# Socionics, typology of Jung, and Myers-Briggs (Model B)



## mark anthony

Jeremy8419 said:


> ? That's my Ego and Super-ego. That's my mental ring/conscious ring. There's also no "subconscious," just conscious, preconscious, and unconscious in psychology.


Well that's not correct.

There is conches, sub conches, and un conches.


A multiplicity between sub conches and un conches.

And two paths back to the conches as if a triangle. Sub Conches to Conches and conches to sub conches. Un Conches to Conches and Conches to Un conches.

With out this four part, six part and five part mechanism as is we would not be able to learn and intuit and understand each other as successfully as we do.


----------



## Jeremy8419

mark anthony said:


> Well that's not correct.
> 
> There is conches, sub conches, and un conches.


Subconscious isn't correct. This is per formal psychology education.
"Subconscious" is a word for unconscious that uneducated people use.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preconscious


----------



## mark anthony

I don't rely on being spoon fed, there is an un conches the dodgy mechanism it self independent of mind is the United conches domain. Indian Sadhus holy men can berry there heads in the sand and reduce there hart beat to one beat a minute and keep there heads under the sand for hours. Conches connected to un conches conches connected to sub conches connected to un conches.

There are many examples.

People placing other people into combo somatic voids and taking control of the others Su conches and of directing the United conches to stop breathing leading to death. 

In Mattel arts Key and Che can be masted, take Gung Fu for example men and women can balance them selves on razor sharp words and slates of segment can be smashed with sledge hammers. The Che protects them and creates a force between the skin and the razored edge. People can feel an others expiriance as if it where there own and know what is being done as it is being done via receptivity connecting with the sub conches of another.

Now her comes the real tricky one, it is posable to connect with the mind of another regardless of distance and speak with the mind of that other and more to can be done.

So don't tell me I do not know my stuff, Jeremy8419 my mbti N score was when measured was 49% E, 51% I, 51% 3/4 N, 1/4 S, 49% T, 51% F 49% J, 51% P.

When in grade two while living at an orphanage a pedophiles priest tried to molest me, within a nano second I placed him in a Como somatic void, I had control of this sub conches it was my choice at the point of time, I had the choice to shut down his breathing if I wanted to. I held him stuck like a statue allowing him only to be a wear that I controlled him and then once I was satisfied that he was of no further threat I released him and allowed him to have possession and control of his mind again. I know how the sub conches and un conches works. He was forced to leave the orphanage that day and was not seen again the orphanage got a new temporary priest for the remainder of the year.


----------



## Jeremy8419

mark anthony said:


> I don't rely on being spoon fed, there is an un conches the dodgy mechanism it self independent of mind is the United conches domain. Indian Sadhus holy men can berry there heads in the sand and reduce there hart beat to one beat a minute and keep there heads under the sand for hours. Conches connected to un conches conches connected to sub conches connected to un conches.
> 
> There are many examples.
> 
> People placing other people into combo somatic voids and taking control of the others Su conches and of directing the United conches to stop breathing leading to death.
> 
> In Mattel arts Key and Che can be masted, take Gung Fu for example men and women can balance them selves on razor sharp words and slates of segment can be smashed with sledge hammers. The Che protects them and creates a force between the skin and the razored edge. People can feel an others expiriance as if it where there own and know what is being done as it is being done via receptivity connecting with the sub conches of another.
> 
> Now her comes the real tricky one, it is posable to connect with the mind of another regardless of distance and speak with the mind of that other and more to can be done.
> 
> So don't tell me I do not know my stuff, Jeremy8419
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


You're just using incorrect terms. Preconscious is the third part. Unconscious is what the other guy was speaking of.


----------



## mark anthony

I am not interested in what others are talking about I am talking about what I know and understand, let me say it again so you are not confused.

I don't rely on being spoon fed, there is an un conches the dodgy mechanism it self independent of mind is the United conches domain. Indian Sadhus holy men can berry there heads in the sand and reduce there hart beat to one beat a minute and keep there heads under the sand for hours. Conches connected to un conches conches connected to sub conches connected to un conches.

There are many examples.

People placing other people into combo somatic voids and taking control of the others Su conches and of directing the United conches to stop breathing leading to death. 

In Mattel arts Key and Che can be masted, take Gung Fu for example men and women can balance them selves on razor sharp words and slates of segment can be smashed with sledge hammers. The Che protects them and creates a force between the skin and the razored edge. People can feel an others expiriance as if it where there own and know what is being done as it is being done via receptivity connecting with the sub conches of another.

Now her comes the real tricky one, it is posable to connect with the mind of another regardless of distance and speak with the mind of that other and more to can be done.

So don't tell me I do not know my stuff, Jeremy8419 my mbti N score was when measured was 49% E, 51% I, 51% 3/4 N, 1/4 S, 49% T, 51% F 49% J, 51% P.

When in grade two while living at an orphanage a pedophiles priest tried to molest me, within a nano second I placed him in a Como somatic void, I had control of this sub conches it was my choice at the point of time, I had the choice to shut down his breathing if I wanted to. I held him stuck like a statue allowing him only to be a wear that I controlled him and then once I was satisfied that he was of no further threat I released him and allowed him to have possession and control of his mind again. I know how the sub conches and un conches works. He was forced to leave the orphanage that day and was not seen again the orphanage got a new temporary priest for the remainder of the year.


