) and are not sufficient to understand Gulenko's views.
    Unfortunately I don't recall where exactly he said that. Maybe if I have time I'll try to find it.

    I agree with you that he hasn't given type descriptions which break down the types into the 16 separate signed information elements. The Model G charts only list the signed information elements consonant with the direction of energy flow, i.e. that share Process/Result. He defines, as I do, the types as signed information elements, in a sense. I was under the impression that this was also the case for you but I could be mistaken.

    The descriptions nonetheless contain *some* information about how the general information element (out of 8) is used, beyond just the sign; the sign refers more to the abstract direction that the type (i.e. the Program function) wishes it to go. This is what I mean about the chart being condensed; because of this condensation, it of course does not fully describe the type, but that is arguably true of any description. One has to make a tradeoff between information and energy priorities in a description and knowing Gulenko, he'd put much less emphasis on information than other Socionists. Overall, Process types want to move things in a Process direction and even their excursions into Result thinking are geared towards this purpose; vice versa for Result types.

    In the descriptions you cite, Gulenko only breaks down the analysis into 8 components for each type, and the signs represent the direction flow which, under the subordination of the Program function which defines the type, can be switched with the use of Semi-Dual or Mirage displacement. With this possibility, all 16 functions are included, so their use in this sense is "characterized". You could do a 16 component analysis, or a 32 component analysis, etc. and get more informational precision at the expense of descriptions that are cumbersome and bizarrely particular. The description is at best an orientation. He addressed signed IME's quite a long time ago in the abstract and still makes use of that material; it is not entirely separable from the material of the 8 functions as they stand.

    The 16 signed elements are not a major focus of his current research, which is more focused on testing Socionics hypotheses and applications of Socionics to relationships and business. That said, the use of most of the opposite spinning IME's is pretty negligable in practice. Perhaps that is what Gulenko said in the interview you refer to? This could be one of the reasons he doesn't include them in the chart. If he was including signed IME's spinning in the opposite direction that are used nontrivially by a person, then he would only have reason to include some of them and this would be asymmetric. It's not that they aren't used at all, or that their use isn't characterized, but I don't see a point in wasting time writing a description how an ILI uses +Fe when there are more productive questions to research. Gulenko belongs to the energy paradigm, not the information paradigm; he puts more emphasis on what Socoinics can do, not what we can say about it. His words are geared towards this purpose.



    I apologize if I did not make the point clear enough or said things which seem irrelevant; this is often a source of difficulty between Constructive types such as yourself and Restructive types such as me. I will attempt to make the structural connections clearer in communicating with you since they are less my orientation:

    I did cite things about type relations, but I would argue that these are, in fact, relationships between information elements. The type is defined by the signed information element which is its program function. I was actually under the impression that you held this view as well. So, if we take -Ti and -Fe; these two signed information elements have a comfortable working relationship with one another called Semi-Duality.

    Another source of confusion between us might be our different viewpoints on the types and IME's; you seem to hold that the elements are atomistically separate. I hold the view (as does Gulenko) that the information elements and types are holographic, multi-level objects which can be distinguished between one another at a pragmatic level but which have boundaries that are fuzzy to us and which flow into one another. Perhaps this will be a more difficult gap to bridge.

    Some of the cited papers do preceed the definition of Model G, but I would argue that this point is irrelevant. They all contain material which is basically accurate and in current use; while Model G has its divergences, it's not as though all of Gulenko's previous material is rendered functionally inaccurate by his new model, though there might be some subtleties which could use refinement. Is there any information listed in my post which you think disagrees with Gulenko's current views? If so, then I will correct it. His current system of signs has been in use since 1998 (over 20 years ago).

    I would have to sympathize with you on the point that Gulenko's presentation could be clearer; he might partly be at fault for the amount of confusion that exists around his model and I am no apologist for this. He could use some better presenters to clear up the confusion which is partly what I try to do.



    Here is a source for you: https://socioniks.net/article/?id=152

    I would argue that what is discussed in this article is not a conversation that can be separated from IM elements. If you are referring to an Inspector, say, then you are referring to +Ti, and the other information elements used by Inspector are not separable from this +Ti (i.e. -Si as used by an LSI is in some sense the same as the information element used by SEI, but in another sense, it's already contained in the unfurling of the +Ti; the boundaries are fuzzy). This difference in Worldview might be the most problematic aspect of your disagreement with Gulenko and I.
    They are holographic, yes. The types have a 1-1 correspondence with the IM elements and in a sense are "the same". But in another sense they are not. IM elements (or if you prefer, "information aspects") are categories of information (and also, in my view, goals - the leading function is the "end goal" or program while the other ones are subordinate goals). Gulenko's article above says nothing about information, it's about behavior (which is a manifestation of one's goals but not the same as them). If you look only at behavior then things will certainly appear "fuzzy" because you're not making the right distinctions. If you look at the IM elements (and their relations) everything becomes much, much clearer. This is what I've discovered in my own research.

