# ILI introverts: +Ni, -Te, +Si... ILI extroverts: -Ne, +Ti, -Se... ??? (model B)



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/387482-model-b-model-worked-out-completion.html 

ILI introverts:

+Ni -Te 
-Fe +Si 
---------
-Fi +Se 
+Ne -Ti

ILI extroverts:

-Ne +Ti 
+Fi -Se
---------
+Fe -Si
-Ni +Te


What are your thoughts?

It makes sense (at least to me) that one's base function is extroverted when one is extroverting.

Reductio ad absurdum is an ILI trademark, and -Ne combined with +Ti explains it nicely.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

This looks like nonsense. Care to explain or would you rather us decode it?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Raawx said:


> This looks like nonsense. Care to explain or would you rather us decode it?


Firstly, do you realize that model A is incomplete? IEE's Ne (base function) is very different from ILE's Ne (base function), so we need plus and minus functions. Why? Because short range Ne (+Ne) isn't IEE's strongest and most conscious function. Both IEE: Ne, Fi...Fe and IEE: -Ne, +Fi... -Fe are inadequate.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Tellus said:


> Firstly, do you realize that model A is incomplete? IEE's Ne (base function) is very different from ILE's Ne (base function), so we need plus and minus functions. Why? Because short range Ne (+Ne) isn't IEE's strongest and most conscious function. Both IEE: Ne, Fi...Fe and IEE: -Ne, +Fi... -Fe are inadequate.


Sure, but you're still not sufficiently explaining yourself. What is the point that you're trying to make?


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

+/- shows your area of focus with regards to a function. It shouldn't fluctuate based on whether one is extroverting or introverting.
(Colloquial use of cognitive extroversion/introversion)You can "extrovert" an introvert function by talking about it, making it known. The initial pathway is introverted and then, by discussing it for example, one "extroverts" the data of the introverted function.

+/- doesn't work well for 1D functions. 


> There is a difficulty in determining the signs of one-dimensional functions. Replies issued on these functions come only from personal experience. Often these responses consist of remembering and listing one's experiences. From the standpoint of functional signs, listing specific experiences is related to the "plus": specification, details. In fact, these responses are the result of one-dimensional nature of the function and not its sign. Thus, it is difficult to estimate the property of sign "scale" for one-dimensional functions, and other properties as well. If one cannot adequately assess the manifestations of one-dimensional function, and it is not possible to observe the person being typed, then one should not rely on the responses.


In the same vein, I believe 4D can surpass +/-. Because the function is so flexible and sophisticated, it can easily grasp understanding outside of its natural bounds (like -Ni can attain +Ni wisdom, maybe slightly longer route, but not by much), because we practice Base 24/7.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Raawx said:


> Sure, but you're still not sufficiently explaining yourself. What is the point that you're trying to make?


Okay, let's assume that you accept the positions of all 16 (!) functions as shown in model B (see link above). How are we going to interpret this:

ILI

+Ni -Ne, -Te +Ti 
-Fe +Fi, +Si -Se
--------------------
-Fi +Fe, +Se -Si
+Ne -Ni, -Ti +Te


There are two alternatives:

1) +Ni is blocked with -Te AND +Ti (and -Ne is blocked with -Te AND +Ti)

2) +Ni is blocked with -Te, and -Ne is blocked with +Ti. This implies that each type, in a sense, has an 
'A-side' and a 'B-side'.

Alternative 1) contradicts a basic rule in Socionics, namely that "each block must contain exactly one introverted element and one extroverted element." Therefore I think alternative 2) is more accurate. So what determines whether the 'A-side' or the 'B-side' is used? It is obviously the information content. 

ILI 'B-side': -Ne and +Ti (as well as the other functions) work in tandem, so the process will appear as extroverted.


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

Tellus said:


> There are two alternatives:
> 
> 1) +Ni is blocked with -Te AND +Ti (and -Ne is blocked with -Te AND +Ti)
> 
> ...


I don't understand why we are re-grouping functions. It's not like Ego block can only interact with IMEs in the Ego block. Ni in ILI can interact with any of the 8 functions (Fe least likely and successfully). They are not isolated from each other.
Also each of the -/+ does come in sets, yeah, but I also don't see why that should change the positions.

The strength of ILI is +Ni/-Ne. +Ni is the star of the show, bolstered by ILIs constant, subconscious (Id) observation of -Ne. If ILI has to pour energy into using Ne in any way, then all of a sudden +Ni conclusions become a two-step process, not characteristic of Base.

Technically for ILI, their default state is a mix of all the N and T functions with Ni/Ti being the most prominent. So +Ne, -Ni, -Te, +Te should appear constantly and in any order/combination throughout the thought process.

I'm still not understanding why the bolded part is necessary? The way I see it, we absorb information by filtering (automatic process) through our entire Socionics cognition and then we can choose to "extrovert" it to others as necessary.

Edit:
Not grasping the 16 function thing either. Why 16 again? And in this order??


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Tellus said:


> Okay, let's assume that you accept the positions of all 16 (!) functions as shown in model B (see link above). How are we going to interpret this:
> 
> ILI
> 
> ...


1.) You're being nice regardless of my condescension. I appreciate that.
2.) So what you're saying is that there is are ENTP behaviors in the negation or balancing of INTJ mentality? I *think* I get that.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Schweeeeks said:


> I don't understand why we are re-grouping functions. It's not like Ego block can only interact with IMEs in the Ego block. Ni in ILI can interact with any of the 8 functions (Fe least likely and successfully). They are not isolated from each other.


That is correct, +Ni constantly interacts with all of the other 'A-side' functions, but the main interaction is between +Ni and -Te (hence: Ego block).



> Also each of the -/+ does come in sets, yeah, but I also don't see why that should change the positions.
> 
> Edit: Not grasping the 16 function thing either. Why 16 again? And in this order??


Post #6: "let's assume that you accept the positions of all 16 (!) functions as shown in model B". 

You are suggesting that ILI's Base function consists of +Ni AND -Ni, right? This is impossible! You can't have a constant focus on the short range aspects AND the long range aspects of Ni at the same time. 

Consider all intuitive types. Which ones are most 'SLE-like' when it comes to -Se (aggressiveness...)? LIE and ILI, no doubt. Try to explain this with model A.



> The strength of ILI is +Ni/-Ne. +Ni is the star of the show, bolstered by ILIs constant, subconscious (Id) observation of -Ne. If ILI has to pour energy into using Ne in any way, then all of a sudden +Ni conclusions become a two-step process, not characteristic of Base.


+Ni and -Ne are not part of the same process ('A-side' and 'B-side') ... or do I misinterpret your explanation? 



> Technically for ILI, their default state is a mix of all the N and T functions with Ni/Ti being the most prominent. So +Ne, -Ni, -Te, +Te should appear constantly and in any order/combination throughout the thought process.


Can you explain this part a bit further? Are you referring to model A or model B (or both)?



> I'm still not understanding why the bolded part is necessary? The way I see it, we absorb information by filtering (automatic process) through our entire Socionics cognition and then we can choose to "extrovert" it to others as necessary.


I disagree. I always experience -Ne/+Ti as a *conscious and extroverted process*. It is always in a conversation with someone, a real person (speech) or an imaginary person (mute or speech).


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Raawx said:


> 2.) So what you're saying is that there is are ENTP behaviors in the negation or balancing of INTJ mentality? I *think* I get that.


Can you explain this a bit further?


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Tellus said:


> Can you explain this a bit further?


I can try, at least.