----------



## Jeremy8419

mark anthony said:


> I am not interested in what others are talking about I am talking about what I know and understand, let me say it again so you are not confused.
> 
> I don't rely on being spoon fed, there is an un conches the dodgy mechanism it self independent of mind is the United conches domain. Indian Sadhus holy men can berry there heads in the sand and reduce there hart beat to one beat a minute and keep there heads under the sand for hours. Conches connected to un conches conches connected to sub conches connected to un conches.
> 
> There are many examples.
> 
> People placing other people into combo somatic voids and taking control of the others Su conches and of directing the United conches to stop breathing leading to death.
> 
> In Mattel arts Key and Che can be masted, take Gung Fu for example men and women can balance them selves on razor sharp words and slates of segment can be smashed with sledge hammers. The Che protects them and creates a force between the skin and the razored edge. People can feel an others expiriance as if it where there own and know what is being done as it is being done via receptivity connecting with the sub conches of another.
> 
> Now her comes the real tricky one, it is posable to connect with the mind of another regardless of distance and speak with the mind of that other and more to can be done.
> 
> So don't tell me I do not know my stuff, Jeremy8419 my mbti N score was when measured was 49% E, 51% I, 51% 3/4 N, 1/4 S, 49% T, 51% F 49% J, 51% P.
> 
> When in grade two while living at an orphanage a pedophiles priest tried to molest me, within a nano second I placed him in a Como somatic void, I had control of this sub conches it was my choice at the point of time, I had the choice to shut down his breathing if I wanted to. I held him stuck like a statue allowing him only to be a wear that I controlled him and then once I was satisfied that he was of no further threat I released him and allowed him to have possession and control of his mind again. I know how the sub conches and un conches works. He was forced to leave the orphanage that day and was not seen again the orphanage got a new temporary priest for the remainder of the year.


Don't know what you're talking about. What I was saying is that "subconscious" is called "preconscious" here in the united states.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

@Jeremy8419

Can you explain the cube thing with your own words ? I really dont understand google translate english.


----------



## To_august

crashbandicoot said:


> Edit : or does it say while lsi is doing his ti+se thing, we as outsiders see him as si+te'ing ? Which is why lsi=ISTJ in mbti.


I understood it the other way around.

He states that SEI starts from the self, moves to internal Fe, then to internal Si and then proceeds to outer Si. Since they start with Fe and move to Si, subjectively - from the point of view of the type's self - it is perceived as dominant ethical type with supporting sensing function (not Fe-Si or Fi-Se, but simply dominant feeling + supporting sensing), but upon objective evaluation it becomes obvious that their sensing is in the dominant position.


----------



## Jeremy8419

crashbandicoot said:


> @Jeremy8419
> 
> Can you explain the cube thing with your own words ? I really dont understand google translate english.


It shows that extroverts and introverts operate in opposite directions, that each function also entails the opposite usage of the opposite function (e.g., Ne+ = Ni- in same spot), and that these two things together link MBTI and Socionics on their four letters.

Strictly speaking, in the primary function of each opposing +/- pair, what you said earlier was correct, though, the focus of the article is on the Ego, and explains strictly that portion of the link. Undescribed anywhere else, it is my assertion that the extroverts' ego is in the external world and the id in the internal world, and the introverts ego in the internal world and the id in the external world. Due to the verifiable objectivity in the external world, MBTI shows that which is displayed in the external world by the introvert, which is the id. This is speculation, and I believe the flip-side of the coin that is discussed in the article; it is that which is caused by the article's assertion, or vice-versa.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

To_august said:


> I understood it the other way around.
> 
> He states that SEI starts from the self, moves to internal Fe, then to internal Si and then proceeds to outer Si. Since they start with Fe and move to Si, subjectively - from the point of view of the type's self - it is perceived as dominant ethical type with supporting sensing function (not Fe-Si or Fi-Se, but simply dominant feeling + supporting sensing), *but upon objective evaluation it becomes obvious that their sensing is in the dominant position.*


(for the bolded) Sensing dominant because information passes two times through Si(+-) but one time through Fe(-) ?

What does this mean for j/p switch then ? Because SEI uses Fe first, it takes J in MBTI, is it ?


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> I understood it the other way around.
> 
> He states that SEI starts from the self, moves to internal Fe, then to internal Si and then proceeds to outer Si. Since they start with Fe and move to Si, subjectively - from the point of view of the type's self - it is perceived as dominant ethical type with supporting sensing function (not Fe-Si or Fi-Se, but simply dominant feeling + supporting sensing), but upon objective evaluation it becomes obvious that their sensing is in the dominant position.


That sounds like the same thing he said, except that "perceived" would be "verifiable" and "objective" would be "universal." People get objective/subjective so dang confused, it's almost better to not use either term at all, which is why I say such.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Jeremy8419 said:


> It shows that extroverts and introverts operate in opposite directions, that each function also entails the opposite usage of the opposite function (e.g., Ne+ = Ni- in same spot), and that these two things together link MBTI and Socionics on their four letters.
> 
> Strictly speaking, in the primary function of each opposing +/- pair, what you said earlier was correct, though, the focus of the article is on the Ego, and explains strictly that portion of the link. Undescribed anywhere else, it is my assertion that the extroverts' ego is in the external world and the id in the internal world, and the introverts ego in the internal world and the id in the external world. Due to the verifiable objectivity in the external world, MBTI shows that which is displayed in the external world by the introvert, which is the id. This is speculation, and I believe the flip-side of the coin that is discussed in the article; it is that which is caused by the article's assertion, or vice-versa.


That clears it up 

I remember this argument though. From (probably) 1 year before, lol. There was some guy saying for introverts, to match mbti with socionics, you have to list the functions from id to super ego, i.e. for lsi si+te+fi+ne. Extroverts stacking being ego to super id. So one of "ego" "super" "id" words for each individual whether extrovert or introvert.

