ESE's Fi VS. EIE's Fi, ESI's Fe VS. EII's Fe

[Petter]

I spoke to both Rick and Gulenko and they both confirmed that Te and Ti conflict, and Fe and Fi etc.

I would still like to see a quote.

The wikisocion quote was written ~10 years ago and needs to be put in context. I don't believe that Te and Ti generally support one another, I would never use that wording now. What I do believe is that they can be used in alternation to build upon one another, as in the scientific method of creating theories and testing them alternatively. But they cannot be used simultaneously, in parallel, and they do clash when you try to do so. This is where they differ from dual elements, blocked elements, benefactors etc.

Okay, I disagree with you. I am not sure if they can be used in parallel, though.

Output in the sense of Model A2 should be understood as action in the same way that perception is input.

What do you mean by 'perception'? Are perceiving functions about input?

Some of my definitions are pretty similar to Model G actually, like +Ne and -Ne for example as potential and possibilities respectively. But all these models are speculative and none have reached widespread agreement yet. (Olga and the Associative Socionics crew should definitely not be taken as an authority on what is mainstream or not.)

I am really skeptical of Model G, including his descriptions of the functions. Gulenko is using positivist/negativist which should be very different from your definitions.

There are four major organizations and schools in Socionics: SRSI (classical), IIS (classical and +/-, and model B), SHS and SSS. I trust Olga when it comes to this, and she knows some of the socionists personally.

The information elements are eight psychological faculties which are responsible for processing "information aspects" or categories of information, similar to the physical senses of sight, touch, hearing etc.
Less often mentioned is that, like the physical senses, each IM element does not accept input uncritically - they also make judgments. That is, just as we dislike and seek to avoid negative physical sensations like pain or abrasive sounds, yet we seek out and enjoy pleasant sensations (good music, tasty food, etc.), each IM element has its own (psychological) definition of "good" and "bad" information.
Each category of information (information aspect) has a utility measure naturally attached to it. A person's type determines their relationship to each of these utility measures, the leading function being the primary way they evaluate how good or bad things are. We attempt to optimize each of these measures through action, hence they are goals.

But the function/IM element (i.e. processing) is still not a goal. However, the aspect (i.e. information) can be a goal ("good" instead of "bad").

Wikisocion says "Every person actively seeks to process information based on [the valued functions]" and
"in situations where we must use [the subdued functions] they tend to produce dissatisfaction and distress in ourselves."
My understanding differs from this in a subtle but important way. As I've written about on my site, I see the IM elements as goals, as well as categories of information that we can focus on. If "using" them means actively focusing on them and trying to achieve their goals, then no this is not what we value or enjoy in my view. What we value is that the goals themselves are achieved. This is what produces the positive feeling associated with the suggestive function. Very often it is actually annoying to have to actively use the suggestive function, it's something that we tend to have trouble with.

Don't all people value "good" information? I don't see how this is related to "valued" / "subdued" functions.

[Exodus]

What do you mean by 'perception'? Are perceiving functions about input?

Perception is a type of input - we, as information processors, take in information from the external world.

But the function/IM element (i.e. processing) is still not a goal. However, the aspect (i.e. information) can be a goal ("good" instead of "bad").

Information processing is inherently goal-oriented in my view. The set of information processors (elements) are in natural correspondence with the goals so they can be used interchangeably.

Don't all people value "good" information? I don't see how this is related to "valued" / "subdued" functions.

You could say on the one hand that yes, everyone wants to experience comfort rather than discomfort (), to have a purpose in life rather than to be aimless (). But in practice these goals "that everyone wants" conflict with each other, so we have to prioritize. Model A is the innate way that we prioritize the goals (because of how we experience them psychologically). So an SLE who might, all other things being equal, prefer to be comfortable, will usually neglect comfort if it gets in the way of his materially-oriented goals, because he does not experience comfort as being as enjoyable as an SEI might.

[golden]

"+Fe is the goal of expanding the overall "volume" of ethical input—which it does by seeking to interact with as many people as possible."

This is definitely true for EIE as well.

Nah to the bolded.

[golden]

Nah to the bolded.

And @Petter, I'll give an example of what I mean, as I stumbled across one this morning.

Freddie Mercury, who I think is EIE, could work a stage amazingly. Queen guitarist Brian May said of him, he could make "the last person at the back of the furthest stand in a stadium feel that he was connected." Kurt Cobain (widely thought of as IEI) wrote in his suicide note that he envied how Freddie Mercury "seemed to love, relish in the love and adoration from the crowd." As May's comment reminds us, these crowds were regularly stadium-size, as in when Mercury led all of Wembley Stadium in a call-and-response.