INTJ is:

+Ni, -Te
-Si, +Fe 
+Se, -Fi 
-Ne, +Ti

At least, that's model A. But what you're saying is with Model B:

+Ni/-*Ne*, -Te/+*Ti*
-Si/+*Se*, +Fe/-*Fi*
+Se/-*Si*, -Fi/+*Fe*
-Ne/+*Ni*, +Ti/-*Te*

Correct? Then, the bolded type that is the "ENTP" that exists by means of the INTJ? But it's not a normal ENTP, by any means--the combination -Ne+Ti doesn't exist for any intuitive dominants. So, it's almost like:

ENTP = +Ne-Ti
INTJ = -Ne+Ti
ENFP = -Ne+Fi
INFJ = +Ne-Fi

OR, (just for me)

ENTP = +Ne & +Fi
INTJ = -Ne & -Fi
ENFP = -Ne & +Fi
INFJ = +Ne & -Fi

Is that it? If so, thats incredibly illustrative at how and why I sometimes look (and feel) SO similar to an INTJ.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Tellus said:


> I disagree. I always experience -Ne/+Ti as a *conscious and extroverted process*. It is always in a conversation with someone, a real person (speech) or an imaginary person (mute or speech).


I don't. I don't see any merit and point to this theory and it's a good case of overthinking something imo, very simple. You do this a lot all the time. Personally, I would ask myself the question that if you actually experience such an innate conscious and ego preference for Ne and Ti, if that is not better explained to be _your_ ego. 

Augusta placed Ne and Ti in the id block for a reason because they would not be conscious processes. I experience Fi more consciously than I have ever experienced Ti and Ne is something I have been unable to wrap my head around ever since I began to realize what Ne really is. It doesn't matter how many descriptions I read but I cannot consciously grasp how it is felt like in an actual experiential way. Even Fe makes more sense in this regard than Ne does.


> Consider all intuitive types. Which ones are most 'SLE-like' when it comes to -Se (aggressiveness...)? LIE and ILI, no doubt. Try to explain this with model A.


And this also only really applies to LIE and not so much ILI, imo. If anything, ILI is often confused with IEI, EII and LII, not SLE. I have yet to ever come across an ILI I think look like an SLE lol. Doesn't even compute in my head.

I say that as someone who happened to be an ILI-D in Gulenko's subtype system, meaning I have a more innate preference for Se and Ne in that kind of sense. I don't look like an SLE and I have yet to ever see someone suggested that as a type for me. If anything, I probably look more like an ESI or EII.


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

Tellus said:


> You are suggesting that ILI's Base function consists of +Ni AND -Ni, right? This is impossible! You can't have a constant focus on the short range aspects AND the long range aspects of Ni at the same time.


Ah, no. I meant +Ni with -Ne. But I believe an ILI can attain enough mastery with +Ni that they can perform -Ni tasks. 
So cognitively ILI = +Ni. But behaviorally/results show +Ni and -Ni. Does that make sense?
And same down the line with all of the other types IMO. 



Tellus said:


> Consider all intuitive types. Which ones are most 'SLE-like' when it comes to -Se (aggressiveness...)? LIE and ILI, no doubt. Try to explain this with model A.


All three value Se. Although I would substitute ILE in place of ILI. More likely to overdo a Role function, instead DS which is hard to manifest in the first place.
I haven't heard that Gamma NTs are the most "SLE-like". Where is that from?



Tellus said:


> That is correct, +Ni constantly interacts with all of the other 'A-side' functions, but the main interaction is between +Ni and -Te (hence: Ego block).
> ..............
> +Ni and -Ne are not part of the same process ('A-side' and 'B-side') ... or do I misinterpret your explanation?


Main problem here is that I don't see a need for an A-side and a B-side. I think of the functions as all working enmeshed with each other.

I'm not sure I understand model B in detail. Do you have a good guide? I went to your old thread, but would still like a more step by step resource if you have one.



Tellus said:


> Can you explain this part a bit further? Are you referring to model A or model B (or both)?


Mainly Model A with small amounts of Model B mixed in (+/- only).
Ego and Id block are both strong and ever-present in your psyche. ILI and LII naturally focus the similar areas (Same 4D Ti/Ni with 3D Te/Ne), but pay attention to opposite sides of this information (LII = -Ti/+Ne has greater emphasis whereas ILI would be +Ni/-Te). 

Let's imagine a giant mural. 
The eyes of ILI settle on NT (Ni/Ne/Te/Ti) portions first. As they focus, they cast away (+Ne/-Ni/+Te/-Ti) in favor of (-Ne/+Ni/-Te/+Ti). As they zero on in the most interesting part of the piece, +Ni becomes the center of their entire attention. 

Now ILI must analyze this mural (not necessarily art analysis, whatever kind can apply to this). The root of their analysis always falls back onto Ni (specifically +Ni), but they still easily notice other NT portions as well. Perhaps their Creative comes into play and they use -Te (which mandates the use of +Ti) to form a more concrete conclusion. As they continue spending time on it, they might attempt to utilize -Fi to discern sections they are having trouble grasping. +Se would have strong appeal (ex: they enjoy the conclusions of +Se when presented to them), but they will eventually hit a stalemate and revert back to their original cognitive preferences.

Pulling Super Ego into this, perhaps a bystander walks up to ILI and asks for their opinion. At this point, ILI may consider -Si elements (probably poorly) just to come out with an appropriate enough response for this stranger (Society). -Fe is their biggest blindspot (because they have +Fe PoLR), so this will not appear for ILI, even if it is necessary for the stranger. 



Tellus said:


> I disagree. I always experience -Ne/+Ti as a *conscious and extroverted process*. It is always in a conversation with someone, a real person (speech) or an imaginary person (mute or speech).


Ignoring should be much more subconscious than conscious. From what I understand, Model B expounds on Model A, more than changes it. Is that incorrect?



> The function 7 performs its functions in an automatic, habitual way.





> The fourth ("time") parameter, to continue our analogy, resembles a functioning movie projector: there are no individual frames - only a constant movement of the film image. It's impossible to tear out a single frame from this film, as one can not tear a day from his life. I think, that explains why some socionic authors describe the function 1 as a continuous function, and the function 2 (the resulting one) is described as a pulse function.
> Article includes Function 8 (Demonstrative) as part of this


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Raawx said:


> I can try, at least.
> INTJ is:
> +Ni, -Te
> -Si, +Fe
> ...



ILI (or INTJ), model A:

+Ni, -Te (clockwise)
-Fe, +Si 
---------
+Fi, -Se (counterclockwise)
-Ne, +Ti




> At least, that's model A. But what you're saying is with Model B:
> 
> +Ni/-Ne, -Te/+Ti
> -Si/+Se, +Fe/-Fi
> ...


ILI, model B:

+Ni -Ne, -Te +Ti (clockwise)
-Fe +Fi, +Si -Se
--------------------
-Fi +Fe, +Se -Si (counterclockwise)
+Ne -Ni, -Ti +Te



> Correct? Then, the bolded type that is the "ENTP" that exists by means of the INTJ? But it's not a normal ENTP, by any means--the combination -Ne+Ti doesn't exist for any intuitive dominants. So, it's almost like:
> 
> ENTP = +Ne-Ti
> INTJ = -Ne+Ti
> ...


I'll comment after your update.




> Is that it? If so, thats incredibly illustrative at how and why I sometimes look (and feel) SO similar to an INTJ.


Yes, ILI and IEE are very similar since we share the same base functions. Model B also explains the famous ILE-IEI relationship.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Schweeeeks said:


> Ah, no. I meant +Ni with -Ne.


+Ni and -Ne as base functions is model B.