I cant decide if it makes sense or not though. My mum is Sei and I made her take the mbti test, she also tests as isfj in mbti dichtonomies. So p=j switch stands.


----------



## Jeremy8419

crashbandicoot said:


> That clears it up
> 
> I remember this argument though. From (probably) 1 year before, lol. There was some guy saying for introverts, to match mbti with socionics, you have to list the functions from id to super ego, i.e. for lsi si+te+fi+ne. Extroverts stacking being ego to super id. So one of "ego" "super" "id" words for each individual whether extrovert or introvert.
> 
> I cant decide if it makes sense or not though. My mum is Sei and I made her take the mbti test, she also tests as isfj in mbti dichtonomies. So p=j switch stands.


It depends on the tests. Some automatically do the p=j switch.

This is old, but an elaboration on my thoughts.


Jeremy8419 said:


> For the extroverted individual, the extroverts' conscious is focused on the individuals objective reality, while the extroverts' unconscious mind is focused on the individuals subjective reality. While the extroverted individual consciously directs his energy externally, it is thus necessitated that the individual's unconscious is required to accept the energy directed towards the individual internally.
> 
> For the introverted individual, the introverts' conscious is focused on the individual's subjective reality, while the introverts' unconscious mind is focused on the individual's objective reality. While the introverted individual consciously accepts the energy directed towards the individual internally, it is thus necessitated that the individual's unconscious is required to direct his energy externally.
> 
> Thus, we can say that while the extroverts' objective reality exists within the individual's ego, the extroverts' subjective reality exists within the individual's id. Conversely, the introverts' subjective reality exists within the individual's ego, while the introverts' objective reality exists within the individuals id.
> 
> For complete reference of an individual's psyche, we may use model A to accurately describe the information flow for an individual independently of the objective reality. However, when attempting to objectively identify the proper psychological type for an individual, it is necessitated that we view the individual's objective and verifiable reality, which is the extroverted mind's ego and the introverted mind's id, as is displayed in the functional model of MBTI.


----------



## reptilian

Why would the "objective" world of introverts matter, if they are presenting their subjective one? Their objective world is hidden from them anyway.


----------



## To_august

crashbandicoot said:


> (for the bolded) Sensing dominant because information passes two times through Si(+-) but one time through Fe(-) ?


He says that SEI is objectively sensing leading type because of dimensionality and functions strength comparison.



> What does this mean for j/p switch then ? Because SEI uses Fe first, it takes J in MBTI, is it ?


This is not the way he sees it though. He says that since SEI uses Fe first it makes them subjectively feel themselves as being dominant feelers. That's about it. He doesn't claim that it is Fi or Fe they feel like using, but simply feeling dominant with supporting sensing function. Is it really true though? Do SEIs feel like being ethical dominants? It doesn't make much sense to me. Strong ethical subtype probably can feel this way, but not SEI as a type in general.

Also his argument that j/p are the same as Jungian rationality/irrationality, because _in practice_ they are treated as such is moot. And this, after many paragraphs of he himself explaining how Myers-Briggs departed from Jungian rationality/irrationality and how she changed those concepts to suit her understanding about types.


Jeremy8419 said:


> That sounds like the same thing he said, except that "perceived" would be "verifiable" and "objective" would be "universal." People get objective/subjective so dang confused, it's almost better to not use either term at all, which is why I say such.


Yes, I've been explaining the same thing Bukalov said. 
"Subjective" and "objective" are the words he used himself /shrug.


----------



## mark anthony

I don't think it clears it up because for one reason being, the ISFP / SEI. Is a SupperEgo type first.

The six with seven-wing. 
Core of sub-type: six with seven-wing; ISFP 
Auxiliary/wing: seven with eight-wing; ENTJ 
Subsidiary wing: four with five-wing; ENTP 
Subsidiary wing: eight with seven-wing; ESTP 
Point of stress/disintegration: three with four-wing; ISTP 
Point of Integration/Neurosis: nine with eight-wing; INFJ 


And as you can see the ISFP like all the other five primary types has a very large flux.

IF or Fi is within and the SP of the ISFP is the outer shell so to say SE. The use of TI and TE and NE and NI can very be pending on many things. What part of the enneagram type is being utilised. Core, wings subsidiary wings point of integration point of disintegration. TriType TriFix. 

There is just no set pattern.


----------



## Jeremy8419

jkp said:


> Why would the "objective" world of introverts matter, if they are presenting their subjective one? Their objective world is hidden from them anyway.


Because we're not them, and we are concerned with more than just them.


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> He says that SEI is objectively sensing leading type because of dimensionality and functions strength comparison.
> 
> 
> This is not the way he sees it though. He says that since SEI uses Fe first it makes them subjectively feel themselves as being dominant feelers. That's about it. He doesn't claim that it is Fi or Fe they feel like using, but simply feeling dominant with supporting sensing function. Is it really true though? Do SEIs feel like being ethical dominants? It doesn't make much sense to me. Strong ethical subtype probably can feel this way, but not SEI as a type in general.
> 
> Also his argument that j/p are the same as Jungian rationality/irrationality, because _in practice_ they are treated as such is moot. And this, after many paragraphs of he himself explaining how Myers-Briggs departed from Jungian rationality/irrationality and how she changed those concepts to suit her understanding about types.
> 
> Yes, I've been explaining the same thing Bukalov said.
> "Subjective" and "objective" are the words he used himself /shrug.


