model X described by a normal person
Does anybody know were a man can get some info on the model X from about 10 years ago? I like reading this stuff and such. No drama about abandoning model A need be worried about.
Originally Posted by Chillaxe
What real life observations made you conclude that types only have to access to four functions? I am not looking for theoretical explanation of that phenomenon. Instead, perhaps you could explain the consequences of a Te PoLR type not being able to process information through Te vs. Model A's assumption that s/he can, but feels insecure about it.
In my experience, the most pervasive and obvious way this can be observed, is by listening to a person speak and/or reading what they write. A lot of my thinking on this is drawn from an article on Rick's site here discussing some interesting research conducted a few years ago, exploring the relationship between the 8 info elements (functions) and the kinds of 'semantic themes' most frequently exhibited by each function. The research results are nicely summarized on the link and worth getting thoroughly acquainted with. The idea here, is that the manner/style in which a person communicates—not only what they tend to speak of, but also the way in which the individual presents and describes what they are speaking of—can yield a wealth of useful insight about how that individual actually thinks and psychologically processes information. Which can tell you exactly the sorts of functions that individual uses. Further, the results also suggest the prospect that functions possess overlapping redundancy: Apparently, different functions can and do deal with the same kinds of information processing, albeit in different ways. Which lends credence to the idea that 8 functions may not be necessary; 4 functions may actually be ‘good enough’ for all practical purposes at approximately handling all relevant information processing activity.
More directly from the article:
Semantics of Information Elements link said
“In the beginning of the book the authors substantiate the relevance of speech patterns to psychic processes, citing Grigoriy Reinin's statement, "if it's not in one's awareness, it's not in one's speech." Next, they talk about what influences speech and cite a number of psychological and psycholinguistic sources. Then they introduce the concept of "semantic fields" by discussing the psycholinguistic experiments of Luriya and Vinogradova, which demonstrated how the psyche associates words that have related meanings and similar sounds, and the role of context in these associations.
Next, the authors talk about how many phenomena can be described using different elements, and how "the semantic fields of different elements can contain both unique and overlapping meanings." The elements can be used to describe the same thing, but in different ways, so it is important to pay attention "not only to what a person is talking about, but how and using what means he does it."”
What a person says and how they say it will reflect the functions they use. Conversely (as per Reinin): If what a person says and how they say it does not indicate a function to be part of their information metabolism, what good reason is there to assume that the person uses said function at all? Which is why I operate under the assumption that types only use their 4 valued functions. They make themselves discernably known in what a person says, wheras the others do not. I see no good reason to suspect, for example, that a ego actively uses in any meaningful capacity, given that I’ve yet to see any reliable manifestation of identifiable in the apparent discourse of those whom I’ve identified as egos; nor does it seem to appear in any other sense that might suggest otherwise. So why make assumptions beyond what can actually be observed and corroborated? Those who do, can talk about unconscious functions and Id blocks and other unobservable voodoo until they’re blue in the face; it will still be meaningless. Until they can come up with a method to operationally define these constructs in a way that at least strives towards a standard of falsifiability, then they’re doing nothing but hand waving and might as well be talking about ghosts or astrology as far as I’m concerned. I’ll change my mind pending reliable evidence to the contrary.
Clarification (for general thread): When I say that types don't actively use their non-valued functions, I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that types are not affected by the presence of non-valued functions in others, they very much are; obviously, 75% of the intertype relations are contingent upon this fact. But not being able to use a function doesn't in any way imply that it can't be recognized or reacted to. i.e., an valuer doesn't have to use in order to be aware that some other person is a valuer, when recgonizing that person as a ‘non- valuer’ is effectively equivalent.
Consequences of being Te PoLR / incapable of actively using In the overall scheme of an IXFp's life which they value as relevant, I would suggest that being PoLR won't have much consequence at all for them—the same would apply to any other PoLR as well. When it comes to the day to day business of living, most tasks/events necessary to contend with aren’t very function-specific. i.e., you don’t need to balance your checkbook; you don’t need to have acceptable hygiene; you don’t need to imagine an alternative possibility; you don’t need to exercise foresight about liable consequences; you don’t need to haul your ass out of bed in the morning and go to work; etc. Things most normal humans of all types do on a daily basis. An IXFp doesn’t value , nor should they be expected to. It isn’t what they’re ‘about’, nor could it ever be. I honestly think people are better off ignoring their PoLRs and other non-valued functions altogether as much as they can, while instead focusing on their valued functions. It’s more sensible to capitalize on your inherent strengths than attempt to perpetually accommodate for your inherent weaknesses. I’ve never felt like having an PoLR put me in any way at a disadvantage or had any actual practical consequence on my life—it’s a cognitive orientation that I don’t value/care about, don’t feel I need, and I wouldn’t want around even if I could have it. It would never be conducive to me or have any use in my life to think and process information in this way, and that's okay. I rarely experience strife over it, though when I do, it’s usually something that emerges out of interaction between myself and another person (who does value )
This is also where PoLR becomes strongly self-evident to me—when I'm actually dealing and communicating with IXFps, and the attendant intertype relations that come with them. I can describe more about this if you'd like, re: experiences with Supervision and Conflict.
Last edited by Petter; 09-16-2019 at 04:30 AM.
this is true (but this is not model X)
The idea here, is that the manner/style in which a person communicates—not only what they tend to speak of, but also the way in which the individual presents and describes what they are speaking of—can yield a wealth of useful insight about how that individual actually thinks and psychologically processes information. Which can tell you exactly the sorts of functions that individual uses. Further, the results also suggest the prospect that functions possess overlapping redundancy: Apparently, different functions can and do deal with the same kinds of information processing, albeit in different ways. Which lends credence to the idea that 8 functions may not be necessary; 4 functions may actually be ‘good enough’ for all practical purposes at approximately handling all relevant information processing activity.
This would mean that LII and ILI, for example, are interested in the exact same things. Hmm... That is not my experience. Both types can be interested in physics though, but then they are interested in different areas/aspects of physics.
Originally Posted by Petter
I prefer Yermak's explanation:
"Can the vital character of information processing be called non-conscious? I don’t think so. We are conscious of our vital track. But awareness comes after the reaction, even though just a fraction of a second later. Such automatic reactions are called by some psychologists «preconscious» — something in-between consciousness and subconsciousness. It is difficult to plunge into thinking over the information of vital track information elements. You get pushed out to the mental track as if a cork from a bottle and you begin to think over (process) only such information elements that correspond to mental track functions."
Last edited by Petter; 09-16-2019 at 05:51 AM.
Petter, thanks for that info. More if you can buddy.
Tags for this Thread