Explanation required:

[UDP]

http://the16types.no-ip.info/functions.php?function=Se


? I don't fully understand these pages...

Positive(short range):
Deduction of authority, insubordination, protection, defense, retaliation, counterattack, hardness, upholding of the interests, strong-willed pressure from below upwards, will power, possession;
Negative (long range):
Capture of authority, submission, attack, aggression, attack, the initiative, persistence, insistence, strong-willed pressure from top to down, the statement of the interests due to others, overthrow, weakness, lack of will, mastering.

What is the difference between 'positive' and 'negative'

and, specifically, in the 'negative' list: is there any meaning to the order? --- "overthrow, weakness, lack of will, mastering" ... submission, attack, aggression....

? How are all of those in the same category?

[tcaudilllg]

Neither do I.

[science as magic]

it has to do with the +/- model

http://the16types.no-ip.info/groups.php?groupid=5

- = long range
+ = short range

basically +Pe -Ji +Je -Pi = alpha/gamma and -Pe +Ji -Je +Pi = beta/delta

[Rick]

http://the16types.no-ip.info/functions.php?function=Se


? I don't fully understand these pages...

Positive(short range):
Deduction of authority, insubordination, protection, defense, retaliation, counterattack, hardness, upholding of the interests, strong-willed pressure from below upwards, will power, possession;
Negative (long range):
Capture of authority, submission, attack, aggression, attack, the initiative, persistence, insistence, strong-willed pressure from top to down, the statement of the interests due to others, overthrow, weakness, lack of will, mastering.

What is the difference between 'positive' and 'negative'

and, specifically, in the 'negative' list: is there any meaning to the order? --- "overthrow, weakness, lack of will, mastering" ... submission, attack, aggression....

? How are all of those in the same category?

That's okay... you don't have to use the + and - categories to be a 'good' socionist . Many don't like them or use them because they are logically superfluous (you can say " blocked with " and " blocked with " instead).

[FDG]

There's really nothing to understand - it's only a nomenclature.

If you prefer, - means that the renin dichotomies associated with the function are ascending, and + means that they are descending. But it's nothing important.

[Expat]

Knowing about them is useful to remind yourself that a type is not a sum of independent functions, that, as Rick said, the in works differently from the one in . But if you're already aware of that, you don't have to pay much attention to them.

[tcaudilllg]

Well now from what I understand, the same guy who came up with the positive/negative nomenclature also said something about the IM order for incoming information being different from the actual function order. i.e. Se->Fi->Ti->Ne for INTjs as opposed to Ti->Ne->Fi->Se. Is there any truth to that?

[Rick]

Well now from what I understand, the same guy who came up with the positive/negative nomenclature also said something about the IM order for incoming information being different from the actual function order. i.e. Se->Fi->Ti->Ne for INTjs as opposed to Ti->Ne->Fi->Se. Is there any truth to that?

Sounds bogus to me!

[krieger]

It has to do with the milestones found in between of quadra transitions. - functions work toward such milestones, and rarely past them, whereas + functions build up from what was learned at the milestone, with little patience to finding and reaching more of such milestones ('let others do it').

Ne->Ti->Se->Fi is the only cycle that makes sense to me, as it is the one seen in idea transitions between quadra's. It has to be admitted that it is a leap of faith to suppose that something similar happens at a smaller scale to the stuff 'found' in our brains.

[UDP]

Positive(short range):
Deduction of authority, insubordination, protection, defense, retaliation, counterattack, hardness, upholding of the interests, strong-willed pressure from below upwards, will power, possession;
Negative (long range):
Capture of authority, submission, attack, aggression, attack, the initiative, persistence, insistence, strong-willed pressure from top to down, the statement of the interests due to others, overthrow, weakness, lack of will, mastering.