> But I believe an ILI can attain enough mastery with +Ni that they can perform -Ni tasks. So cognitively ILI = +Ni. But behaviorally/results show +Ni and -Ni. Does that make sense? And same down the line with all of the other types IMO.


Intuition of Time (-Ni): destiny, prevision, fatefulness 

*If ILI can't attain mastery with -Ni, then it is by definition NOT a Base function.*

Dynamics of actions (+Ni): topicality, timeliness, tendencies



> All three value Se. Although I would substitute ILE in place of ILI. More likely to overdo a Role function, instead DS which is hard to manifest in the first place.


But do ILI value -Se? No. This is partly why we are a bit reclusive. 



> I haven't heard that Gamma NTs are the most "SLE-like". Where is that from?


This is my experience, but also (I dare say) common knowledge. 

Victor Gulenko (Gamma): 

Socionics - the16types.info - plus/minus by Victor "El Diablo" Gulenko

+Ni = *constraining their hot temper*, these sociotypes prefer to advance gradually into the future, though they may sharply reject obsolete ideas, criticizing past mistakes. Advancing step by step, they generally believe in the linearity of development, i.e. according to their deep convictions, it is only necessary to remove obstacles, remnants of the past, and immediately this will open endless possibilities for growth. This quadra is not afraid of chaos and upheavals: they know how to conduct their work under conditions of change, risk and confusion.



> Main problem here is that I don't see a need for an A-side and a B-side. I think of the functions as all working enmeshed with each other.


Are you suggesting that alternative 1) is correct? (post 6) If no, how do you connect the A-side functions with the B-side funtions?



> I'm not sure I understand model B in detail. Do you have a good guide? I went to your old thread, but would still like a more step by step resource if you have one.


No, we don't have Bukalov's explanation. Someone who speaks Russian should try to contact him.

Alexander Bukalov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Mainly Model A with small amounts of Model B mixed in (+/- only).
> Ego and Id block are both strong and ever-present in your psyche. ILI and LII naturally focus the similar areas (Same 4D Ti/Ni with 3D Te/Ne), but pay attention to opposite sides of this information (LII = -Ti/+Ne has greater emphasis whereas ILI would be +Ni/-Te).
> Let's imagine a giant mural.
> The eyes of ILI settle on NT (Ni/Ne/Te/Ti) portions first. As they focus, they cast away (+Ne/-Ni/+Te/-Ti) in favor of (-Ne/+Ni/-Te/+Ti). As they zero on in the most interesting part of the piece, +Ni becomes the center of their entire attention.
> ...


I don't understand all of this, so I won't dismiss it. But I am skeptical since your argument is based on model A.



> Ignoring should be much more subconscious than conscious.


Well, this is the problem with model A. ILI with -Ne (black humor, absurdities, bizarre...) as Ignoring function doesn't add up. "A person has very little use of this element, as it is the rival image of the base function" No, no, no... I use it all the time and it is *definitely not an annoyance*, it's an ILI trademark (OP). Consider the famous ILE-IEI relationship. It's unexplainable with model A.

ILE: *+Ne*, -Ti, +Se, -Fi, -Si, +Fe, *-Ni*, +Te

IEI: *-Ni*, +Fe, -Si, +Te, +Se, -Ti, *+Ne*, -Fi 

Ignoring function

The ignoring function is also called the observing, or limiting function. *A person has very little use of this element*, as it is the rival image of the base function, representing an antithetical approach to the same domain. *It lies in the subconscious as a persistent annoyance to the individual. Therefore, he or she tries to ignore it*. When lectured by another on the use of the ignoring function, the individual sees it as superfluous information, for he or she knows how to use the function well, but chooses not to use it in favor of his or her more convenient base function. Usually the base function creates byproducts relating to the ignoring function, but the way it describes such information is very carefully chosen to fit the view of the leading function. A person limits the expression of this element in public (in favor of the base function), but sometimes uses it extensively in private, and can call upon it when necessary. For example, an SEI usually defaults to his base function Si and shies from activities that are highly physical or cause conflict, but if inevitable confrontation arises, he is able to use his Se and become fiercely coercive and quarrelsome for short periods of time. The extreme avoidance of this function can make it appear weak at times. However, when engaged it does not cause the same kind of psychological stress as a weak function, instead creating a kind of boredom or malaise. 

"A. V. Bukalov, speaking at one of the Socionics conferences, and agreeing with the proposed by V. V. Gulenko arrangement of signs of mental functions in the superblock of mental model of TIMs, has commented, however, that the signs of functions in the vital ring should be, in his view, opposite to the signs of the corresponding functions of the mental ring, and should coincide with the signs of functions of the dual TIM. A. V. Bukalov did not forward an explanation of his concept."



> From what I understand, Model B expounds on Model A, more than changes it. Is that incorrect?


Hitta (see link): "Model B is not a deviation from Model A, but a form of Model A worked out to completion."



> The function 7 performs its functions in an automatic, habitual way.
> 
> The fourth ("time") parameter, to continue our analogy, resembles a functioning movie projector: there are no individual frames - only a constant movement of the film image. It's impossible to tear out a single frame from this film, as one can not tear a day from his life. I think, that explains why some socionic authors describe the function 1 as a continuous function, and the function 2 (the resulting one) is described as a pulse function.
> Article includes Function 8 (Demonstrative) as part of this


Can you explain this part a bit further?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@Tellus, your analysis is flawed and falls apart because its fundamentally based on anecdotal evidence. Not only is it anecdotal but its personal, there's no point of analyzing if you're going to personalize it. 

What I mean is this, your claiming that you are a type that uses another types base function, then you claim that model A is flawed because it doesn't reflect what you perceive in yourself. Do you see the problem, instead of understanding the system you're trying to coerce the system to fit your personal sentiments. It clearly says that the ignoring function would be ignored but you claim that you don't ignore Me and use it quite a bit which is proof that its not your ignoring function. The function spots and their relation to the functions are rules of the system, if you don't relate then you have to fix your understanding or disregard the system as whole. 

Instead of trying to coerce the system, you should adjust your understanding. Try to understand the differences between Ni and Ne, there's a reason why you don't focus on both, and to claim you do shows a fundamental mistake on your understanding. It shows that you can't tell apart the differences of Ne from Ni. Before trying to fix, first try to understand. You cant say something is flawed because it doesn't relate to you, if its flawed then there is a logical reason, anecdotal doesn't prove flaws, only logic can.

So I'm going to ask, what do you think Ni and Ne is, and why do you think you use them?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Entropic said:


> I don't. I don't see any merit and point to this theory and it's a good case of overthinking something imo, very simple. You do this a lot all the time. Personally, I would ask myself the question that if you actually experience such an innate conscious and ego preference for Ne and Ti, if that is not better explained to be _your_ ego.
> 
> Augusta placed Ne and Ti in the id block for a reason because they would not be conscious processes. I experience Fi more consciously than I have ever experienced Ti and Ne is something I have been unable to wrap my head around ever since I began to realize what Ne really is. It doesn't matter how many descriptions I read but I cannot consciously grasp how it is felt like in an actual experiential way. Even Fe makes more sense in this regard than Ne does.
> 
> ...


I apologize for late reply... Since you doubt model B, I will reply here instead (I hope that's okay with you):

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/387482-model-b-model-worked-out-completion.html


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> @_Tellus_, your analysis is flawed and falls apart because its fundamentally based on anecdotal evidence. Not only is it anecdotal but its personal, there's no point of analyzing if you're going to personalize it.
> 
> What I mean is this, your claiming that you are a type that uses another types base function, then you claim that model A is flawed because it doesn't reflect what you perceive in yourself. Do you see the problem, instead of understanding the system you're trying to coerce the system to fit your personal sentiments. It clearly says that the ignoring function would be ignored but you claim that you don't ignore Me and use it quite a bit which is proof that its not your ignoring function. The function spots and their relation to the functions are rules of the system, if you don't relate then you have to fix your understanding or disregard the system as whole.
> 
> ...