Quite honestly, I'm drunk as hell right now, and have confused myself with objective/subjective.

"Also his argument that j/p are the same as Jungian rationality/irrationality, because in practice they are treated as such is moot. And this, after many paragraphs of he himself explaining how Myers-Briggs departed from Jungian rationality/irrationality and how she changed those concepts to suit her understanding about types."
You're displaying bias for functional typing. Rationality and Irrationality display the same observed traits as J/P. MBTI is not based upon functions; it is based upon observed traits. The functions were much later applied in an attempt to explain the observed traits. MBTI and Myers do not depart from Jungian on rationality and irrationality. MBTI and Myers _function stacking_ depart from Jungian stacking. Treating a system that is essentially a preference grouping test and subsequent generality descriptions as a system of psychoanalysis is a mistake. Myers-Briggs was not a psychologist, nor was she focused on psychoanalysis. She barely wrote anything on functions at all. The argument you are making has the air of "Myers-Briggs knew her stuff and Bukalov doesn't," but Myers-Briggs just made a dichotomy test based upon someone else's work and wrote down all the commonalities between people who answered similarly. Contrastingly, if you Wikipedia Bukalov, he has more degrees than seem even realistic. To place Myers-Briggs versus Bukalov and think that Myers-Briggs has any chance, is something that is severely mistaken. You are essentially placing a bored housewife versus someone who is at the top of their field.


----------



## reptilian

Jeremy8419 said:


> Because we're not them, and we are concerned with more than just them.


You seem to fail to grasp every question I present or tactically evade it. I have concluded I have nothing to gain from a user like you.


----------



## mark anthony

Don't fall asleep, do what you need to, and get back up to speed. Your needed and you have not replied to my last post. And stop being so greedy for Jereny's time Jkp!

I wont to know if it is a mask a congenial mask this socionics a like cognitive riven mask that is presented from the general, of the minds personality.










"The MoJo Club"


----------



## To_august

Jeremy8419 said:


> Quite honestly, I'm drunk as hell right now, and have confused myself with objective/subjective.
> 
> "Also his argument that j/p are the same as Jungian rationality/irrationality, because in practice they are treated as such is moot. And this, after many paragraphs of he himself explaining how Myers-Briggs departed from Jungian rationality/irrationality and how she changed those concepts to suit her understanding about types."
> You're displaying bias for functional typing. Rationality and Irrationality display the same observed traits as J/P. MBTI is not based upon functions; it is based upon observed traits. The functions were much later applied in an attempt to explain the observed traits. MBTI and Myers do not depart from Jungian on rationality and irrationality. MBTI and Myers _function stacking_ depart from Jungian stacking. Treating a system that is essentially a preference grouping test and subsequent generality descriptions as a system of psychoanalysis is a mistake. Myers-Briggs was not a psychologist, nor was she focused on psychoanalysis. She barely wrote anything on functions at all. The argument you are making has the air of "Myers-Briggs knew her stuff and Bukalov doesn't," but Myers-Briggs just made a dichotomy test based upon someone else's work and wrote down all the commonalities between people who answered similarly. Contrastingly, if you Wikipedia Bukalov, he has more degrees than seem even realistic. To place Myers-Briggs versus Bukalov and think that Myers-Briggs has any chance, is something that is severely mistaken. You are essentially placing a bored housewife versus someone who is at the top of their field.


But the article _is _about functional typing inter alia, because he contrasts Socionics, MBTI and Jung, with the latter having obviously function-centric perspective, and rationality/irrationality, as being applied without reference to dominant function of any given type, wouldn't make any sense to Jung.

I never stated that I treat Myers-Briggs higher than Bukalov, or that she is right and Bukalov is wrong. The same way I don't treat anybody's opinion higher on the basis of their credentials and degrees. The thought itself is ridiculous to me.


----------



## mark anthony

I'm getting the feeling that the MBTI is one layer and the Socionics is an other layer.

I think both systems are correct and have overlay but there different but there similar.

I don't think miss or miss's Briggs was a crazy house wife with no brains, it is a master peace in its own right the MBTI and those four letters can be interpreted both literally and intuitively because it describes the mask of the persons energy and energies so well. It's and art and a science applying the MBTI. But there I am thinking or starting to think the Socionics system comes into its own is as a congenial conduit it seems to be on the implicate level fixed to the core type energy not to the wings and subsidiary wings and so on. 

So this is the mystery for me to home in on exactly what it is and this topic page and its chose is helping me to order an understanding.

One thing I do think is that it is closer linked to the Instinctive level that the MBTI and that maybe a good key for working out its place.

Socionics seems that it maybe linked to implicate core energy at the subtype level and the Instinctive energy the three instincts. (SP, SX, SO) and intuition but I have not quite got how intuition in the Socionics links with the functioning of intuition in the enneagram model, because that is complex to understand and explain. Intuition in the enneagram is linked to the lines and the circle and the actions of three into three.

The MBTI is more linked to the Point energies at the 18 Subtype level of the enneagram. The MBTI is very removed from the Instincts they quite separate like oil and water do not like to mix and in fact don't mix but lay side day side together quite happily. 

