.
.
Last edited by bye; 11-27-2020 at 08:00 PM.
ok so you are a rooky, and that is ok!
The most important of your two questions are what is 4D. In Socionics a very accepted term is dimension. Some elements are 1D, others are 4D. 4D are the "top dimension". The other question about + and - is very much discussed today. Some people even want to develop their own model of + and -, since its so new. So it kind of make each element specual. SLE have Se- and SEE have Se+. (for the frame of - and + im going for here). Those two Se is a bit different, while one is subtracting and the other one is adding. It is differences in the same element.
In a nutshell, - focuses on reducing bad, and + on creating good. So -Ni will look to the past for reference points and insight on how to prevent negative consequences or unfavorable events, where as +Ni will look to the future for situations that they can benefit from.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I think its based on observation. -Se really translates to, How Se is used when combine with Ti. Whereas Se with Fi is used inherently differently, as each block works in a synthesis together. If Ti takes you one direction, and Fi takes you another, its logical that if both synthesize seperately with an identical element (Se) that the nature of that Se would run backwards from the other.
It serves simply as a symbol meant to reflect reality.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
You might want to review some of the basic information here:
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Dimensionality
You can see there that four dimensions are assigned, and of the eight information elements for each type, two of them will each share the same dimensionality. So for example an SLE has 4D Se, and also has 4D Te; 3D Si and Ti; 2D Ne and Fe; 1D Fi and Ni. (Fixed; thanks, @anndelise.)
This idea has some utility, in my experience, when typing someone, as I can get misled by their apparent strength in an area even though it isn't an ego function. Continuing with SLE as an example, I've noticed that a couple of SLEs I've known very well were pretty comfortable with perceptions and actions that fit with Si. When I first learned about socionics, I even wondered if one of those SLEs was an ESE. Now I would be less likely to get confused on that point.
You'll hear people say things like "if someone has strong Fi, they also have strong Fe," and similar. This is a shorthand way of saying that the functions in the ego block and id block are both strong, i.e., both have 3D and 4D dimensionality. (See http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Model_A.)
Another reason dimensionality matters is that it shows how your dual will be strong (4D strength) at handling the information element you're weakest in (your polr), but that it's not a valued element for them. This means in theory that a dual can comfortably discharge issues related to your polr, but doesn't actually care about it, won't directly criticize your weakness, etc.
You can also see on the wiki I linked to how the parameters "experience," "norms," "situation," and "time" are assigned.
For a 1D information element, you can handle the parameter of experience.
For a 2D information element, you can handle experience and norms.
For a 3D information element, you can handle experience, norms, and situation.
For a 4D information element, you can handle experience, norms, situation, and time.
See the first wiki link for complete definitions of those four parameters. They appear to describe moving from passive recognition based on past individual experience, at 1D, to being able to actively model future developments, at 4D.
[By the way, I wrote this in part to review the material for myself because I rarely think about the theory anymore. Thanks for your indulgence and for the feedback helping me to correct and clarify it.]
Last edited by golden; 01-23-2017 at 03:48 PM.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
To the OP, the +/- has also been used merely as a means to differentiate the 'cycle'.
NTSFN vs NFSTN.
(NT->TS->SF->FN vs NF->FS->ST->TN)
So Ne- is NeFi. Ne+ is NeTi.
Also has been shown as Ne-+Fi vs Ne+-Ti, to suggest something like magnetic/electrical charges.
Then there are the interpretations others have already listed, which have become much more widespread over the past decade.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
There are several different models with signed elements.
On the one hand there is Model B, Gulenko's "classical" signs, and SSS's signed elements which seem to be based on the first two or related somehow. In these models Result types have a - element as their first element, and Process = +.
Then there is Model G where +/- corresponds to Positivist/Negativist. I also have a model called Model A2 where this is the case, it seems more intuitive to me.
All of these models have the same essential structure (where there is exactly one type with each element as their "main" element) but they give different semantics to the elements and functions (if at all). In any case you don't need to use them to understand the basic theory; same with dimensionality.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
If function pairs determine +/- then opposite quadras must have the same signs for each function? Like SLE's Se- Ti+ in the Ego becomes the IEEs Ti+ Se- Super-Ego? It wouldnt make sense if IEE had Ti- Se+ Super Ego, only the Super Id because its the values they share with Alpha (Ti-) and Gamma (Se+)
Also there's a relationship between the +/- value of your Leading and whether you're Result or Process. This might be because + is more involved and immediate while - is more goal oriented? Maybe that's why I relate more to Super-Ego relations than Activation...
process/results, it's no more or less significant than any other reinin dichotomy (barring dichotomies like Judicious-Decisive, Merry-Serious, or Aristocratic-Democratic that define quadra and thus information elements)
stop shitting yourselves over something so tedious, ugghhh
This is true of the Model B-style models. In Model G the signs are based on the orientation of the loop as @anndelise says.