I apologize for late reply... Since you doubt model B, I will reply here instead (I hope that's okay with you):

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/387482-model-b-model-worked-out-completion.html


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

_







Originally Posted by *Shadow Logic*  @Tellus, your analysis is flawed and falls apart because its fundamentally based on anecdotal evidence. Not only is it anecdotal but its personal, there's no point of analyzing if you're going to personalize it.
_
This is (pop) psychology! I think we have to "personalize" it, since it is quite difficult to experience someone else's inner thoughts and feelings, right? MBTI eight-function model is almost exclusively based on John Beebe's introspective exploration.
_
What I mean is this, your claiming that you are a type that uses another types base function, then you claim that model A is flawed because it doesn't reflect what you perceive in yourself. Do you see the problem, instead of understanding the system you're trying to coerce the system to fit your personal sentiments. It clearly says that the ignoring function would be ignored but you claim that you don't ignore Me and use it quite a bit which is proof that its not your ignoring function. The function spots and their relation to the functions are rules of the system, if you don't relate then you have to fix your understanding or disregard the system as whole.
_
'Me'? You mean Ne, right? You have to differentiate between +Ne and -Ne. Well, how do I experience -Ne? "...as a persistent annoyance"? No! "Therefore, he or she tries to ignore it". No!

Ignoring function

The ignoring function is also called the observing, or limiting function. A person has very little use of this element, as it is the rival image of the base function, representing an antithetical approach to the same domain. It lies in the subconscious as a persistent annoyance to the individual. Therefore, he or she tries to ignore it. When lectured by another on the use of the ignoring function, the individual sees it as superfluous information, for he or she knows how to use the function well, but chooses not to use it in favor of his or her more convenient base function. Usually the base function creates byproducts relating to the ignoring function, but the way it describes such information is very carefully chosen to fit the view of the leading function. A person limits the expression of this element in public (in favor of the base function), but sometimes uses it extensively in private, and can call upon it when necessary. For example, an SEI usually defaults to his base function Si and shies from activities that are highly physical or cause conflict, but if inevitable confrontation arises, he is able to use his Se and become fiercely coercive and quarrelsome for short periods of time. The extreme avoidance of this function can make it appear weak at times. However, when engaged it does not cause the same kind of psychological stress as a weak function, instead creating a kind of boredom or malaise. 
_
Instead of trying to coerce the system, you should adjust your understanding. Try to understand the differences between Ni and Ne, there's a reason why you don't focus on both, and to claim you do shows a fundamental mistake on your understanding. It shows that you can't tell apart the differences of Ne from Ni. Before trying to fix, first try to understand. You cant say something is flawed because it doesn't relate to you, if its flawed then there is a logical reason, anecdotal doesn't prove flaws, only logic can.
_
We do NOT focus on TWO base functions at the same time. That would be impossible! This is partly why I think each type has an 'A-side' and a 'B-side'.
_
So I'm going to ask, what do you think Ni and Ne is, and why do you think you use them?_

I think we have to rely on the definitions that are provided by well-known socionists. 

+Ni keeps me focused and on topic. "First I must do A, then I will do B". It helps me to strategize via scenario thinking. +Ni always works in tandem with -Te (and they may be difficult to keep apart).

-Ne is constantly searching for absurd consequences to disprove (+Ti) my opponent's argument (a real person or an imaginary person... speech, writing or mute). N.B. I do NOT think -Ne is ILI's Ignoring function.

Read post # 20. (+Ne, -Ne)

Ni:

Introverted intuition (A.A.)

All processes take place in time; they have their roots in the past and their continuation in the future. Time is the correlation between events that follow each other. This perceptual element provides information about the sequence of events and people's deeds, about their cause and effect relationship, and about participants' attitudes towards this — that is, about people's feelings that these relationships engender. 

Such an individual perceives information from without as feelings about the future, past, and present. For example, a sense of hurriedness, calmness, or heatedness, a sense of timeliness or prematureness, a sense of proper or improper life rhythm, a sense of impending danger or safety, anticipation, fear of being late, a sense of seeing the future, anxiety about what lies ahead, and so forth. At any given moment of one's life one has such a sense of time. One cannot live outside of time or be indifferent toward it. Thus, a certain sense of time is an integral part of the individual's psychological state at any given moment. This perceptual element defines a person's ability or inability to forecast and plan for the future, evade all sorts of troubles, avoid taking wrong actions, and learn from past experience. 

When this element is in the leading position, the individual possesses innate strategic abilities and is able to choose the most optimal moments for different activities: when to give battle, if necessary, and when to avoid battle, when that would be more appropriate. Interaction in time might be interpreted as the ability to avoid collisions with objects and hence avoid objects' reflection within oneself. 

Intuition of the time (Ni)

+ (short range)

A) vision and the sensation of the development of the approximate processes in the present real time and over nearest long term in connection with itself and nearest environment of people and objects - feeling of the course of time in the dynamics and its causality in the interrelation of the past, present and future. B) the estimation of opportuneness and urgency of the actions of present moment. C) the skill to see the trends of development in the time, to predict, to foresee the motion of the course of particular events, to see prospects - prognostication of the particular processes of future. D) the skill to govern its internal time. E) the tactical planning of the present and of immediate prospects - gradualness, evolution, arrangement. F) tendency toward the accordion, the balance, the proportionality, the consistency, the convergence in the external through the internal peace. G) fantastic imagination.

- (long range)

01) vision and the sensation of the development of the remote processes in the dynamics of time over the scale long term in connection with society and remote objects - dialectics of time. 02) the estimation of opportuneness and urgency of actions over the long term. 03) the skill to understand the interrelation of times, to see tendencies, to predict the motion of the course of events, to see prospects on the basis of the calculation of errors - tendency toward the predictions. 04) the realization of time as certain substance, up to its physical sensation. 05) the skill to govern the time of other people. 06) strategic planning - sharp shifts, revolution, jump in the time as consequence - anxiety, vague uneasiness, discrepancy, the duration of the moment of decisive actions. 07) a feeling of danger and ripening of crisis - insurance against troubles and danger. 08) mystical imagination, convergence.

+Ni = constraining their hot temper, these sociotypes prefer to advance gradually into the future, though they may sharply reject obsolete ideas, criticizing past mistakes. Advancing step by step, they generally believe in the linearity of development, i.e. according to their deep convictions, it is only necessary to remove obstacles, remnants of the past, and immediately this will open endless possibilities for growth. This quadra is not afraid of chaos and upheavals: they know how to conduct their work under conditions of change

-Ni = desire to bypass danger. They aim to avoid previously committed mistakes. In their groups, experience, skill, know-how, sophistication are highly valued. They feel confident in extreme situations. 

Intuition of Time (-Ni): destiny, prevision, fatefulness

Dynamics of actions (+Ni): topicality, timeliness, tendencies


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

_







Originally Posted by *Entropic* 
I don't. I don't see any merit and point to this theory and it's a good case of overthinking something imo, very simple. You do this a lot all the time. Personally, I would ask myself the question that if you actually experience such an innate conscious and ego preference for Ne and Ti, if that is not better explained to be your ego.
_
Why do you think Aleksandr Boukalov created model B in the 1990s? He obviously thought that model A was incomplete and/or incorrect. 

