Te+ or Te-? Because Te+ is unconscious for me in this model, so I won't be able to easily order whenever I want?Originally Posted by Petter
Give the examples. Would emotional pressure also requires other functions (such as Se-)?Emotional pressure would be Fe- or Fe+. It depends on the situation.
If I am able to "pass" some information or act on it whenever I want, then I consider it conscious. If I need something from someone, then I can order them (Te+ or Te-?), and I don't need to "think" about it or expecting it from someone. Does "not thinking about it, but doing it naturally" makes something unconscious (even when it is doing the job just fine)?It makes no sense if you find a conscious Se- and a conscious Ne+. How do distinguish between conscious and unconscious functions?
I am referring to Model A's mental/vital theory, but your theory doesn't seem to differ either, especially as you said mental functions are verbalized.What conscious/unconscious theory are you referring to?
I also fear people getting physically close to me but I don't exaggerate about physical threats openly. Does that make my Se- unconscious? (because I am not "verbalizing" the information)Those are very obvious aspects of aggression. All people are capable of reacting like that, so it is not an indication of a conscious Se-. A weak and conscious Se- (like ILI's) gets annoyed by people who are too close. There are constantly exaggerations about physical threats. An ILI could say: "all immigrants are thieves".
But then wouldn't it be a matter of degree of consciousness/unconsciousness rather than calling one function entirely conscious/unconscious?The fact that you notice these aspects of Se- (and Te, and Fe) does not mean that it is conscious. And a vital function also think about these things consciously (according to Vladimir Yermak). The question is how much attention you give to these aspects of Se-, and how much you talk about it.
No, I am referring to Socionics' understanding of Se. And, yes, I don't see much SLEs pushing people around, rather they give orders. (I always thought it was due to Se accepting, as Se producing push people directly) Indirect consequence? You mean Se is kind of verbalized through Fe/Te when someone orders others? (so in my case I am using Te/Fe and indirectly Se when I am ordering someone? Either way, I have offended LII with it... thought it was due to their Se PoLR)You are probably referring to Judging (mbti), i.e. Fe and/or Te. Again, SLEs (and thereby Se-) do not push people around. LSEs and LIEs do that. "Force" is just an indirect consequence of extroverted sensing. And I do not agree with all descriptions of F (Se).
In that manner, IEI would be perfectly capable of taking the best / most accurate action due to 4D Te-? But IEIs report taking the wrong routes / methods and just "go with the flow", like even when they can easily see the consequences of something, they have trouble deciding the most efficient way to reach there. How do you explain that? Is it due to their 2D Ti+ (or 1D Te+)?IEI's Ni+ is mainly interested in seeing the consequences of some imaginary actions (i.e. scenario thinking). He or she uses Te- to decide the best or most accurate action.
It appeared to me that you were referring to that theory to prove your point, so I asked how it applies in your theory / understanding of dimensionality.It is off topic... it was just an example of the difference between 3D and 4D.
If I give an advice on the best possible option to take to achieve something or whether it is possible or not, would I be using Ni+ (as you said it is blocked with Te) or Ni-Te-? How to separately apply the dimensionality here without taking the nature of combined functions? So, for example, it doesn't make sense to call Te- 4D, but rather better to call Ni-Te- 4D (and make it explicitly clear that we are talking about this particular aspect of information).It depends on how you look at it. Ni+ and Ni- are either separate functions or two versions of Ni. It really doesn't matter. However, you must realize that Ni+ is a consequence of Ni blocking with Te. That is a basic premise in Model D.
-+ signs were added later as far as I know, and I don't know how these IEIs differ from each others. What exactly you are asking?What? In what way is IEI with Ni as a Leading function the same as IEI with Ni- and Ne+ as Leading functions?
I get the sense from you that you are putting your personal understanding on conscious/unconscious, dimensionality, etc. rather than what is agreed by most socionists, but I could be wrong.In what sense am I screwing the original defintions of conscious/unconscious, dimensionality...?
But, it's more like they have a different understanding of valued/unvalued functions, so you are ought to explain your understanding, so they don't get confused by your model. You need to understand that these are separate language game (especially if people who are coming from MBTI / Socionics, they would get confused or get the wrong understanding, which means you won't achieve your purpose rather increase their misunderstanding. Got my point?). Do you have arguments for why Hitchens is ILI?I agree with the basic terminologies of Socionics. The problem is that 95% of all people on this forum (and other forums) uses, for example, valued/unvalued functions completely wrong. Then you can get insane typings like LSI for Christopher Langan, "the world's smartest man", or ESI for Christopher Hitchens. Btw, both are ILI.
But you said that Te- is 4D? Basically, they are not interested in chess (because Te- is unconscious), but if they play it, then they can naturally start using Te-? (and then they would be great at it due to the logical deduction nature of Te?) In the similar manner, every unconscious function can be "used" for good purpose, but they need to be "forced" from the outside? For example, in Model G, Se- is considered a strong function for an IEI (in terms of energy), but it needs to be supplied from the outside, this is why they can be very pushy when drive by strong emotions.Strategizing involves some kind of decisions, right? ---> Te-! IEI is not particularly interested in chess. There is a reason for that.
Te- or Te+? Do you put the shared aspect of functions in both -+ signs, or you consider them entirely separate functions? If logical deductions belong to both Te- or Te+, then the difference between Te- and Te+ would be that the former is about taking the most efficient route (through logical deduction) and latter would be deducting the conclusion using the factual information / evidence? I can see IEIs lacking in both areas to be honest.What do you mean? Te is also about making decisions (which is closely related to logical deductions).
Yes, IEIs are shitty when it comes to deciding the accurate fact from the bunch of factual information.No, you are wrong. Te+ is about concrete and specific facts (Trivial Pursuit etc.). IEI's Te+ 1D PoLR.
Dimensionality is the same as Model A. What I don't understand how you associate 1D-4D with isolated functions when they can't be talked in isolation? Why not simply say IEI's NiFe is 4D, NiTe is 3D? To me it seems like you are putting symmetry where it doesn't exist or they don't matter anymore.In what way is your understanding of dimensionality and conscious/unconscious different from mine?
So, you are trying to defy the stereotypes that have arisen due to the blind faith in Model A (and other factors)?"IEI is a people person". That is only partly true. "ILI is like a robot" That is not true at all. ILI understands people better than SEI.
Are you confident enough that Model D isn't crude approximation either and the dimensionality/conscious/unconscious would apply to every subtype? Dimensionality and conscious/unconscious can't be changed due to environmental factors? Did you base your model on hypothetical scenarios or you have actually observed people in real-life? For example, in order to validate it, I need to meet at least 10 people of all the types (with subtype variations).Model A is a crude approximation. Model D is much more accurate.
Reply With Quote