    Most of what you're saying here just seems like excuses (especially the references to our own supposed types which I find condescending and dismissive). It is indeed strange and contradictory that he would not describe the "semidual" and "illusionary" functions if they are actually easier to use than the "beneficiary" function which is described in Model G. Yet here he says "My opinion is that such an offset, that is, the order or revision ring, is possible, but unstable and difficult to fix (if at all) to fix." So, either he doesn't see the functions as corresponding to "type modes", or he's gone back on his views. Or something.

    My impression was that he was still actively working on Model G, at least up to ~2017. He has certainly been active in promoting it (along with DCNH and supposed connections with MBTI) despite the fact that it's still a work in progress.

    Finally, as I've explained, there are technical reasons why we would use 16 functions as opposed to 8. Moving to 32 functions (without having 32 corresponding types) adds nothing in this regard, it's simply redundant.

  19. #19
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    They are holographic, yes. The types have a 1-1 correspondence with the IM elements and in a sense are "the same". But in another sense they are not. IM elements (or if you prefer, "information aspects") are categories of information (and also, in my view, goals - the leading function is the "end goal" or program while the other ones are subordinate goals). Gulenko's article above says nothing about information, it's about behavior (which is a manifestation of one's goals but not the same as them). If you look only at behavior then things will certainly appear "fuzzy" because you're not making the right distinctions. If you look at the IM elements (and their relations) everything becomes much, much clearer. This is what I've discovered in my own research.
    Then it seems that your view is similar to mine and Gulenko's, about the program functions of the type that is. The fuzziness is not a matter of appearance though or an unfortunate side effect; it is part and parcel to how Gulenko and I look at things, hence why I suggest that this is partly a clash of paradigms. I might explain this more another time because I find it to be an important topic. You seem to be claiming to have solved this supposed "problem" in your research but I have not seen the solution from you.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Most of what you're saying here just seems like excuses (especially the references to our own supposed types which I find condescending and dismissive). It is indeed strange and contradictory that he would not describe the "semidual" and "illusionary" functions if they are actually easier to use than the "beneficiary" function which is described in Model G. Yet here he says "My opinion is that such an offset, that is, the order or revision ring, is possible, but unstable and difficult to fix (if at all) to fix." So, either he doesn't see the functions as corresponding to "type modes", or he's gone back on his views. Or something.
    It is not at all my intention to sound condescending or dismissive and you sadden me in having that reaction. It's arguably the case that just writing off most of what I say as "excuses" or "irrelevant", without really addressing it, is condescending or dismissive or an excuse, but my interpretation of you is not this uncharitable and I do not assume that you mean ill towards me by it. Hence why I mentioned the types, because I think that different types bring usefully different orientations to the discussion which can help elucidate different aspects of it and their naturally different orientations can cause clashes even among people with intelligence and good intentions (which certainly applies to you). I have a great deal of respect for you and I will add that if what I am saying is not yet clear to someone of your obvious intelligence, then I'm sure that there are things about it which can and should be made clearer on my part (and that's not necessarily easy for me!).

    Quote Originally Posted by Niels Bohr
    How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.
    However, I'm not getting a clear sense from you on what my improvement should be from your broad-brush charges of irrelevance and excuses (i.e. your criticism is not very constructive or cooperative). You seem to look at it more in the sense of you being correct and others being wrong or lesser in understanding, but maybe that is just a reaction to perceived condescension on my part. I, for one, am sure that there is much more productive conversation to be had on these various topics to be sure they make sense to people without any need for undue hostilities or competition.