But in his private life, Freddie Mercury was known to be quiet and a bit shy. His circle of real friends doesn't seem to have been outsize in the way his audiences were. He said of his former girlfriend Mary Austin, whom he remained close to, that she was "his only friend." It's not entirely true that she was his "only friend," in that we know he had other friends and lovers. But this statement shows how he ultimately valued the people who were very close to him and focused on them.

I could argue that his semi-closetedness, his Parsi ethnicity, his superstardom, or something like enneagram instinct played a part in how he constructed and understood his social world. But even allowing for those factors, I see him as pretty typical for EIE. I think EIEs often know how to work a crowd, or craft a broad-reaching message, and they can think big. They often will feel themselves to be somewhat on the outside socially nonetheless, or if not some of them seem to position themselves to advocate for or participate in parts of society that aren't integrated into the mainstream. They're good at bringing hidden or marginal things to light. When EIE descriptions talk about Fe seeing to "the tone" or making sure everyone is included, I think it may have to do with how EIEs see themselves, which I might best call "liminal."

Often they can connect with people well, can talk to just about anyone. But I have yet to meet one who was a true party animal. I knew one who was a rock musician and felt he had to pretend to be very social and into partying, but if you got to know him you'd see that he was calculated in doing this. He was careful not to be drunk or do drugs, didn't smoke, had custom-made earplugs so his hearing wouldn't get damaged, spent most of his time figuring out his career and making business connections. He literally told me he let the people in the music scene who were just in it to be cool and social think he was doing the same thing they were, when really he was positioning himself to be successful. This doesn't mean he didn't genuinely enjoy what he was doing, and he often did like the people around him, but his mentality was at odds with his image.

[Petter]

Perception is a type of input - we, as information processors, take in information from the external world.

What other types of input are there in your view?

Ni is also about perception, but it does (usually) not take in information from the external world.

Information processing is inherently goal-oriented in my view. The set of information processors (elements) are in natural correspondence with the goals so they can be used interchangeably.

But there is still a difference between 'being goal-oriented' and 'a goal'. The former is trying to reach the latter. I disagree with you, I don't think they can be used interchangeably.

You could say on the one hand that yes, everyone wants to experience comfort rather than discomfort (Si), to have a purpose in life rather than to be aimless (Ni). But in practice these goals "that everyone wants" conflict with each other, so we have to prioritize. Model A is the innate way that we prioritize the goals (because of how we experience them psychologically). So an SLE who might, all other things being equal, prefer to be comfortable, will usually neglect comfort if it gets in the way of his materially-oriented goals, because he does not experience comfort as being as enjoyable as an SEI might.

But prioritization is about preference (i.e. dimensionality), not value. Many people on various forums are confused by this. LII prefers Ti, Ne, Te and Ni over Fi, Se, Fe and Si.

[Exodus]

What other types of input are there in your view?

Ni is also about perception, but it does (usually) not take in information from the external world.

Yes, perception can be either of the mental world or the physical world (intuition and sensing respectively). Perception seems like a general enough term to cover all types of input — do you disagree?

But prioritization is about preference (i.e. dimensionality), not value. Many people on various forums are confused by this. LII prefers Ti, Ne, Te and Ni over Fi, Se, Fe and Si.

I have never seen anything that implies that dimensionality is about preference. The way it is normally explained it is about ability or strength (and thus a refinement of the strong/weak dichotomy of Model A).

[Petter]

Yes, perception can be either of the mental world or the physical world (intuition and sensing respectively). Perception seems like a general enough term to cover all types of input — do you disagree?

Yes, but the phrase "Perception is a type of input" suggests different kinds of inputs.

I have never seen anything that implies that dimensionality is about preference. The way it is normally explained it is about ability or strength (and thus a refinement of the strong/weak dichotomy of Model A).

Yes, dimensionality is about strength and refinement (of functions). But I think interest/patience is more accurate than ability.

I: "But why isn't the ILI good at (or interested in) repairing cars etc? ILI's P is 3D."

SSS: "We do not believe that they are not good. And it is a matter of personal interests."

Okay, so where does preference fit in?

SSS, Ego and Super-Id: "Value, importance of the information related to the element"

Preference = "The selecting of someone or something over another or others". LII selects Te and Ni over Fe and Si, so you think Te/Ni information is more interesting. And this information also reflects what you actually do. BUT you think Fe and Si are more important (i.e. value) relative to Fi and Se, and Ti and Ne are more important relative to Te and Ni. If we make this distinction then I can accept valued functions.

BTW, Myers-Briggs Foundation are also using 'preference' in this sense (i.e. strength, interest...).

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-p...e/mbti-basics/