# Thread: Hypothetic mix between Models A and T

1. ## Hypothetic mix between Models A and T

WARNING : This material is purely hypothetical. I've taken the risk to post it as a topic to let us discover the truth, and because I like initiative.

Model T has a limitation : it only contains 4 functions instead of 8. Could we have a Model T with 8 elements ?

(EL means "excitation level")

Introtims have LOW EL on strong functions and HIGH EL on weak functions.
Extrotims have HIGH EL on strong functions and LOW EL on weak functions.

Possible modeling of a LII :

-L+ -I-
+S- +E+
+S+ +E-
-L- -I+

If this model is true, functions 1458 are not balanced, and functions 2367 are balanced.

2. ## Hypothetic mix between Models A and T

WARNING : This material is purely hypothetical. I've taken the risk to post it as a topic to let us discover the truth, and because I like initiative.

Model T has a limitation : it only contains 4 functions instead of 8. Could we have a Model T with 8 elements ?

(EL means "excitation level")

Introtims have LOW EL on strong functions and HIGH EL on weak functions.
Extrotims have HIGH EL on strong functions and LOW EL on weak functions.

Possible modeling of a LII :

-L+ -I-
+S- +E+
+S+ +E-
-L- -I+

If this model is true, functions 1458 are not balanced, and functions 2367 are balanced.

3. few responses... hypothesis aren't very popular.

4. few responses... hypothesis aren't very popular.

5. Originally Posted by Jarno
few responses... hypothesis aren't very popular.
No, but they are necessary for researching.

Let's consider Spiral Dynamics. Although this model has been "officially" released on 1974, it has first been based on hypotheses. Beck and Cowan have slightly modified that model, and still I don't find it perfect, because it has still got logical inconsistencies.

Beck has then detached from Cowan and created another model : SDi. This model is more buddhist-anti-clerical than Cowan's SD. This was an hypothesis which implies that the leap between 1st Tier and 2nd Tier would discriminate non-buddhists against buddhists. Beck said that Catholic Church is on Level-4, Hippies on Level-6, and Buddhists on Level-8. I can't agree with Beck, but Beck's initiative was an hypothesis.

Socionists contradict each other because they are searching the truth. Myersians don't have that power, they are all agreeing to approximatively the same model. They are even mixing Keirsey and Myers-Briggs models.

6. Originally Posted by Jarno
few responses... hypothesis aren't very popular.
No, but they are necessary for researching.

Let's consider Spiral Dynamics. Although this model has been "officially" released on 1974, it has first been based on hypotheses. Beck and Cowan have slightly modified that model, and still I don't find it perfect, because it has still got logical inconsistencies.

Beck has then detached from Cowan and created another model : SDi. This model is more buddhist-anti-clerical than Cowan's SD. This was an hypothesis which implies that the leap between 1st Tier and 2nd Tier would discriminate non-buddhists against buddhists. Beck said that Catholic Church is on Level-4, Hippies on Level-6, and Buddhists on Level-8. I can't agree with Beck, but Beck's initiative was an hypothesis.

Socionists contradict each other because they are searching the truth. Myersians don't have that power, they are all agreeing to approximatively the same model. They are even mixing Keirsey and Myers-Briggs models.

7. I'm all for hypotheses, experimentation, and seeking the truth. So, I think your efforts are an asset to the forum.

But it would help if we know what problems you're trying to solve...for example, what do you see as the weaknesses of the models you're trying to supplant, and how do you envision your hypotheses to solve those problems?

Also, if you explain your notation, that would be useful. + and - have now been used in so many ways in Socionics, it's hard to keep track.

And, here and in your other thread, references to threads or articles related to the various models would help; most people know Model A; but Model X, etc....those ones are a bit obscure. So you basically limit the conversation to people who have time to find out what all those other models are.

8. I'm all for hypotheses, experimentation, and seeking the truth. So, I think your efforts are an asset to the forum.

But it would help if we know what problems you're trying to solve...for example, what do you see as the weaknesses of the models you're trying to supplant, and how do you envision your hypotheses to solve those problems?

Also, if you explain your notation, that would be useful. + and - have now been used in so many ways in Socionics, it's hard to keep track.

And, here and in your other thread, references to threads or articles related to the various models would help; most people know Model A; but Model X, etc....those ones are a bit obscure. So you basically limit the conversation to people who have time to find out what all those other models are.

9. Originally Posted by Jonathan
I'm all for hypotheses, experimentation, and seeking the truth. So, I think your efforts are an asset to the forum.