But I am new to this topic and I may be missing a full rich real understanding of the model and its inner complexities. So much to learn and I am open minded but these are my thoughts.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

To_august said:


> He says that SEI is objectively sensing leading type because of dimensionality and functions strength comparison.
> 
> 
> This is not the way he sees it though. He says that since SEI uses Fe first it makes them subjectively feel themselves as being dominant feelers. That's about it. He doesn't claim that it is Fi or Fe they feel like using, but simply feeling dominant with supporting sensing function. Is it really true though? Do SEIs feel like being ethical dominants? It doesn't make much sense to me. Strong ethical subtype probably can feel this way, but not SEI as a type in general.
> 
> Also his argument that j/p are the same as Jungian rationality/irrationality, because _in practice_ they are treated as such is moot. And this, after many paragraphs of he himself explaining how Myers-Briggs departed from Jungian rationality/irrationality and how she changed those concepts to suit her understanding about types.


Do you feel like a thinking lead type if we apply the same mechanic to SLI ? I think I understand the point now, since ego block is the focus point for all types; in extroverts ego block is visible from outside but with with introverts ego is inside hence its opposite/unconcious part ID is visible on outside thanks to @Jeremy8419's explaination but it doesnt seem right in my experience. Mbti isfj s are more child-like and easy going compared ESI-ISFj. So, it looks like sei=isfj as descriptions/outside behavioural wise, too.


----------



## To_august

crashbandicoot said:


> Do you feel like a thinking lead type if we apply the same mechanic to SLI ? I think I understand the point now, since ego block is the focus point for all types; in extroverts ego block is visible from outside but with with introverts ego is inside hence its opposite/unconcious part ID is visible on outside thanks to @_Jeremy8419_'s explaination but it doesnt seem right in my experience. Mbti isfj s are more child-like and easy going compared ESI-ISFj. So, it looks like sei=isfj as descriptions/outside behavioural wise, too.


Well, I do feel like a thinking base and a rational leading type, but I'm just Te subtype. And I believe there are many SLIs with Si subtype or SLIs in general, who feel totally different from this.

I think that Socionics SEI _is _MBTI ISFJ as I have function-centric view and I've just been trying to understand the model presented in the OP's article.


----------



## Tellus

This comment was originally posted in the 'MBTT <-> Socionics conversion' thread. 
(with Figure's permission)



Figure said:


> Where I disagree with both you and the article is on the assumption that MBTI sees "libido" flow as being outward-in for introverts just because the theory determines J/P on the Auxiliary function. The article says that the Base function in socionics is the primary flag for how information is metabolized for introverts, which is correct. It also, however, makes the assumption that MBTI uses the Auxiliary as the primary flag for how energy is handled by the introverted type, which is a very big assumption.
> 
> MBTI was not founded around Information Metabolism. The article in several places injects IM into MBTI and makes assumptions as to what MBTI was "really" trying to say about each type's metabolism when it structured the types the way it did, when in fact the theory was never designed with that concept in mind. I see much less unspoken information about IM in Myers' quotes about why the Auxiliary was chosen to decide J/P than this article does. Because of that, I don't buy into theories that MBTI introverts being depicted by their Outward function has anything to do with their "flow" of information. I think MBTI introverts follow the same flow as socionics introverts, but that cognitive flow isn't even factored into MBTI type structure. And because of that, Dominant function is the same as Base, which forces the types to convert J/p for introverts. Additionally explaining why MBTI is an overall less precise, less telling theory.
> 
> Conversion of types should not try to link IM in socionics to the way IM is suspected to have been linked in MBTI unwittingly.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Another problem is the quite huge distinction between I and E in this model. What about the people who are more "ambiverted" so to speak? 
This model seems static and very Ti approach imo. Model A is more flexible with subtypes and such.


----------



## Jeremy8419

crashbandicoot said:


> Do you feel like a thinking lead type if we apply the same mechanic to SLI ? I think I understan the point now, since ego block is the focus point for all types; in extroverts ego block is visible from outside but with with introverts ego is inside hence its opposite/unconcious part ID is visible on outside thanks to @Jeremy8419's explaination but it doesnt seem right in my experience. Mbti isfj s are more child-like and easy going compared ESI-ISFj. So, it looks like sei=isfj as descriptions/outside behavioural wise, too.


That is not anything as ISFJs who I know. Are you and your mother typed via Type I or via functional analysis as ISFJ? Are the two of you your only point of reference? All ISFJs I know IRL are sour pusses. The ISFPs are thechildlike and easy going ones.


----------



## Jeremy8419

crashbandicoot said:


> Another problem is the quite huge distinction between I and E in this model. What about the people who are more "ambiverted" so to speak?
> This model seems static and very Ti approach imo. Model A is more flexible with subtypes and such.


Model A and Model B are similar to everything else in socionics, they aren't exclusive. The people that work on socionics do so in a way that it expands upon stuff that is existing but does not disprove them.


----------



## The_Wanderer

crashbandicoot said:


> Mbti isfj s are more child-like and easy going compared ESI-ISFj. So, it looks like sei=isfj as descriptions/outside behavioural wise, too.


I think it applies largely to most types quite well. I mean, it seems that the confusion between Socionics introverts and MBTI introverts really only happens when you're applying that troublesome fourth dichotomy. From the view of cognition they quite clearly fit, even if the half-paragraph "type descriptions" don't _always_ fit.


----------



## Jeremy8419

To_august said:


> But the article _is _about functional typing inter alia, because he contrasts Socionics, MBTI and Jung, with the latter having obviously function-centric perspective, and rationality/irrationality, as being applied without reference to dominant function of any given type, wouldn't make any sense to Jung.
> 
> I never stated that I treat Myers-Briggs higher than Bukalov, or that she is right and Bukalov is wrong. The same way I don't treat anybody's opinion higher on the basis of their credentials and degrees. The thought itself is ridiculous to me.