[table:0c4ee76b20][mrow:0c4ee76b20] + (short range)[mcol:0c4ee76b20] - (long range)[row:0c4ee76b20]Deduction of authority[col:0c4ee76b20]Capture of authority
[row:0c4ee76b20]insubordination[col:0c4ee76b20]submission[row:0c4ee76b20]protection[col:0c4ee76b20]attack[row:0c4ee76b20]defense[col:0c4ee76b20]aggression[row:0c4ee76b20]retaliation[col:0c4ee76b20]attack[row:0c4ee76b20]counterattack[col:0c4ee76b20]the initiative[row:0c4ee76b20]hardness[col:0c4ee76b20]persistence[row:0c4ee76b20]upholding of the interests[col:0c4ee76b20]insistence[row:0c4ee76b20]strong-willed pressure from below upwards[col:0c4ee76b20]strong-willed pressure from top to down[row:0c4ee76b20]will power[col:0c4ee76b20]the statement of the interests due to others[row:0c4ee76b20]possession[col:0c4ee76b20]overthrow[row:0c4ee76b20][col:0c4ee76b20]weakness[row:0c4ee76b20][col:0c4ee76b20]lack of will[row:0c4ee76b20][col:0c4ee76b20]mastering
[/table:0c4ee76b20]
? It seems like they match up... but then......

I'm trying to figure out if the order is supposed to be comparison, of if the order is completely irrelevant.

[FDG]

- is beta-se
+ is gamma-se

if somebody takes authority, only then there can be insubordination
if somebody attacks, only then there can be a counterattack

so on

[tcaudilllg]

Actually from my PoV the 4,3,1,2 order seems to describe my thought better. It makes a lot more sense to imagine the eighth function laying the foundation for the PoLR than for the base. Secondly, I don't see the necessity for a connection between the representation orders of the functions in information processing and their relative strength levels. I think the notion that the order must progress from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 is guesswork at best. For one thing, 8 to 4 means that the creative art "eureka moments" set the stage for the comprehension of a 4th function reality. If you think about it, it actually makes much more sense.

[krieger]

I think the notion that the order must progress from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 is guesswork at best.

Whose guesswork are you talking about here..? The Ne->Ti->Se->Fi succession is not based on any type's function orderings. It applies to every type in the static group, for each of which the orderings are naturally different.

Also the quadra succesions in regard to ideas are gleaned from observation (or the closest thing to it you'll find in typology), so there is no challenging that the ordering exists. There is only room for judging what it does and does not apply to.

[tcaudilllg]

I think the notion that the order must progress from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 is guesswork at best.

Whose guesswork are you talking about here..? The Ne->Ti->Se->Fi succession is not based on any type's function orderings. It applies to every type in the static group, for each of which the orderings are naturally different.

Also the quadra succesions in regard to ideas are gleaned from observation (or the closest thing to it you'll find in typology), so there is no challenging that the ordering exists. There is only room for judging what it does and does not apply to.

I think I need more information. Do you have links to these discoveries? (I looked on Rick's site and found nothing....)

[krieger]

Ok. I have to admit I'm making a few assumptions here, though I believe they are well-founded ones. The notion of a succession of quadras in the devolopment of ideas surfaces on pretty much every socionics site. It is a concept so taken for granted that I can only imagine that it has to have been observed at some point. I have been witness to parts of its workings myself.

This is annoying... Convinced as I am that what I said was true I can not find materials to proove it. If you're not convinced by smilingeyes' posts you could ask him which of Reinin/Gulenko's works he based his writings on... I'm sure those would be convincing.

- More to follow on this.

[Smilingeyes]

@labcoat:

The cyclical order of functions is all the way from Jung.

N - T - S - F -

You quoted him on this yourself recently I think. "T can be supported by S or N but never F." Or text to that effect.

I don't know whether Jung had direction for this movement and I expect he wouldn't since the cycle can go to either direction. The progression of functions being N->T->S->F is from quadra progression, that being the direction of a developing idea or process.

[tcaudilllg]

There is a note about that in the Jung lexicon. I'd never imagined that it was universal, although I was struck by its familiarity.

What about their orientations? Is there any dictum on that point?