"... Ne and Ti..." It is very important to distinguish between +Ne/-Ti and -Ne/+Ti. For example, an ILI lawyer uses -Ne/+Ti when he argues a case, which results in a very aggressive (or assertive) style of communication. ILIs are (generally speaking) more interested in debating than mathematics. Why? N.B. Te is about efficiency, drive (goal-oriented) and facts --> i.e. practical logic. 

Ethical intuition (-Ne): potential, personality traits, understanding, insight (ILIs are very interested in Socionics, right? -Ne/+Ti)

Object intuition (+Ne): alternatives, possibilities, interpretation, guess, obviousness

Logic of learning (-Ti): system, regularity

Logic of management (+Ti): right, rule 

-Ne = the unusual, alternative and bizarre. Despite its groundedness, this quadra respects unusual and talented people who offer creative alternative possibilities. The spread of new information is not impeded, no matter how avant-garde it might be. In Delta groups, there occur periodic flashes of sensationalism and spikes of interest centered around original people who put forward alternative ideas of development.

+Ne = promising ideas. In this quadra, which can be attributed the element of air, there are frequent talks about the future, the unexplored and unknown possibilities. They may seem to be incorrigible dreamers. And this is so: they look out further than anyone, beyond the horizon, they put forward "crazy" theories and discuss them with pleasure. Some of these theories, however, are destined to have long lives, so long that they will outlast their creators.

-Ti = global structural logic. Systematic analysis is the instrument that they use in understanding the world. They are primarily interested in the universal laws that govern its workings. To that end, all traditions, conventions and restrictions are discarded. Everything is subjected to analysis, redefinition, analogies. Their main goal that they are pursuing is the creation of a comprehensive, breathtaking, singular picture of the world. The idea of unity, reasonableness and the fairness in all things permeates their vision completely.

+Ti = organizational logic. They have a developed sense of duty, citizenship, loyalty to the elected project. It is therefore the most disciplined and organized quadra that knows how to quickly rally its forces in the event of imminent danger or emergency situations.

Abstract logic (Ti)

+ (short range)

A) the estimation of the consistency (expediency) of behavior and judgments of concrete person. B) comparison, analysis, generalization, the systematization of any objective information, to the easily yielding practical checking: the thorough, concrete and detailed study of cause-effect connections, the construction of inductions (search for objective in the subjective); - the sequential account of its own judgments, inductive conclusions; - the composition of strict laws, standards, rules, instructions for the hierarchic structure of the nearest environment. C) the valid distribution of rights and responsibilities, the assignment of equal possibilities for the nearest environment; - the comparison of theories, systems and classifications according to the rule of the selection of the best (actually applied and worker) version: the determination of theoretical prerequisites, the development of structure and regularities, the determination of truth for organizing the practical matters. D) tendency toward the "golden section".

- (long range)

01) the estimation of the consistency (consistency) of behavior and judgments of people as generalities. 02) comparison, analysis, generalization, the systematization of any objective information, which is easily yielded for the formation into the generalized abstract theory: the thorough, concrete and detailed study of cause-effect connections, the construction of inductions. 03) the sequential account of popular public theoretical judgments, inductive conclusions. 04) the composition of strict laws, standards, rules, instructions for the hierarchy of society. 05) the valid distribution of rights and responsibilities, the assignment of equal possibilities for all people. 06) the comparison of theories, systems, classifications according to the logic of construction and existence of the same: the definition of theoretical prerequisites, the development of structure and regularities, the definition of truth for the very fact of the possibility of existence of such theories, systems and classifications as universal and scientific. 07) tendency toward the symmetry.

Intuition of the possibilities (Ne)

+ (short range)

A) estimation and the skill to recognize the positive potential qualities of individual person, his possibility. B) estimation and the skill to recognize prospect, potential possibilities of the concrete oveshchestvlennykh ideas and undertakings. C) the ability to see essence and principles of the concrete oveshchestvlennykh ideas and theories, the vision of their variability and the skill to make optimum selection. D) aim to the novelty, the hypothetical nature, the originality, the unusualness. E) adaptability to the faith and the idealism. F) the spontaneity of thinking. G) tendency toward the radical conversions. H) everyday insight.

- (long range)

01) estimation and the skill to recognize the negative potential qualities of people, their possibility. 02) the multiplan perception of peace, man. 03) the skill to see the absence of essence, to evaluate the lack of promise of potential possibilities, ideas and undertakings. 04) search and the vision of alternatives. 05) the paradoxicalness of thinking. 06) the dimensionality of thinking, erection as the chief concern of the forgotten old (ordinary), abstract theoretization. 07) black humor, disbelief. 08 ) the suppression of radical conversions. 09) sensation.
_
Augusta placed Ne and Ti in the id block for a reason because they would not be conscious processes. I experience Fi more consciously than I have ever experienced Ti and Ne is something I have been unable to wrap my head around ever since I began to realize what Ne really is. It doesn't matter how many descriptions I read but I cannot consciously grasp how it is felt like in an actual experiential way. Even Fe makes more sense in this regard than Ne does.
_
How do I experience -Ne/+Ti? -Ne is constantly searching for absurd consequences to disprove (+Ti) my opponent's argument (a real person or an imaginary person... speech, writing or mute). 

I like Dario Nardi's description, which corresponds with my experience.

*Ne types

Often show a “Christmas Tree” pattern.

Often experience creative highs.

Provide fast, creative responses (sometimes too creative)

Find it difficult to get “in the zone,” and can do so only after practicing and internalizing an activity over weeks, months, or years.

Use regions that support imagination.

A “Christmas Tree” pattern is one in which the neocortex is active all over, each region is of high amplitude and out-of-sync with others. This pattern indicates cross-contextual thinking. This pattern is also very energy intensive, and may produce distractions and contradictions.

Fp2 Process Manager: Focus on process, either step-by-step for tasks, or open ended creative brainstorming, or both. 

*_"Consider all intuitive types. Which ones are most 'SLE-like' when it comes to -Se (aggressiveness...)? LIE and ILI, no doubt. Try to explain this with model A."

And this also only really applies to LIE and not so much ILI, imo. If anything, ILI is often confused with IEI, EII and LII, not SLE. I have yet to ever come across an ILI I think look like an SLE lol. Doesn't even compute in my head.

I say that as someone who happened to be an ILI-D in Gulenko's subtype system, meaning I have a more innate preference for Se and Ne in that kind of sense. I don't look like an SLE and I have yet to ever see someone suggested that as a type for me. If anything, I probably look more like an ESI or EII.
_

Socionics - the16types.info - plus/minus by Victor "El Diablo" Gulenko

Gamma:

+Ni = *constraining their hot temper*, these sociotypes prefer to advance gradually into the future, though they may sharply reject obsolete ideas, criticizing past mistakes. Advancing step by step, they generally believe in the linearity of development, i.e. according to their deep convictions, it is only necessary to remove obstacles, remnants of the past, and immediately this will open endless possibilities for growth. This quadra is not afraid of chaos and upheavals: they know how to conduct their work under conditions of change, risk and confusion.

Do you agree with Victor Gulenko? If yes, how do you interpret this?

*@Tellus really this is just tl;dr to me. I don't see how you can justify your correlations in a way that cannot be explained in other ways. I do endorse the -+ signs to a degree, but at the end of the day, T is T and I prefer it that way.*


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> You need to think a little more outside the box. Jung's definitions are vague. Jung said Fe for example will lie about something being nice, to please somebody. To see that it would please them, is reading them. Do you really need Jung to explicitly say every thing?