It's not about functional typing. Typing in MBTI is not done by functions. It is done via tests and interviews if applicable. The article is about the assignment of functions to determined types. Jung placed functions as Model A and Model B, and there are references for such in the article. Part of the underlying argument is the chicken vs the egg argument. Many on here are under the impression that the functions in MBTI came first and are the typing determinant, but this is factually the opposite of reality.


----------



## mark anthony

Jeremy8419 said:


> Model A and Model B are similar to everything else in socionics, they aren't exclusive. The people that work on socionics do so in a way that it expands upon stuff that is existing but does not disprove them.


Good to see you back at the helm. hope your hang over is ok and bearable.

Ok.

ISFJ's , the at the MBTI Lab have been real busy over the last few years am this IM process may exist within the MBTI system. They are nocking up some great Cocktails: ISJF, SIFJ, SIJF, JIFS, JSFI, IJSF, FJSI, FSIJ. Basically eight different variation on all sixteen four letter function combinations.

Dose this not make socionics almost obsolete? Is it not fair to think of the socionics model as being much like the Concordski, something that took flight but due to design errors was scraped?
















Soviet Tu-144 Crashes At Paris Air Show in 1973
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k6G43P-l1Q0


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Jeremy8419 said:


> That is not anything as ISFJs who I know. Are you and your mother typed via Type I or via functional analysis as ISFJ? Are the two of you your only point of reference? All ISFJs I know IRL are sour pusses. The ISFPs are thechildlike and easy going ones.


I'm not taking myself as reference but I made my mum take the official mbti test online. I didnt need to though as she was quite structured like how J is described in mbti. She is not a sour puss in any meaning of word. 
Have you checked out potential jobs for types in mbti ? Isfj has nursery and similar fields which strictly requires you not to be unfriendly. 




Jeremy8419 said:


> Model A and Model B are similar to everything else in socionics, they aren't exclusive. The people that work on socionics do so in a way that it expands upon stuff that is existing but does not disprove them.



Ok they arent exclusive. I dont claim that model A has j=p, in fact it also does j=j. It doesnt match up to my observations though. 

Btw if j=j is what it is mbti INTP dual with mbti ESFP. :0
I think thats a horrible pair.


----------



## mark anthony

The five with four-wing. 
Core of sub-type: five with four-wing; INTP 
Auxiliary/wing: four with three-wing; ENFP 
Point of stress/disintegration: seven with six-wing; ESFP 
Point of Integration/Neurosis: eight with nine-wing; ESFJ 

There is a natural flow between those two types. As there is a line between points 5&7. Under stress the five holds its P function and becomes subjectively values orientated in its ego inflation.


http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/spy-sold-Concordski-Soviets/story-19315787-detail/story.html


----------



## Jeremy8419

crashbandicoot said:


> I'm not taking myself as reference but I made my mum take the official mbti test online. I didnt need to though as she was quite structured like how J is described in mbti. She is not a sour puss in any meaning of word.
> Have you checked out potential jobs for types in mbti ? Isfj has nursery and similar fields which strictly requires you not to be unfriendly.


Is she emotionally vibrant with strangers?



> Ok they arent exclusive. I dont claim that model A has j=p, in fact it also does j=j. It doesnt match up to my observations though.
> 
> Btw if j=j is what it is mbti INTP dual with mbti ESFP. :0
> I think thats a horrible pair.


ESFPs I know hate INTJs and vice versa.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Jeremy8419 said:


> Is she emotionally vibrant with strangers?
> 
> 
> ESFPs I know hate INTJs and vice versa.


Yeah she is


----------



## Jeremy8419

crashbandicoot said:


> Yeah she is


This is, again, the opposite of what I have experienced. If you could, would you please PM me your full personality %'s for both you and your mother on 16personalities.com? Outliers of my experience have significance for me. Thank you.


----------



## Tellus

Can you explain this?

Bukalov:

"What type of Jung corresponds to the acronym ISTP Myers-Briggs typology? Obviously, if we take as a priority indication J - P -predpochtenie, the desired type of Jung will introverted intuitive (irrational) type with thinking as a subsidiary process, namely IN (T) (Ir)."


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Jeremy8419 said:


> This is, again, the opposite of what I have experienced. If you could, would you please PM me your full personality %'s for both you and your mother on 16personalities.com? Outliers of my experience have significance for me. Thank you.


OK, I will do that . I'm not living with my mum now though so you have to wait a bit for that.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> Can you explain this?
> 
> Bukalov:
> 
> "What type of Jung corresponds to the acronym ISTP Myers-Briggs typology? Obviously, if we take as a priority indication J - P -predpochtenie, the desired type of Jung will introverted intuitive (irrational) type with thinking as a subsidiary process, namely IN (T) (Ir)."


The mistranslation is "preference"


----------



## Jeremy8419

crashbandicoot said:


> OK, I will do that . I'm not living with my mum now though so you have to wait a bit for that.


Okay. Thank you, again.


----------



## Abraxas

Jeremy8419 said:


> I could write it more clearly, but it would contain my subjectivity no matter what, so it may be a waste of time.


It already is a waste of time as far as I'm concerned, the way it is. If you feel confident enough to take a stab at translating it for a western audience, I for one would read your article in a heartbeat.

I really want to give this model a chance.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Abraxas said:


> It already is a waste of time as far as I'm concerned, the way it is. If you feel confident enough to take a stab at translating it for a western audience, I for one would read your article in a heartbeat.
> 
> I really want to give this model a chance.