It's debatable how empirically recognizable it is (probably not very) but it is special in that it corresponds to a particular subgroup of relationships. This is not true of all the dichotomies.
I see it as being more significant when applied to the IM elements.
The +- is bullshit. End of story.
Lol, but seriously, there is no consistent definition of them and I have not seen any of the +- theories check out in actual reality, quite the opposite.
What actually does have some validity in reality is how the same Base function of the Kindred types will have a different flavour to it in many situations but that's simply because the Base has different "helpers" (Creative and Demonstrative). E.g. for SLE, Se with Logic is going to be a bit different than Se of SEE with Ethics. But these differences in flavours don't translate into anything else, certainly not into any of the various versions of this +- concept that have been created over time.
So many unproven assumptions in there. Blocks working in synthesis, them always taking you in a different direction, and that it would have to mean one specific kind of direction change ("run backwards"). None of that has any basis in reality. I like symbols that do actually reflect reality though sure
To be fair, all of socionics is unproven assumptions. Doesnt mean its not accurate.
You dont think the elements in a block work together? I thought that was pretty basic stuff.
Edit - For mirror elements working in opposite directions:
Lets use Fe and Te. Te focuses on the solid, empirical facts and data. Doesnt waste time looking deeper under the surface of that information as that runs counter to the attitude of getting shit done, accomplishing work, achieving goals. Being productive, the motto of Te. However, Fe is all about inferring information, especially when there is little. Being adept at reading the atmosphere or the underlying emotion of others is possible only by focusing on information that is not readily apparent. Now, if combined with Ni in that block, Te uses that Ni to look for beneficial events in the future(ex. Becky always blows her check on the 1rst of the month, I think I can sell her my playstation if i call her at the right time and then I can use that money for this other side project...) Achieving goals is forward thinking. Fe uses that Ni to reference the past to avoid mishaps in the future(ex. Brian did this thing with his face when he said that, I do that same thing when im lying, I shouldnt talk about what Brians saying because it could start some drama). The +-, attempts to encapsulate this difference. The element is being used differently because of the other element its blocked with.
You can disagree that it has validity, but thats the theory the OP is asking about.
Last edited by Pookie; 01-26-2017 at 04:22 AM.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Doesn't mean it's accurate, either. Lol.
Anyway, the point is, better to keep the number of such assumptions at the minimum, in general.
How I deal with this, I make my own observations, check against other psychology theories too, etc. So far the result is that I've definitely kept some stuff from Socionics (and Jung) but the rest nope.
Yes, precisely, I don't think they always work together in a block. Don't really care whether it's supposed to be basic stuff.You dont think the elements in a block work together? I thought that was pretty basic stuff.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Yeah, parameter of experience is just, experiencing the information element. Bits of it, anyway. It will not translate to a different situation, is just repetitive use of very limited understanding. Norms are sort of "rules" on how to treat the information in every situation, little discerning of additional variables. Situation means exactly what you guessed.
PS: I was criticizing +- above, dimensionality of information processing is a valid concept but it cannot be easily inferred with enough precision from behaviour. Over time, you can see trends though and that will help. The person's understanding of where and what is easy for them and what difficulties they have can point it out even more.
Dimensionality is about how strong you are at employing a certain IE.
+/- is about the kind of IE the type has.
1D and 2D are generally considered to be "weak", 3D and 4D to be "strong".
I've written about the subtleties here.
I do find +/- to be valid and helpful when it comes to typing, personally.
It can make it easier to differentiate between Mirror or Kindred types, for they use/prefer the opposite +/- modalities.
It can also explain why certain types can easily be mistyped for each other. For example, it explains how ESI can be mistaken for SLI or IEI, or LIE can be mistaken for IEI or SLE, etc. Those types all share the same +/- preferences. Furthermore, I find the shared +/- is one of the reasons why both Benefit and Supervision are more attractive than they "should" be. The people in those relations feel more similar to each other because of the shared +/- , even though the relation is asymmetrical.
