but you're right, it's not a prioritized list
why would you need a prioritized list?
why, because I am I.
Priority in terms of order / proximity.
Your diagram is useful. I was trying to figure out a way to do that as well- to make it so that each quadra's static and dynamic splits were divided.
already done; the top is static functions/types, the bottom is dynamic functions/types
The circle doesn't seem to work for me though. It may just be how I interpret things visually.
understandable
questions that come up --- why is EII on the inside and not on the outside? etc. That element of the positioning seems arbitrary (and of course it is, just like how it is arbitrary that I started with enfp in my chain example).
if you notice, enfp is at the very top and on the outside, being enfp, enfp was my focus and how everything fit around it, hense, why enfp is on the top and on the outside, since infj is the mirror of enfp, and it's function order follows the opposite cycle, it's place would be the inside.
Really, if I can see the same thing from different angles it helps. To me, probably because I am Ti heavy, the order of my first chain sequence makes the most sense. Something about your circular model takes away from it.
probably because it allows a person to start anywhere they choose, based on the current need..this much openness could bother some people/types
why is ENTp next to INFj? and ISTj? Shouldn't LII go there?
the arrows follow the base to creative which is another type's base to their creative which is another type's base and so on. As it turned out, this was also the supervisory cycle which follows the order of the vital functions.
one cycle is Fi -> Ne -> Ti -> Se -> Fi
FiNe (INFj) supervises NeTi (ENTp) which supervises TiSe (ISTj) which supervises SeFi (ESFp) which supervises FiNe (INFj)(FiNeTiSeFi) That is why ENTp is next to INFj and ISTj.
INTj is the ENTp mirror, their function orders go into the opposite directions (based on base -> creative) going Ti -> Ne -> Fi -> Se -> Ti
again, this matches up with base to creative which is someone else's base to their creative which is someone else's base, and so on.
Hence why the INTj and ENTp are not next to each other, they take up the same "space" (use the same functions), but are in different cycles
The relation of INTj to ISTj on one side and INFj on the other seems more important.... as opposed to INTj being adjacent to ISTj on one side and ENFp on the other. *
INTj is adjacent to the ISTj because the Ti is the shared base, branching into differing directions due to the creative function.
INTj is adjacent to the INFj because they share the same creative function...kind of like two trains (arrows) colliding.
INTj is adjacent to the ENFp because, in the cycle they are a part of, the INTj sees the Ti that the ENFp is failing to take into account (ENFp does not start with Ti, but the INTj is).
INTj is adjacent to the ESTp because the ESTp sees the Se that the INTj is failing to take into account.
This is what makes the supervisory cycles. The supervisor sees information that the supervisee is failing to take into account. The supervisor also creates the information which the supervisee "accepts" and who in turn "creates" new information which is their supervisee's accepting information, and so on.
Follow the arrows and you can easily see who creates what for whom.
Note: I did not set out with supervisor cycles and such in mind when I discovered this, I was just moving functions around and trying to see how the types connected to each other. It was only after having placed the functions into this that the supervisory cycles and beneficiary cycles showed up...as well as the +/-...that was a total afterthought ...just to see how the +/- fit in if at all.... I was very suprised that it fit in so neatly.
things like that
PS: It seems like, to you, the +/- of functions was more important than the overall similarity of the types. Something like that?
nope, the +/- of the functions was a total afterthought, after the functions and types had been written in. Basically, The functions and types were puzzle pieces I was trying to see how could fit together, it was only after arranging them that i saw so many aspects to the "picture" the pieces formed. the +/- were not originally pieces. Even the supervisory cycles and beneficiary cycles were suprises to see in there.
Your diagram was too illustrate the progression of functions for a type - any type - not to relate the types to each other as a group. Yeah?
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I had originally started out with the duals...noticing that the duals have the same function orders, only starting out on a different function. ..that led to 8 diagram sets. Then I'd noticed that i could place four types into one set... if i placed one of the sets into the center/outside and had them follow the opposite function order...this gave me 4 diagram sets. Then I figured that somehow those four sets could be made into two diagrams....and then i saw how to make it all into one diagram. After making the one diagram, i noticed that it naturally split up the quadras, the static/dynamics, showed the two assymetric cycles, and finally the long/short range....these were all after the fact surprises, but yes, i had initially started out just trying to see how the types related to each other's functions, as model a was requiring extensive memorizations and i needed something clearer and easier.
type chain
in terms of the order and relations being of importance. Some people may not appreciate that as much as I do, I am sure.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by UDP III
is an alpha/delta value, not beta.
