# Am I using Model B correctly, or am I just making this all up?



## Nico1e (Jul 27, 2011)

Not too long ago, I did another google search to find out about the socionics model that I've been wondering about for a long time now. I remember seeing a chart with plus and minus signs in each box for every one of the functions, for instance, with -Si/+Se as my base function (SLI). But I didn't know what this model was called and couldn't find out any more info about it.

I somehow stumbled across a page where people said that this was called 'Model B' by Alexander Bukalov. Then I realized that I probably could have found that out ages ago, and that everyone else probably already knew that's what it was, and I just somehow missed it.

So. Does anyone know how Model B is supposed to be used, what it's supposed to mean?

I've been trying to interpret it my own way, since I don't have the 'instruction book.' I've been reading it like this: The function on the left in the box (-Si in my 1st function) is somehow more prominent than the other one on the right (+Se). They're both in there, but somehow one is more visible than the other. True or false? Or, are they both equal, but, for convention, the one particular function is put on the left so that it still looks similar to the old Model A, where Si was shown as my base function, without any plus or minus signs? 

Here is one of the links from the16types:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/30477-Hitta-s-Divine-Explanation-of-Model-B

He has the chart that I'm talking about.

I've also been noticing something. I think that everyone in one group has some kind of attraction to everyone in the other group. Group everyone into either the plus extraverts or plus introverts.

Plus Extraverts (all extraverted functions are +)

SLI (-Si/+Se,+Te/-Ti,-Ni/+Ne,+Fe/-Fi)
LSE
ILE
LII
IEI
EIE
SEE
ESI

Plus Introverts (all introverted functions are +)

IEE (-Ne/+Ni,+Fi/-Fe,-Se/+Si,+Ti/-Te)
EII
SEI
ESE
SLE
LSI
ILI
LIE

All of the people in one group are attracted to all of the people in the other group. Each group is in the other's vital ring, so they make you 'feel something' rather than just having a verbal discussion about common interests with you. Sometimes the feelings are more negative, such as anxiety, tension, anger, and so on. But even so, it's some kind of a feeling, and there is usually some kind of attraction or affection in there, even if you feel uncomfortable and can't express it, and it sometimes triggers laughter. The people in the same group with you can hold a verbal discussion with you, but it doesn't trigger a lot of emotions, other than the emotion of 'I'm interested in this topic.' 

This matches my real-world experience much better than the classic model A, where I'm supposed to feel attracted to the ESI and SEE because they have Fi. The classic model A doesn't distinguish which kind of Fi. I encounter a large number of ESIs and SEEs in real life and don't normally feel attracted to them - instead, I feel like we are sort of doing the same thing, and that they are also doing something that I don't like very much. It fits very well with the idea that they, too, share +Se/-Si with me, and then they are also using -Fi/+Fe, a weak and disvalued function for me. 

But in real life, I am frequently attracted to the ILI and LIE, even though I don't encounter them as often. They are using +Ni/-Ne, a valued function, my dual function. 

And in real life, I am also much more frequently attracted to everyone else in the 'plus introverts' group above. I am not saying that they are all equally good relationships or that I would equally want to have a long-term serious relationship with all of them. But in a social environment such as my workplace, where there are a lot of people talking to each other in random situations, I have a much more obviously complementary interaction with all of the plus introverts than I do with the plus extraverts. 

With all of 'my own group,' the plus extraverts, I can have a conversation about things we are both interested in. I actually got along very well with an EIE conflictor when I was briefly going to a church last year, and I could sometimes feel the strain when he was using his functions and I wanted to use my own instead - we were playing board games together in a group and he was teaching me how to play them and what choices I could make in the game and what scenarios might happen if I did this or did that instead; and I would get the urge to just take a risk and just do it without knowing all the consequences and scenarios, even if I screwed up. He was very kind and loving and would give me a hug when he saw me, to make sure that I felt welcome all the time. He was universally kind to everyone, as much as he could be, and always tried to make things fun and keep everyone in a happy mood. That place truly would not be the same without him. However, he didn't *attract* me deeply on the emotional level. 

Using my interpretation of Model B with the plus and minuses matches reality much better for me. Am I even using this model correctly, or am I making this all up out of thin air? How is this model supposed to be used?

I read someplace, I think wikipedia, that Model B was intended to help reconcile some of the differences between MBTI and socionics. In MBTI, they recommend supervision relations, and a lot of people have them. I find supervision relations to indeed be attractive in the real world, but they have their stresses and challenges, and ideally, I'd want to be with duals and activators for long-term intimate relationships. Still, this model does help explain why that attraction is there, much better than the original Model A.

