# Function spins



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

A while ago I where I said that types whitin the same quadra share the same function spins. Turns out that's false. Here are the function spins through each quadra:

*ILI *has:

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

The function spins are shared by duals but also the supervision rings. That makes it easy to figure out what function spin each type has.

ILI supervises LSE. *LSE *has:

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

LSE supervises SEI. *SEI *has:

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

SEI supervises EIE. *IEI *has:

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

That completes the cycle through every quadra. Duals share the same functions. Mirror and Activity have the opposite functions. From there you can figure out every function. An example:

LII and SEI are mirrors. *LII *has:

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

ESE and LII are duals. *ESE *has:

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

I figured it out from Ben David who helped me find my mistake. Proof: http://i.imgur.com/kkf80Ct.png 

A (very) brief description of each function spin can be found on Facebook. I know you're too lazy to look it up so I included the link: https://scontent-amt2-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...0_10153626732984490_4990065980084112090_o.jpg I think it's written by Ben David.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

It's false? It's two different schools of thought that use the term differently.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> It's false? It's two different schools of thought that use the term differently.


I was thinking, if it steams from Gulenko, and Gulenko is LII right. LII got Ti- and Ne+. Therefor he will change the Ti of things somewhat to find the most universal truth or something but be expanding in all possibilities all the time. So his theories will always be subject to change in order to find the most narrowed down theory but at the same time cover all Ne. He is kind of famous for changing from one year to an other the theory upside down but in reality not change it really but just go from an new or different perspective.

edit



dedicated said:


> LII and SEI are mirrors. LII has:
> 
> Ti- Ne- Si+ Fe+
> Te+ Ni+ Se- Fi-


Ne-, right. hm


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Well, the pictures from Ben aren't consistent with any of the schools, but perhaps Gulenko's, who isn't considered a part of the Socionics community anymore.

His Model G is basically the same as converting Socionics to MBTI on j/p switch, which isn't consistent with the rest of Socionics anyways.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

I fail to understand if spins are based in observations or logic


----------



## Auburn (Dec 21, 2008)

Captain Mclain said:


> I fail to understand if spins are based in observations or logic


I feel similar about quite a few of Socionic's concepts in general...

I'm quite new at Socionics, and like it, but could it be that things like spin, and even the association of functions with the Id, ego, super-ego, etc.... are stretching the theory beyond its natural perimeter in an attempt to make it more encompassing?

What if the phenomenon of functions is real but not the only cognitive apparatus at work? What if type, as a separate but co-habitating mental system, interplays with other mental elements (i.e. archetypes) but isn't the only "core engine" at play. And instead the psyche can more fully be understood as the interplay between 2-3 (or more) compounded systems?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Captain Mclain said:


> I fail to understand if spins are based in observations or logic


Observations based upon what-if you were your Quasi-Identical. His Model G gives descriptions that are most similar to a type's quasi's description. If you understand the essence of descriptions in Socionics, MBTI, and Model G, you'll see that Model G just creates the j/p flip.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Dedication said:


> A while ago I where I said that types whitin the same quadra share the same function spins. Turns out that's false. Here are the function spins through each quadra:
> 
> *ILI *has:
> 
> ...


These are based on Model G, and they include positivist/negativist but exclude process/result. Unfortunately, they are incorrect. For example, EIE and SEE do not have Fi+. These two types gossip and speak ill of people more than any other types. 

Yermak's definitions of plus and minus are accurate and they include both positivist/negativist and process/result.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Tellus said:


> These are based on Model G, and they include positivist/negativist but exclude process/result. Unfortunately, they are incorrect. For example, EIE and SEE do not have Fi+. These two types gossip and speak ill of people more than any other types.
> 
> Yermak's definitions of plus and minus are accurate and they include both positivist/negativist and process/result.


Actually I think EIE got the same Fi as which in IEE which would be the -. SEE I think could be a bit elitist but they do not generally talk shit of people but very positive in that regard but still want to single out the elit for their benefitgroup or something.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Captain Mclain said:


> Actually I think EIE got the same Fi as which in IEE which would be the -. SEE I think could be a bit elitist but they do not generally talk shit of people but very positive in that regard but still want to single out the elit for their benefitgroup or something.


I agree that SEEs are positive, but they are certainly capable of speaking ill of people. Chelsea Handler and Robbie Williams are good examples of this. And Paradise Hotel is another example, almost exclusively SEEs, right? The difference is that EIEs has Ignoring -Fi, so their personal attacks come across as more aggressive. 

I know IEEs very well, my brother is one, and just like EIIs (and ILIs) they are uncapable of attacking the subject (Fi). It is important to distinguish between the negative aspects of Fi and Fe. IEEs have +Fi but -Fe.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Tellus said:


> I agree that SEEs are positive, but they are certainly capable of speaking ill of people. Chelsea Handler and Robbie Williams are good examples of this. And Paradise Hotel is another example, almost exclusively SEEs, right? The difference is that EIEs has Ignoring -Fi, so their personal attacks come across as more aggressive.
> 
> I know IEEs very well, my brother is one, and just like EIIs (and ILIs) they are uncapable of attacking the subject (Fi). It is important to distinguish between the negative aspects of Fi and Fe. IEEs have +Fi but -Fe.


Not rly, Paradise Hotel and such might seem to be all sensing and ethics but really it is a mix of all types.


----------