But it would help if we know what problems you're trying to solve...for example, what do you see as the weaknesses of the models you're trying to supplant, and how do you envision your hypotheses to solve those problems?

Also, if you explain your notation, that would be useful. + and - have now been used in so many ways in Socionics, it's hard to keep track.

And, here and in your other thread, references to threads or articles related to the various models would help; most people know Model A; but Model X, etc....those ones are a bit obscure. So you basically limit the conversation to people who have time to find out what all those other models are.

I'm not trying to solve problems, I'm trying to build an efficient model. Model A has limitations, for example it doesn't explain well some Reininian traits. Russians uses letters V and N to explain "high" and "low". I used + and - because I couldn't use H and L, because the letter L is already occupied by Logic.

10. Originally Posted by Jonathan
I'm all for hypotheses, experimentation, and seeking the truth. So, I think your efforts are an asset to the forum.

But it would help if we know what problems you're trying to solve...for example, what do you see as the weaknesses of the models you're trying to supplant, and how do you envision your hypotheses to solve those problems?

Also, if you explain your notation, that would be useful. + and - have now been used in so many ways in Socionics, it's hard to keep track.

And, here and in your other thread, references to threads or articles related to the various models would help; most people know Model A; but Model X, etc....those ones are a bit obscure. So you basically limit the conversation to people who have time to find out what all those other models are.

I'm not trying to solve problems, I'm trying to build an efficient model. Model A has limitations, for example it doesn't explain well some Reininian traits. Russians uses letters V and N to explain "high" and "low". I used + and - because I couldn't use H and L, because the letter L is already occupied by Logic.

11. Originally Posted by machintruc
Model A has limitations, for example it doesn't explain well some Reininian traits.
Ah, so you want a model that explains Reinin stuff logically. Fair enough. I've taken the Reinin stuff with a grain of salt because I haven't seen any compelling model to explain it...it always seems to rest on "because Reinin said so."

Originally Posted by machintruc
I'm not really sure to know what "level of excitation" and "level of inhibition" really means...
This would probably be the best place to start. I imagine you're more in a position to explain what they mean now than when you wrote this quote above?

12. Originally Posted by machintruc
Model A has limitations, for example it doesn't explain well some Reininian traits.
Ah, so you want a model that explains Reinin stuff logically. Fair enough. I've taken the Reinin stuff with a grain of salt because I haven't seen any compelling model to explain it...it always seems to rest on "because Reinin said so."

Originally Posted by machintruc
I'm not really sure to know what "level of excitation" and "level of inhibition" really means...
This would probably be the best place to start. I imagine you're more in a position to explain what they mean now than when you wrote this quote above?

13. ## Re: Hypothetic mix between Models A and T

This is another possibility :

-L+ -I-
+S- +E+
-S+ -E-
+L- +I+

If this model is true, Inert means unbalanced, and Contact means balanced.

14. ## Re: Hypothetic mix between Models A and T

This is another possibility :

-L+ -I-
+S- +E+
-S+ -E-
+L- +I+

If this model is true, Inert means unbalanced, and Contact means balanced.

15. Originally Posted by Jonathan
Ah, so you want a model that explains Reinin stuff logically. Fair enough. I've taken the Reinin stuff with a grain of salt because I haven't seen any compelling model to explain it...it always seems to rest on "because Reinin said so."
What do you have against Reinin ? His contribution was very important, because he provided a way to improve typing accuracy...

Example 1 : You can't be Result and SEI, because SEI has a short range element (+) as dominant element : SEI focus on short range things.

Example 2 : You can't be objectivist and having , because definition of objectivism is having or as dominant judging element.

Example 3 : You can't be what Reinin called "Democratic" and LSE, because LSE has J+ P-, as a "Democrat" would have J- P+.

16. Originally Posted by Jonathan
Ah, so you want a model that explains Reinin stuff logically. Fair enough. I've taken the Reinin stuff with a grain of salt because I haven't seen any compelling model to explain it...it always seems to rest on "because Reinin said so."
What do you have against Reinin ? His contribution was very important, because he provided a way to improve typing accuracy...

Example 1 : You can't be Result and SEI, because SEI has a short range element (+) as dominant element : SEI focus on short range things.

Example 2 : You can't be objectivist and having , because definition of objectivism is having or as dominant judging element.

Example 3 : You can't be what Reinin called "Democratic" and LSE, because LSE has J+ P-, as a "Democrat" would have J- P+.

#### Posting Permissions

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