Besides, one could say + is about "expansion" and - is about "contraction".
Regarding people using both +/- of a certain IE: according to Gulenko, this depends on the strength of the IE.
Tying it all together, 4D IEs (esp. the Lead) can be used in both the + and - way, and the person may "switch" once in a while when it is necessary or convenient.
However, they still have a certain default preference. Left to their own devices, they naturally will mostly "use" either the + or - kind more often.
Yes, it's a nice part of the theory (the dimensionality stuff). But again, let me emphasize how in practice, there is no very good precise tool to use this for typing as the "first-line" method beyond just differentiating between strong and weak functions.
As for the time parameter, it's just you processing the information always so you can see a lot of different situations over time from that standpoint. Do you find Se is like that for you, like in the example you gave?
I'm glad it was helpful. I'm not a theory head when it comes to Socionics. In the everyday, I have noticed that SLEs "use" their Se in all kinds of situations, in pretty much every situation they possibly can. According to the theory, moving to 4D, people can use a function to model how things develop over time. So in practice, with an SLE I used to know, I would see him take note of a person's characteristics, such as their hair or their socks, and tell me on the basis of these observations things like where the person was from, and their likely profession, and he could approach a person, saying to me beforehand, "Watch, he will like it if I say [this] to him. I know how to get him to do [this or that]." Or he would know what he might have to do to bring a project to fruition, such as in real estate investing: whom he needed to appeal to (or threaten, ha), and when, and why, to keep people under control and get things done properly for a profit. That sort of thing. If he had a problem at work, he'd stew and then decide, "Fine, I am going to do [this] about it." "This" was usually some kind of big power maneuver, whereas I'd be more likely to confront the person in a direct and honest way, appeal to authority, work the system / chain of command, and use diplomacy first. Since I don't myself have 4D Se, I can only kind of say what I see from the outside. So these are kind of guesses on my part.
You're probably right about "situation." I think with my 3D functions, I can shape and temper them to fit new situations. They seem to be at my disposal and function as tools.
Not sure if this is how others see it.
Last edited by golden; 01-28-2017 at 09:54 PM.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Yep.
So you always have your focus on this? Because I can write a similar summary no problem and my Se is 3D.Yeah I guess Se is like that for me, it's hard to tell because I just learned about it. I'd say I have a good sense of how much influence or power people have. For example, there's a friend circle that I used to be in sometimes. We have this facebook group where we plan events like parties and going to music festivals etc, I just met them randomly one night out and then they started inviting me. At first I really liked being with them, it was just a really fun group of guys, but I eventually got really annoyed by the "leader" of the group. Basically everone would follow him around, and if I went to take a piss or something he'd just continue walking, just no respect whatsoever. One night we went to another city, and we had to wait two ours in the car before driving home because he had went of with some girl, he didn't even answer his phone. By the time he came back I was so fucking furious I just started pushing him around an yelling at him. This happened a couple of times, I'd get super aggro on him and then we'd become friend again. He also treated me like a fucking body guard at times, saying that if someone got in a fight I'd help them, which would be flattering if it wasn't for the fact that he had treated me with disrespect so many times. So we started out as friends and equals, me him and some other guy, but when I was introduced to the rest of the group there was simply no room for me. You can't have two leaders in one group, and I'm sure as hell not going follow him around all day.
Lol, I think this is more Ti here, I would notice the same issue.As for more large scale things like war and economy, I have a good understanding of capitalism and how competitive markets work, and also how governments maintain control over people. In Sweden, the state has a monopoly on alcohol, and the official reason is that they need to make people drink less. However, the state controlled liquor store has commercials on tv where they brag about how they aren't like other stores, in that they aren't driven by profit and aren't trying to sell you more. Well, why the fuck do they have commercials then? They make it expensive as hell so that we will buy less... yeah, raising the prices is a pretty fucking good sales strategy if you have a monopoly. People aren't going to stop buying alcohol, and they know that very well.
None is the right one. It's all apophenia.
OK, give me a topic to write the summary on.
OK. Btw for sure I would not think about conspiracy theory stuff so you're right you'd have things in it that I didn't think of.Edit: You know what, I think I could write a better summary on power dynamics that might bring up some things you might not have thought about, but it would get really dark and I'd have to go into "conspiracy theory" territory, which is not something I came to this forum to discuss. But it's 02:51 here now and I have to get some sleep, I'll reply if I come up with something