And you need to do a little more reading because Jung explicitly states that it has to do with what is *generally* accepted as agreeable:



> I may feel moved, for instance, to say that something is “beautiful”or “good,”not because I find it “beautiful”or “good”from my own subjective feeling about it, *but because it is fitting and politic to call it so, since a contrary judgment would upset the general feeling situation*. A feeling judgment of this kind is not by any means a pretence or a lie, it is simply an act of adjustment. A painting, for instance, is called “beautiful”*because a painting hung in a drawing room and bearing a well-known signature is generally assumed to be beautiful*, or because to call it “hideous”*would presumably offend the family of its fortunate possessor*, or because the visitor wants to create a pleasant feeling atmosphere, for *which purpose everything must be felt as agreeable.*


But you ignore all of this just to make yourself feel good, but as pointed out it has nothing about reading people, its solely about creating a positive environment based on what is *generally* agreeable which is again stated here when talking about Extrevarted rationals, Te and Fe:



> The rationality of both types is object-oriented and dependent on objective data.* It accords with what is collectively considered to be rational. For them, nothing is rational save what is generally considered as such*.


As I stated Jung defined Feeling as a process of imparting a definition value or acceptance or rejection, and he clearly explains it in regards to Fe above. It has nothing to do with reading people, its only about not doing what is generally not valued in terms of acceptance or rejection.



> Jung said almost all extroverted feeler types are women. What should we make of that statement? Where does it fit in the theory? Is that another tenet? If Jung says it, it must be true. We should leave it alone. And what extroverted feeling is actually being described? Jung describes extroverted feeling in a vacuum. Even the extraverted feeling type, which type is he talking about? Tell me that. The textbook type that does not exist, but you build everything around.


It means that in the years prior to 1921 in all of the people Jung came across that fit his concept of Fe that almost all of them were women, what's so hard to understand about that?



> Examples of this type _that I can call to mind_ are, almost without exception, women.


He wasn't speaking for all Fe Dom's in every generation ever.

Jung also doesn't describe the functions in a vacuum, he speaks about their typical and common features while not acknowledging the differences each type contains, while also describing the difference between differentiation and undifferentiation. This is the process of creating a concept, but you have a hard time with that.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> And you need to do a little more reading because Jung explicitly states that it has to do with what is *generally* accepted as agreeable:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You seem to think that book is in stone. If you are going to bible bang it, I am going to pin you to every word of it. It is either dead, or it isn't. Every word of that book is true. Extroverted feeler types are almost entirely, without exception, women. Unarguable. You are going against the Jungian system if you say otherwise. Nobody can pick and choose. Neither can you. That book is complete. 

It is hilarious that you scold somebody for using anecdotes. Jung's entire work on Psychological Types is anecdotal. The book is a pile of anecdotes. Jung's work is as scientific as me typing people at a bar. 

Show me an example of an extroverted feeling type that Jung describes. Show me an extroverted feeling type. Don't describe one. Show one.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> You seem to think that book is in stone. If you are going to bible bang it, I am going to pin you to every word of it. It is either dead, or it isn't. Every word of that book is true. Extroverted feeler types are almost entirely, without exception, women. Unarguable. You are going against the Jungian system if you say otherwise. Nobody can pick and choose. Neither can you. That book is complete.
> 
> It is hilarious that you scold somebody for using anecdotes. Jung's entire work on Psychological Types is anecdotal. The book is a pile of anecdotes. Jung's work is as scientific as me typing people at a bar.
> 
> Show me an example of an extroverted feeling type that Jung describes. Show me an extroverted feeling type. Don't describe one. Show one.


You're right the book is an pile of anecdotes, so if I want to understand his anecdotes then I have to stay consistent with his concepts, because someone else's anecdotes obviously aren't his. Now if I wanted to understand your anecdotes then I would confine myself to your concepts as you describe them, instead of confusing them for Jung's. If your anecdotal concepts are consistent with Jung's anecdotal concepts then I would say you two are talking about the same concepts.

My point has never changed for anything I have ever read or learned, if you want to understand it, then you need to understand it for what it is, nothing more and nothing less. If you want to extrapolate it, then go ahead if you want to improve it, then go ahead, but once you start talking about a different concept then I know you are no longer talking about the same concept. Its very simple but you for some reason have a hard time understanding the simplicity of what I'm saying. It has nothing to do with bible banging, but since you brought it up, if you want to understand the Bible then you would have to read the Bible. If you wanted to understand the Quran, then you would have to read the Quran. If you were to state "the Abrahamic God never talked to Abraham" then I will correct you using one of the books of the Abrahamic God. If you were referring to a different God then its obviously not the Abrahamic one since that derives from the holy books of the Abrahamic religions. This is what you are not understanding, its not about what's correct or not, what's valid or not, its about understanding something for what it is.

Just so we're clear I think every book is written in stone, when I read something I read it for what it is and then I connect it to everything else I know. I care about precision of concepts, so I stick with the concepts as described. If you or anyone else wants to make up your own system about cognitive functions, then go ahead, but it will always be just that, your own system made up by your own observations. If you wanted me to understand then I would confine myself to your definitions to better understand you, and I would log it into my mind as a separate system of cognitive functions not derived from Jung or inconsistent with it. This does not mean you are wrong or that Jung is right, it only means I'm dealing with two different systems that describe different concepts cloaked under the same terms.

Oprah Winfrey is an Fe dom.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> You're right the book is an pile of anecdotes, so if I want to understand his anecdotes then I have to stay consistent with his concepts, because someone else's anecdotes obviously aren't his. Now if I wanted to understand your anecdotes then I would confine myself to your concepts as you describe them, instead of confusing them for Jung's. If your anecdotal concepts are consistent with Jung's anecdotal concepts then I would say you two are talking about the same concepts.
> 
> My point has never changed for anything I have ever read or learned, if you want to understand it, then you need to understand it for what it is, nothing more and nothing less. If you want to extrapolate it, then go ahead if you want to improve it, then go ahead, but once you start talking about a different concept then I know you are no longer talking about the same concept. Its very simple but you for some reason have a hard time understanding the simplicity of what I'm saying. It has nothing to do with bible banging, but since you brought it up, if you want to understand the Bible then you would have to read the Bible. If you wanted to understand the Quran, then you would have to read the Quran. If you were to state "the Abrahamic God never talked to Abraham" then I will correct you using one of the books of the Abrahamic God. If you were referring to a different God then its obviously not the Abrahamic one since that derives from the holy books of the Abrahamic religions. This is what you are not understanding, its not about what's correct or not, what's valid or not, its about understanding something for what it is.
> 
> ...


You are the classic extroverted thinking type. Jung said it himself. I have never seen you actually "think". You're like a bulldozer who picks up dirt, and moves it around. There is no deconstruction. There is just moving around of materials. You sterilize everything. Oprah Winfrey. lol. You are a Fi user. 
*
Thought is at once sterilized, whenever thinking is brought, to any great extent, under the influence of objective data, since it becomes degraded into a mere appendage of objective facts; in which case, it is no longer able to free itself from objective data for the purpose of establishing an abstract idea. The process of thought is reduced to mere ‘ reflection ‘, not in the sense of ‘meditation’, but in the sense of a mere imitation that makes no essential affirmation beyond what was already visibly and immediately present in the objective data. Such a thinking-process leads naturally and directly back to the objective fact, but never beyond it ; not once, therefore, can it lead to the coupling of experience with an objective idea.