    It is not true that Semidual and Illusionary functions are easier to use than the functions within the benefit ring. One differing property that they have is that of stability. For a Rational type, the Rational functions are Stable in Model G, and for an Irrational type, the Irrational functions are Stable. The benefit functions, such as +Ti and +Fi for an ILI as an example, can be used easily, but they are Unstable since they differ in Rationality from the Program function. Therefore, it would be said that ILI's become like EII and LSI for quite brief periods, but they cannot hold this position with any stability. -Se and -Ne, while these differ in Process/Result from -Ni, are Stable for an ILI since they are Irrational. From this, Gulenko's research suggests that they are position which can be held by the ILI for much more long term adaptations than +Fi or +Ti. Hence, the ILI can use all of the Result IME's, by accessing them from a sub-program of -Se or -Ne, but it's all still subordinate to -Ni and thus +Se and +Ne are still the directions the ILI is ultimately trying to go.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    My impression was that he was still actively working on Model G, at least up to ~2017. He has certainly been active in promoting it (along with DCNH and supposed connections with MBTI) despite the fact that it's still a work in progress.
    This is all true of course. Gulenko told me that his worldview is a dynamic one (by that I read: an 'inherently' dynamic one). So, I expect that he will always see it as a work in progress and I share this orientation with him.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Finally, as I've explained, there are technical reasons why we would use 16 functions as opposed to 8. Moving to 32 functions (without having 32 corresponding types) adds nothing in this regard, it's simply redundant.
    That depends on your technical framework. But, in the meantime, I'm not going to jump to 32 anytime soon, so we have nothing to worry about there on any practical level.

  20. #20
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    W.R.T. the point that Gulenko somewhere said that for Right-Spinning types, Left-Spinning IME use is negligible, and vice-versa, I found this:

    ILE Model G.PNG

    The relevant portion of text is at the bottom: "The sign tells us of the baseline state of the function, from which it will deviate from time to time, but after a while it always goes back to normal."

    That definitely makes the opposite spinning IME's sound like they are an altered-state, or subordinate, but it doesn't sound like they are used negligibly to me. In fact it is directly said that they will deviate from time to time, though it doesn't specify precisely when. And this of course fits with Gulenko's other comments that suggest the contextual importance of their use within Club/Installation displacement.
    Last edited by Varlawend; 01-19-2019 at 11:22 PM.

  21. #21
    Allegra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    TIM
    ESI 693 Sp/Sx
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I get that as a result negativist, an ESI uses -Fi, - Se, right?

    But how about Te and Ni? Which ones does an ESI use?

  22. #22
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Allegra View Post
    I get that as a result negativist, an ESI uses -Fi, - Se, right?

    But how about Te and Ni? Which ones does an ESI use?
    Good question.

    In the simplest sense, I'd say that your most prominent functions are -Fi (Program), -Se (Demonstrative), and +Si (Creative). Those are probably the three most important functions for you to know, and your Dual's function is +Te (Manipulative).

    To lay it out in full gory detail, you can use all of the information elements, as can we all:

    Your primary 8 are the left-spinning elements:

    Program: -Fi
    Creative: +Si
    Role: -Ti
    Launcher: +Ni
    Demonstrative: -Se
    Manipulative: +Te
    Brake: -Ne
    Control: +Fe

    However, you can also have a sub-program of:

    LSE when you are working in the management field (you are naturally a social if you are ESI)

    Sub-Program: -Te
    Sub-Creative: +Se
    Sub-Role: -Fe
    Sub-Launcher: +Ne
    Sub-Demonstrative: -Si
    Sub-Manipulative: +Fi
    Sub-Brake: -Ni
    Sub-Control: +Ti

    And EIE when you are working in the humanitarian field:

    Sub-Program: -Fe
    Sub-Creative: +Ne
    Sub-Role: -Te
    Sub-Launcher: +Se
    Sub-Demonstrative: -Ni
    Sub-Manipulative: +Ti
    Sub-Brake: -Si
    Sub-Control: +Fi

  23. #23
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @thehotelambush

    I thought you might find this characterization of Quasi-Identical Relationships by Victor Gulenko to be eerily fitting towards the conversation we just had . My impression of it was that it seemed a bit chillier and more effortful than it really needed to. That's not condescension, by the way, because the problem seems relational in nature. Blaming you would feel unjust to me.