I'll try and do it sometime in the next four days, and include a few other articles for reference as well.
When I'm done, I'll send it to you, and you can markup/flag parts that lean too far towards subjectivity instead of objectivity, for auditing prior to posting.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> Dunno where that link got his information, but it isn't correct. He may have been referencing the precursor to model B.
> 
> LII is Leading Ti-/Te+ and Creative Ne+/Ni-. When you use Ti in a restrictive way, you're simultaneously necessitated to use Te in an expansive way. For EII, expansion of positive connections necessitates the reduction of negative emotions.
> 
> Correct graph:
> View attachment 368306


You are referring to Hitta's graph and comments about model B, which by no means is the final word. The point in my previous post is that there are two or more ways to interpret this model.


----------



## nichya

Tellus said:


> Is it actullay true that the descriptions of SEI match the descriptions of ISFP???


A good study on the matter:

Introduction into Socionics

We proposed the 16 descriptions of the Keirsey types to 108 socionists (this means, each of the 108 read ALL THE 16 descriptions), and we asked them to identify the socionic types in these descriptions.
The table below represents the result of this experiment:











And the next table represents one more result of this experiment. We asked the participants to indicate their own types, and to recognize their own types in these descriptions:


----------



## nichya

Also I saw this on another thread and it made a lot of sense, except that I still believe the inter-type relations work for me -with- the switch, could it be that socionics' starting point is the inter-type relations?

Speaking Different Languages, Striving for the Same - Victor Gulenko

View attachment 368762


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> You are referring to Hitta's graph and comments about model B, which by no means is the final word. The point in my previous post is that there are two or more ways to interpret this model.


That's not Hitta's graph. He may have made that specific English one, but that's model B.


----------



## Jeremy8419

nichya said:


> A good study on the matter:
> 
> Introduction into Socionics
> 
> We proposed the 16 descriptions of the Keirsey types to 108 socionists (this means, each of the 108 read ALL THE 16 descriptions), and we asked them to identify the socionic types in these descriptions.
> The table below represents the result of this experiment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the next table represents one more result of this experiment. We asked the participants to indicate their own types, and to recognize their own types in these descriptions:


Yes, that study is interesting.

According to socionics, the 16 socionics types are relatively equal in percentages of the general population.
It may be that the discrepancy between straight equivalence between systems is the issue of the variance of types' percentages in the general population. Should the MBTI test be altered, such that people within 10-20% range on S be placed as N, and the people within 5-10% on J be placed on P, the two systems may have near 100% equivalence, as then both systems would have near the same type distribution.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> That's not Hitta's graph. *He may have made that specific English one*, but that's model B.


That's what I meant. 

Krig the Viking: "For example, in Model B an LII has -Ti and +Ne in his Ego, and +Ti and -Ne in his Shadow Ego. He has -Fe and +Si in his Super-Id, and +Fe and -Si in his Shadow Super-Id, etc."

Do you agree with this? Or do you think LII's Shadow Ego is +Te/-Ni?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think model A-2 is relevant as a comparison.

http://socionic.info/ru/t/fil-696.html

The internal and external levels of THEM.
This work is the result of lengthy observations, study the current understanding of the functions, inconsistency of various descriptions. All of this leads to the need for the introduction of a new model, the model a-2. In fact, it is a two-tier model all functions it is a two-component. That is, everyfunction and (denote functions are shown in Fig. 1) has two levels or two characteristics, one of which describes the functions in the so-called inner circleTHEM, another describes this feature in the outer circle.

THEY feature model a-2.
Proceed directly to the description of functions (General description of themtaken from work [11]). As has already been noted, each function of the a-2 dvuhkomponentna, IE has two components (in other words, two levels of manifestation), one of which characterizes the operation type in the in-surrounded by (in-function), and the other describes the typical characteristics when ex-interaction (ex-function).
Note that the ex-function always defines mechanisms for interaction, the existence of the type included in the scope of other individuals; in-funkŝt, on the other hand, can be seen, in a sense, as characterizing the relationship type to itself (perception type itself).
Figure 4 shows the model a-2. It does not provide anything new for understanding, so it is only as an illustration. The main movement IE pointed outwith arrows.


----------



## Tellus

nichya said:


> A good study on the matter:
> 
> Introduction into Socionics
> 
> We proposed the 16 descriptions of the Keirsey types to 108 socionists (this means, each of the 108 read ALL THE 16 descriptions), and we asked them to identify the socionic types in these descriptions.
> The table below represents the result of this experiment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the next table represents one more result of this experiment. We asked the participants to indicate their own types, and to recognize their own types in these descriptions:



Do you think this study supports the "J=j, P=p" argument? Why?


----------



## nichya

Tellus said:


> Do you think this study supports the "J=j, P=p" argument? Why?


Not really, it doesn't support either, it shows the lack of direct correlation and how the descriptions are ambiguous. Sure for ISTp p=P seems to have a strong case but for INFp and INFj it is almost half/half etc. There is no direct correlation for the switch or j=J p=P but merely the lack of it


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> That's what I meant.
> 
> Krig the Viking: "For example, in Model B an LII has -Ti and +Ne in his Ego, and +Ti and -Ne in his Shadow Ego. He has -Fe and +Si in his Super-Id, and +Fe and -Si in his Shadow Super-Id, etc."
> 
> Do you agree with this? Or do you think LII's Shadow Ego is +Te/-Ni?


What I am saying is that that is not Hittas graph, in the sense that he is just writing the translation. Model B is factually that graph. Krig the Viking is stating incorrect information. LII ego is Ti-/Te+ and Ne+/Ni- in Model B.