I think that Aushra Augusta got it right when she modeled duality, but she wasn't able to extend the model outside of the quadra to the neighboring quadras. Her model failed in those quadras. It explained duality really well, but couldn't explain the other relations very well, without the pluses and minuses. People could tell that there was *something* to it, at least part of it, but not all of it, and they couldn't explain what was right and what was wrong. When I saw that chart with the pluses and minuses I felt like it explained it.


----------



## Nico1e (Jul 27, 2011)

Oh, and also,  I don't like dissing entire groups of people, so, sorry for picking out the SEE/ESI as an example. I'm just trying to say that I don't feel a desire to have intimate relationships with the ones that I encounter in real life, and that I don't feel the 'chemistry' that I'm supposed to feel. That doesn't mean that I don't like them.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

What does the plus and minus things mean? My Te is more visible than Ti? Don't think so, it must mean something else.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Inguz said:


> What does the plus and minus things mean? My Te is more visible than Ti? Don't think so, it must mean something else.


From what I have seen of it, it's basically asserting that the IM elements manifest differently depending on the quadra; ie, Delta Te vs Gamma Te, Beta Fe vs Alpha Fe. Socionics - the16types.info - Signs of Functions (+/-) I personally don't get the need for it, as the differences are notable once one understands the concept of IM blocking within the quadras anyway; it just seems unnecessarily complicated.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> From what I have seen of it, it's basically asserting that the IM elements manifest differently depending on the quadra; ie, Delta Te vs Gamma Te, Beta Fe vs Alpha Fe. Socionics - the16types.info - Signs of Functions (+/-) I personally don't get the need for it, as the differences are notable once one understands the concept of IM blocking within the quadras anyway; it just seems unnecessarily complicated.


Ah, thanks. I didn't find it when looking for it.

Also just while at it, I really appreciate your input and consider you to be the most valuable poster in the socionics forum.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Inguz said:


> Ah, thanks. I didn't find it when looking for it.


You're welcome. The16types has a database (as it were) of various articles. Blame/thank Hkkmr for that one. *chuckles*



> Also just while at it, I really appreciate your input and consider you to be the most valuable poster in the socionics forum.


I don't post that much and usually avoid the typing subforum, so I'm kind of surprised. That's sweet of you, though.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> I don't post that much and usually avoid the typing subforum, so I'm kind of surprised. That's sweet of you, though.


That's perfectly fine, but what you are doing is to educate people in a very appropriate yet no-nonsense kind of way.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Inguz said:


> That's perfectly fine, but what you are doing is to educate people in a very appropriate yet no-nonsense kind of way.


Fair enough.


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

I do not recommend to increase number of not proved theories in use. Just use classical Socionics, - Jung's and Augustinavichute's models and theories. There are many hypotheses in typology wich were created rather voluntary, mostly they are not popular and easily can be erroneous.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Sol_ said:


> I do not recommend to increase number of not proved theories in use. Just use classical Socionics, - Jung's and Augustinavichute's models and theories. There are many hypotheses in typology wich were created rather voluntary, mostly they are not popular and easily can be erroneous.


Jung's and Augusta's theories are proven? Hot diggidy damn, when did this happen?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Jung's and Augusta's theories are proven? Hot diggidy damn, when did this happen?


I think he meant, better use fewer of these not proven theories.  I agree.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> I think he meant, better use fewer of these not proven theories.  I agree.


There are no SLEs on the interwebz, silly goose.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> There are no SLEs on the interwebz, silly goose.


That's another unproven theory? =D


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> That's another unproven theory? =D


I have my Se-PoLR eye on you.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> I have my Se-PoLR eye on you.


Oooh how threatening that sounds! 

PS: if you actually have thoughts about my type, I do have a recent type me thread, I welcome any input.


----------



## Miranda Mayhem (Sep 16, 2016)

Nico1e said:


> Not too long ago, I did another google search to find out about the socionics model that I've been wondering about for a long time now. I remember seeing a chart with plus and minus signs in each box for every one of the functions, for instance, with
> 
> Sorry, I'm extremely late to this but I agree. Do you notice the first page of this thread is occupied by the entire introverted-involutionary Benefit ring?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Miranda Mayhem said:


> Not too long ago, I did another google search to find out about the socionics model that I've been wondering about for a long time now. I remember seeing a chart with plus and minus signs in each box for every one of the functions, for instance, with
> 
> Sorry, I'm extremely late to this but I agree. Do you notice the first page of this thread is occupied by the entire introverted-involutionary Benefit ring?


This one? Btw, it is not Model B.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Nico1e said:


> ...


-


----------



## Miranda Mayhem (Sep 16, 2016)

.


----------