    Relations of quasi-identities

    This is a relationship of coexistence with a complete misunderstanding of each other. Such coexistence can be peaceful, especially if the partners of logic, or go into clarifying the relationship, if the partners are ethics. Of great importance is the coincidence of subtypes. When non-coinciding subtypes in dealing with a quasi-identical, internal tension arises, condemning his actions. True, it can pass when the partners are united in one business and depend on each other. The first concession is usually made irrational, and rational accepts it.
    Quasi-identical partner does not touch, as a rule, your weak points. There is no threat from him. But you also do not feel equality with him, as with a business one. It seems less capable, but in those questions that you do not get, for some reason, it achieves much more. Because of this, the pride of both suffers: such a situation is perceived as an injustice.
    The most unpleasant thing in this relationship is the impossibility of understanding a person to the end. There is always the problem of “translating” his information into his own language. Written quasi-identical is almost impossible to read. Deciphering his information takes a lot of power and seems useless. Works of quasi-identical do not like. A conversation with a quasi-identical, though not hard, does not bring satisfaction. It seems that he is all specifically confuses, complicates or simplifies, leads away. The main argument: the same can be stated in a different, understandable language.
    Quasi-identities can find common topics for conversation, they can be perturbed by the same thing. But the ways out of the difficult situation are completely different. Over time, the sense of wasted time begins to pursue. Therefore, nothing especially binds them, part easily, without regret. A rather colorless relationship, which is well suited to the proverb: "You have your own wedding, and we have our own."
    The subtypes might also not coincide. For example, I'm ILI-H, and I suspect (but am not totally sure) that you are LII-N. The Initial vs. Terminal focus also adds an extra energetic component to communication.

    I know we are capable of communicating more effectively though. I enjoy a good challenge, and I do learn helpful things for myself in trying to understand your work.
    Last edited by Varlawend; 01-22-2019 at 07:53 AM.

  24. #24
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Varlawend I don't have a firm opinion on your self-typing for the time being, and might actually have some good reasons to doubt it, including this conversation.

    What I will say though, is that it is far more clear to see conflicts in terms of IM element conflicts which is one of my motivations for using signed elements in the first place.

  25. #25
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    @Varlawend I don't have a firm opinion on your self-typing for the time being, and might actually have some good reasons to doubt it, including this conversation.

    What I will say though, is that it is far more clear to see conflicts in terms of IM element conflicts which is one of my motivations for using signed elements in the first place.
    That's interesting. Well, I'm curious as to what you think my type might be. However, I have been typed as ILI professionally, and it has proven very accurate and sensible in my experience, whereas other typings have proven less so for the time being. Though, I use a variety of systems, and thus am not hung up on what people type me since I tend to just regard different people's typings as belonging to *their* system. What tends to interest me is not adherence to a system, but how accurate/helpful the use of that system as a whole turns out to be in overall yield and coherence. What also interests me is the complex dialectic and interplay between such systems.

    For context:
    WSS initially typed me as LII. It really did make sense at first, but I eventually came to feel that it was somewhat superficial. I considered a number of other types, but when Gulenko typed me as ILI, things started making a whole lot more sense to me. That was also the type I initially thought I was, just intuitively.

    Other typings:
    Enneagram: 594 sp/sx (not given by but supported by professionals that have encountered it)
    Objective Personality: MF Ni/Fi SC/B (professionally typed)
    Keirsey Temperament Sorter: INTP is probably the best fit
    Neojungian Typology: INTJ
    Mojo Reading: Nai'xyy
    Psyche Yoga: very not sure lol
    Big Five: High Introversion/Avg Agreeableness/Avg Conscientiousness/Avg Neuroticism/High Openness
    Last edited by Varlawend; 01-22-2019 at 10:51 AM.

  26. #26
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,475
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
    That's interesting. Well, I'm curious as to what you think my type might be. However, I have been typed as ILI professionally, and it has proven very accurate and sensible in my experience, whereas other typings have proven less so for the time being. Though, I use a variety of systems, and thus am not hung up on what people type me since I tend to just regard different people's typings as belonging to *their* system. What tends to interest me is not adherence to a system, but how accurate/helpful the use of that system as a whole turns out to be in overall yield and coherence.
    "Professionally" doesn't really mean anything in the context of socionics - I guess you mean you paid for it.

    But yeah, this is going to derail the thread which is why I prefer not to bring this up in the first place. If you're interested I can comment in your typing thread, if I have time.

  27. #27
    Varlawend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    ILI-N
    Posts
    134
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    "Professionally" doesn't really mean anything in the context of socionics - I guess you mean you paid for it.

    But yeah, this is going to derail the thread which is why I prefer not to bring this up in the first place. If you're interested I can comment in your typing thread, if I have time.
    I suppose you're right that professionally might in general not have much meaning, but it was by Victor Gulenko directly, and I do personally find his material to be of particularly high quality. There has been no one as close to the heart of Socionics as him that is still operative. That doesn't mean he is automagically right of course, but in addition to his credentials as they stand, I have found his understanding to actually live up to those credentials, so to speak.

    Certainly though, I am interested in what you think. I try to take any opportunity I can to learn more about myself. It will also help me understand your system better which is beneficial to my quest.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •