Thread: Modal A Ignoring Function vs Model G Controlling function

1. Modal A Ignoring Function vs Model G Controlling function

Ignoring function in Model A is 3D in strength ... Person can use this function effectively but they don't want to spend large amount of time into it ...
Ex..
SLI : Uses Force (Se) to make homeostasis and peace (Si) in their environment ..in a sense ...they are good in self-defense
LIE : Uses Structural logic(Ti) to understand external structures around them ... and find leverage in it ..
LII : Use Pragmatic Logic(Te) To fact check and verify their inner complex models of system.. and highly developed one can be highly efficient people out there

In a sense Ignoring function is higher in skills ... and suggestive function is lower in skills ...

But Gulenko models says that ... Ignoring is lower in skills ...

What is your practical experience with ignoring function

Is it make you weak like in suggestive function .... or it is a way to growth ?

2. Originally Posted by Pirafinil
Ignoring function in Model A is 3D in strength ... Person can use this function effectively but they don't want to spend large amount of time into it ...
Ex..
SLI : Uses Force (Se) to make homeostasis and peace (Si) in their environment ..in a sense ...they are good in self-defense
LIE : Uses Structural logic(Ti) to understand external structures around them ... and find leverage in it ..
LII : Use Pragmatic Logic(Te) To fact check and verify their inner complex models of system.. and highly developed one can be highly efficient people out there

In a sense Ignoring function is higher in skills ... and suggestive function is lower in skills ...

But Gulenko models says that ... Ignoring is lower in skills ...

What is your practical experience with ignoring function

Is it make you weak like in suggestive function .... or it is a way to growth ?
I think it's slightly different.

Se ignoring is about avoiding too much impact and obstacles, staying relatively aloof. Se as direct impact from object is opposite to inner impressionistic sensations (Si) and has to be kept within certain limits. Se ignoring balances and neutralizes the outer impact.

Fe ignoring is also pretty easy to spot. Cooling down emotional expressions. Maybe a benevolent strained smile that sort of puts the lid on emotions.

So the function has a neutralizing impact.

If you read Jung's descriptions you can find interesting observations on ignoring function, although he doesn't use that name.

3. I would frame it differently than you've put it.

If you want to frame it through dimensionality: consider what dimensionality in each model is measuring. Model A is a model of information, while Model G is a model of energy; understanding vs. action.

The ignoring function is a strong function in Model A because it is able to understand its surroundings and construct a view on them. The control function is weak in Model G because it is unable to act and exert influence the environment. As it turns out, these things aren't at odds. The description of the control function in G essentially describes this relationship: "I know, but I cannot act." Knowing the problem and being unable to fix it via direct measures (i.e. with the control function instead of in a roundabout way through other means) is why G describes the control function as distressing and somewhat defenseless. The control function notices the Gordian Knot, knows that cutting it would fix the problem, but doesn't have a sword. It's left to be untangled by other means, or for someone else to come along to cut it.

Model A sometimes describes the ignoring function as taking action only at very close distance or on the level of the individual. This also seems pretty in line with Gulenko's type descriptions. I would say that the control/ignoring is a function that, observing someone from a distance, you get the impression that it is completely absent. When you are close to someone, the control/ignoring takes up a fair amount of psychological real-estate and actions that support the individual are present, as well as commands/instructions that may be taken up by others (this is one of the benefits of duality as described by G).

Do these models need to be reconciled? No, of course not - use whatever frame of reference is useful to you. But they really aren't as different as people seem to think (the major differences between Gulenko's school and other paradigms are factors outside of Model G).

Posting Permissions

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