*​You are an appendage of Jung.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> You are the classic extroverted thinking type. Jung said it himself. I have never seen you actually "think". You're like a bulldozer who picks up dirt, and moves it around. There is no deconstruction. There is just moving around of materials. You sterilize everything. Oprah Winfrey. lol. You are a Fi user.
> *
> Thought is at once sterilized, whenever thinking is brought, to any great extent, under the influence of objective data, since it becomes degraded into a mere appendage of objective facts; in which case, it is no longer able to free itself from objective data for the purpose of establishing an abstract idea. The process of thought is reduced to mere ‘ reflection ‘, not in the sense of ‘meditation’, but in the sense of a mere imitation that makes no essential affirmation beyond what was already visibly and immediately present in the objective data. Such a thinking-process leads naturally and directly back to the objective fact, but never beyond it ; not once, therefore, can it lead to the coupling of experience with an objective idea.
> 
> *​You are an appendage of Jung.


Woo hoo Yes!! A new type thanks


----------



## Bash (Nov 19, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> Just so we're clear I think every book is written in stone, when I read something I read it for what it is and then I connect it to everything else I know. I care about precision of concepts, so I stick with the concepts as described. If you or anyone else wants to make up your own system about cognitive functions, then go ahead, but it will always be just that, your own system made up by your own observations. If you wanted me to understand then I would confine myself to your definitions to better understand you, and I would log it into my mind as a separate system of cognitive functions not derived from Jung or inconsistent with it. This does not mean you are wrong or that Jung is right, it only means I'm dealing with two different systems that describe different concepts cloaked under the same terms.


Even if a book is dead, as in no information can be added, it is still possible to extrapolate more information the data which it provides.


----------



## Bash (Nov 19, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> Woo hoo Yes!! A new type thanks


Would you say that ENFP is out of the question?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Bash said:


> Would you say that ENFP is out of the question?


If you are asking me personally then yes any type other than ENTP is out of the question, but would that convince you? Probably not, so all I can do is let everyone perceive me as they already do based on whatever posts they have seen of mine. I've been called INTP more than anything on this forum, but I have gotten ENTP, ENTJ, ESTP, ESFP, and even ISFJ from others on this forum. I can't change how others perceive me though, so I'll continue getting called different types by different people.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Bash said:


> Even if a book is dead, as in no information can be added, it is still possible to extrapolate more information the data which it provides.


Who said information couldn't be added or couldn't be extrapolated, actually in what you quoted I specifically state that anyone could extrapolate it, but if it is contradictory to Jung's concept, and if the person doing the extrapolating is referring to it as Jung's, then I will correct it every time. What I care about is consistency if the person is stating that they are being consistent, and if you're going to extrapolate that means taking the information as is and spreading it to other parts. If you want to add new information then ok go ahead I have no problem with that actually I have added a whole bunch to Jung and even created my own typological system that incorporates cognitive functions, enneagram, and my own personal concepts but I wouldn't be able to discuss it with anyone who can't simply understand Jungian cognitive functions as is. My problem is when people start saying "Jung was vague" or "Jung is inconsistent" or "That's not really how a function works stated by Jung" or "I want to correct Jung's mistakes" (without fully understanding it. If you fully understand Jung though, and want to add to it, I actually encourage that, but I do not encourage those who don't understand it fully to add to it since they may be contradicting the system rather than building on it.

Edit: I also never stated a book is dead, I stated that all books are set in stone. The book itself with its concepts is what I'm getting at. To be more precise this is what I mean, if a book comes out and then 5 years later the same author comes out with another book that disproves the original, this doesn't mean that the original book is not set in stone. See in order to understand their reasoning you would have to read the first book as is, then read the second book to connect the relation between them as is. This would mean reading the first book and understanding those concepts as is without changing them, and then reading the second book and understanding those concepts as is, to see how the second book relates to the first book in order to see the reasoning within the author with a clear view.


----------



## Bash (Nov 19, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> If you are asking me personally then yes any type other than ENTP is out of the question, but would that convince you? Probably not, so all I can do is let everyone perceive me as they already do based on whatever posts they have seen of mine. I've been called INTP more than anything on this forum, but I have gotten ENTP, ENTJ, ESTP, ESFP, and even ISFJ from others on this forum. I can't change how others perceive me though, so I'll continue getting called different types by different people.


I have too little to go on to actually say you are something else. I was suprised that swopped Ti-Fe positions didn't recognize each other.

INTP, ENTP, ESTP and ISFJ are all on the Ti-Fe-axis, so this would seem most likely.


----------



## Bash (Nov 19, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> Who said information couldn't be added or couldn't be extrapolated, actually in what you quoted I specifically state that anyone could extrapolate it, but if it is contradictory to Jung's concept, and if the person doing the extrapolating is referring to it as Jung's, then I will correct it every time. What I care about is consistency if the person is stating that they are being consistent, and if you're going to extrapolate that means taking the information as is and spreading it to other parts. If you want to add new information then ok go ahead I have no problem with that actually I have added a whole bunch to Jung and even created my own typological system that incorporates cognitive functions, enneagram, and my own personal concepts but I wouldn't be able to discuss it with anyone who can't simply understand Jungian cognitive functions as is. My problem is when people start saying "Jung was vague" or "Jung is inconsistent" or "That's not really how a function works stated by Jung" or "I want to correct Jung's mistakes" (without fully understanding it. If you fully understand Jung though, and want to add to it, I actually encourage that, but I do not encourage those who don't understand it fully to add to it since they may be contradicting the system rather than building on it.


I see. Thank you.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Bash said:


> I have too little to go on to actually say you are something else. I was suprised that swopped Ti-Fe positions didn't recognize each other.
> 
> INTP, ENTP, ESTP and ISFJ are all on the Ti-Fe-axis, so this would seem most likely.


If you truly want to see how I think outside of Jungian related subjects you should go over to the critical thinking and philosophy part of the forum, also the debate part of the forum, it will help give you a better analysis of my cognitive process. This would be a much more accurate way to personally gauge my type.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> If you truly want to see how I think outside of Jungian related subjects you should go over to the critical thinking and philosophy part of the forum, also the debate part of the forum, it will help give you a better analysis of my cognitive process. This would be a much more accurate way to personally gauge my type.


You said that Jungian definitions were not vague, but I could easily describe your thought process as Te, and be totally consistent with Jung. As I sourced. It is interpretation. In other words, you are wrong. It is vague. You just don't want it to be.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> You said that Jungian definitions were not vague, but I could easily describe your thought process as Te, and be totally consistent with Jung. As I sourced. It is interpretation. In other words, you are wrong. It is vague. You just don't want it to be.


I could have easily proved you wrong using the same description of Te that Jung presented. You purposely left out properties that define a Te dom to make it more appealing, which you have recently been accused of by another user along with other users previous to that, and that's why I chose to not take your comment serious or even truly acknowledge it, because you leave out things to further strengthen your own thoughts/sentiments. You left out the part where Te is built around only considering what is collectively agreed upon conceptually, something I'm against completely, or the fact that Te uses a formula to implement on the world around it, and those that go against it are seen as "wrong" or "bad" or an "accident", something I clearly never do.

If you are focused on being right or wrong then there really isnt much to discuss between us, because I'm not focused on what's right or wrong, but instead I'm focused on simply understanding what Jung was trying to present, not whether its right or wrong, valid or not, consistent with reality or not, acceptable or rejectable. I'm just referring to understanding the system in its totality as the person who presented defined it and wrote it. Basically we will never agree because I'm focused on solely understanding, while you're focused on whether something is right or wrong, acceptable or rejectionable.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> I could have easily proved you wrong using the same description of Te that Jung presented. You purposely left out properties that define a Te dom to make it more appealing, which you have recently been accused of by another user along with other users previous to that, and that's why I chose to not take your comment serious or even truly acknowledge it, because you leave out things to further strengthen your own thoughts/sentiments. You left out the part where Te is built around only considering what is collectively agreed upon conceptually, something I'm against completely, or the fact that Te uses a formula to implement on the world around it, and those that go against it are seen as "wrong" or "bad" or an "accident", something I clearly never do.
> 
> If you are focused on being right or wrong then there really isnt much to discuss between us, because I'm not focused on what's right or wrong, but instead I'm focused on simply understanding what Jung was trying to present, not whether its right or wrong, valid or not, consistent with reality or not, acceptable or rejectable. I'm just referring to understanding the system in its totality as the person who presented defined it and wrote it. Basically we will never agree because I'm focused on solely understanding, while you're focused on whether something is right or wrong, acceptable or rejectionable.


Which would only further prove my point that it is vague. Argue all you want, it still merges into vagueness at best. Any vagueness at all is a threat to your gospel. You act like your system is the only one, and try to purify it of unclean elements. You sterilize debate with appeal to something that you believe is totally objective, God like. Quoting passage after passage from this same objective source. That is Te, hand to glove. That is a valid interpretation. Yours is not the only one.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Which would only further prove my point that it is vague. Argue all you want, it still merges into vagueness at best. Any vagueness at all is a threat to your gospel. You act like your system is the only one, and try to purify it of unclean elements. You sterilize debate with appeal to something that you believe is totally objective, God like. Quoting passage after passage from this same objective source. That is Te, hand to glove. That is a valid interpretation. Yours is not the only one.


Who said my system, I never used my system, I've only used Jung's and nor did I say he was objective. I only stated that I'm focused on understanding his anecdotal concepts which I described before to you. I quote to show where I derive my knowledge from so others can see it for themselves. How is vagueness a threat to me? If I saw it as vague then I would state it as such like I have to other things, but I don't see Jung as vague like you do so I'm not going to state it as such, its called a disagreement. 

Like I said before I'm not focused on whose right or wrong, valid or not, I'm only focused on understanding Jung's concepts as is. If you want to see me as Te Dom then go ahead, you could consider me an Fi Dom if you want, or even an Si Dom, it really doesnt matter to me. This is going no where though, so I'm just going to agree to disagree. If you think Jung is vague then go ahead, I dont think he is vague though and think he is very precise. Call it whatever you want.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> Exactly, now go through the cognitive functions part of the forum and the MBTI part of the forum, and I guarantee you'll see the same things there now, a majority of people who choose to not understand the system but rather "correct" or "improve" it. They fail to realize that you can't improve or correct a thing you don't understand, but they rather discuss their ideas rather than the system itself which is separate from their preconceived ideas, but they do not realize that for whatever reason.


Mathematics is a system that is based on axioms. What do you think Socionics is based on? (It all started with C.G. Jung's observations which he later formulated into cognitive functions.)

There is no proper system without well-defined IM elements or functions. If -Ni and +Ni are better defined than Ni, shouldn't we reconsider model A?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Tellus said:


> Mathematics is a system that is based on axioms. What do you think Socionics is based on? (It all started with C.G. Jung's observations which he later formulated into cognitive functions.)
> 
> There is no proper system without well-defined IM elements or functions. If -Ni and +Ni are better defined than Ni, shouldn't we reconsider model A?


And what criteria are you using to prove which is the better definition? The anecdotal source where all the cognitive functions concepts derives from, or the collective agreeing upon how to define these concepts? If the focus is on learning the concepts, then why the need to adjust how they are defined to fit how you understand them, or accept them? 

Its one thing to want to learn a concept, its another thing to start creating your own concepts, and just because the same terms are used doesn't mean they are referring to the same concepts. If you and I use the same terms but in order to express different concepts, then whose to say whose more right, or whose definition is more accurste, so I beg the question again, what is this criteria which decides how the cognitive functions are or should be defined, or are we just going to keep changing the concepts up until they fit our understanding the way we want them to fit? Anyone can adjust a concept, or change a concept to fit with their word view, but is changing a concept the same as understanding a concept? I mean if you change a concept, then what is it that you are possibly referring it to or contrasting it with, if its not the original concept itself that the term originally derived from?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> And what criteria are you using to prove which is the better definition?


The definition of the functions/IM elements that most accurately explains what is being observed.



> The anecdotal source where all the cognitive functions concepts derives from, or the collective agreeing upon how to define these concepts?


Socionics - the16types.info - plus/minus by Victor Gulenko

Long-range and Short-range functions, I - Articles - Socionix

Model of the Type of Information Metabolism (TIM) | School of System Socionics

Anecdotal? These definitions are from socionists. They are by no means complete, but I think they are good enough to illustrate the difference between '+' and '-'.



> If the focus is on learning the concepts, then why the need to adjust how they are defined to fit how you understand them, or accept them?
> 
> Its one thing to want to learn a concept, its another thing to start creating your own concepts, and just because the same terms are used doesn't mean they are referring to the same concepts. If you and I use the same terms but in order to express different concepts, then whose to say whose more right, or whose definition is more accurste, so I beg the question again, what is this criteria which decides how the cognitive functions are or should be defined, or are we just going to keep changing the concepts up until they fit our understanding the way we want them to fit? Anyone can adjust a concept, or change a concept to fit with their word view, but is changing a concept the same as understanding a concept? I mean if you change a concept, then what is it that you are possibly referring it to or contrasting it with, if its not the original concept itself that the term originally derived from?


The definition of the functions/IM elements is the starting point, THEN we can examine how they are related to each other. If we define the Base function in a certain way, then all aspects of the corresponding IM element must apply. Base function = the strongest (4D) and most conscious function in the psyche. Do you agree with this definition? If yes, do you think that all aspects of Se (Material space, -Se: strength, power, control... and Psychological space, +Se: profit, benefit, gain) apply equally well to a SEE?


"A. V. Bukalov, speaking at one of the Socionics conferences, and agreeing with the proposed by V. V. Gulenko arrangement of signs of mental functions in the superblock of mental model of TIMs, has commented, however, that the signs of functions in the vital ring should be, in his view, opposite to the signs of the corresponding functions of the mental ring, and* should coincide with the signs of functions of the dual TIM*. A. V. Bukalov did not forward an explanation of his concept."

Model A

ILI: *+Ni*, -Te, +Si, -Fe, *-Se*, +Fi, -Ne, +Ti 

SEE: *+Se*, -Fi, +Ne, -Ti, *-Ni*, +Te, -Si, +Fe

How do you explain the concept of Duality with this?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Typhon said:


> Not that I agree with the op(or like him), nor do I believe in +/- aspect of elements...


I'll try to convince you that model B is correct. 


ILI (or INTJ) is often called "The Strategist" (MyPersonality .info) or "The Scientist" (PersonalityPage .com). These are well-chosen epithets since all super GM (Elo rating of >2700) chess players are ILIs and the majority of chemists and physicists are also ILIs. Does ILI's ego functions (Ni and Te according to model A) explain these aptitudes? Well, Ni is about scenario thinking which correspond with a strategic mindset. But what about the "scientific" way of thinking? Neither Ni nor Te explain this. The only cognitive function that is related to pattern recognition is Ne. But Ne is ILI's Ignoring function! It doesn't add up... so let's consider +Ne and -Ne. '+' Maximizing the positive. Competence only in the field of positive properties. Avoidance, fear of negative. +Ne: searching for everything that connects (she could be an IEI because...). This is the engineer (LII, INTP) or the innovator (ILE, ENTP). "There is no product, let's invent one." '-' Priority to leave [move away from] the negative. Competence in both positive and negative fields. -Ne: searching for everything that DOES NOT connect (she's not an IEI because...). This is the scientist. "There is a 'product', but what does it do? Why does it behave this way?"


----------