----------



## Jeremy8419

nichya said:


> Not really, it doesn't support either, it shows the lack of direct correlation and how the descriptions are ambiguous. Sure for ISTp p=P seems to have a strong case but for INFp and INFj it is almost half/half etc. There is no direct correlation for the switch or j=J p=P but merely the lack of it


Well, the study is for descriptions of types. The definitions of J and Rationality dichotomies are the same. How they are presented in the grand scheme of an individual's personality are determined by the rest of the model.

The study predates the OP article, and OP article points out an important aspect regarding the descriptions between systems; i.e., socionics is not "politically correct," whereas MBTI descriptions steer clear of the negatives of the personality types. For instance, EII&IEI compared to INFJ&INFP, the positives of the two types in MBTI are very similar, yet in socionics, which shows positives and negatives, the differences in the two types have a stronger contrast.
Edit: Nevermind, different article/chart for this paragraph. I posted it somewhere on this forum. Don't remember where.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> What I am saying is that that is not Hittas graph, in the sense that he is just writing the translation. Model B is factually that graph.


"Hitta's graph" is Gulenko's and Hitta's interpretation of Model B.

"LII ego is Ti-/Te+ and Ne+/Ni- in Model B." (Alternative 1) I am not sure about this... Bukalov's (and many other socionists') viewpoint is that Thinking + Intuition => -T and +N.



> Krig the Viking is stating incorrect information.


Krig's version resembles Model A-2. (Alternative 2)

ILE's shadow is "IEI". (Alternative 3)

ILE's shadow is "IEE". (Alternative 4)

ILE's shadow is "EIE". (Alternative 5)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article 2:

Кроме того, теневое кольцо блока ЭГО позволяет человеку 
играть роль родственного типа в некоторых ситуациях, защищая тем
самым четвёртую, уязвимую функцию.

"In addition, the shadow ring EGO block allows a person
play the role of a sibling type in some situations, protecting
most of the fourth, the affected function."

Bukalov's viewpoint corresponds to Alternative 4!!! This is also supported by Figure 3 which is numbered from 1 to 8 (left cube, main functions) and 9 to 16 (right cube, shadow functions). -Ne is 9 and +Fe is 16. And yes, article 2 is incomplete.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> "Hitta's graph" is Gulenko's and Hitta's interpretation of Model B.
> 
> "LII ego is Ti-/Te+ and Ne+/Ni- in Model B." (Alternative 1) I am not sure about this... Bukalov's (and many other socionists') viewpoint is that Thinking + Intuition => -T and +N.
> 
> 
> 
> Krig's version resembles Model A-2. (Alternative 2)
> 
> ILE's shadow is "IEI". (Alternative 3)
> 
> ILE's shadow is "IEE". (Alternative 4)
> 
> ILE's shadow is "EIE". (Alternative 5)
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Article 2:
> 
> Кроме того, теневое кольцо блока ЭГО позволяет человеку
> играть роль родственного типа в некоторых ситуациях, защищая тем
> самым четвёртую, уязвимую функцию.
> 
> "In addition, the shadow ring EGO block allows a person
> play the role of a sibling type in some situations, protecting
> most of the fourth, the affected function."
> 
> Bukalov's viewpoint corresponds to Alternative 4!!! This is also supported by Figure 3 which is numbered from 1 to 8 (left cube, main functions) and 9 to 16 (right cube, shadow functions). -Ne is 9 and +Fe is 16. And yes, article 2 is incomplete.


Reading through various Russian junk, it seems like Socionics is currently widely on Model B, with only Gulenkos school having become far different.

I don't think there really is even a Model A-2. I think it's just the fully accepted current version of Model A.

Your alternative 4 is the first article. EII is Fi+ to Ne- for libido, and is Ne- to Fi+ for information. IEE is Ne- to F+ for information, and is Fi+ to Ne- for libido. One type spits libido out its ego and the other accepts it. One type spits information out its ego and the other accepts it. This is true for all extrovert to introvert interactions.

Fig 3's point is just to show the processing flows over time between all of the elements without contradiction. Figure 5 is the full psyche model for all right ring social progress types. Figure 6 is the full psyche model for all left ring social progress types.

If I still had PhotoShop, I could give diagrams of junk. Maybe I will fart around in MS Paint one day lol.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> Reading through various Russian junk, it seems like Socionics is currently widely on Model B, with only Gulenkos school having become far different.
> 
> I don't think there really is even a Model A-2. I think it's just the fully accepted current version of Model A.
> 
> Your alternative 4 is the first article. EII is Fi+ to Ne- for libido, and is Ne- to Fi+ for information. IEE is Ne- to F+ for information, and is Fi+ to Ne- for libido. One type spits libido out its ego and the other accepts it. One type spits information out its ego and the other accepts it. This is true for all extrovert to introvert interactions.
> 
> Fig 3's point is just to show the processing flows over time between all of the elements without contradiction. Figure 5 is the full psyche model for all right ring social progress types. Figure 6 is the full psyche model for all left ring social progress types.
> 
> If I still had PhotoShop, I could give diagrams of junk. Maybe I will fart around in MS Paint one day lol.


Model A-2:

http:// socionic.info/ru/t/fil-696.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This diagram (by Bukalov) also contradicts Alternative 1:










It is all dependent on the definition of the +/- signs. Why would the aspects/functions switch signs in the shadow and/or as unconscious functions?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will comment on the rest later.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> Model A-2:
> 
> http:// socionic.info/ru/t/fil-696.html
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This diagram (by Bukalov) also contradicts Alternative 1:
> 
> View attachment 382874
> 
> 
> 
> It is all dependent on the definition of the +/- signs. Why would the aspects/functions switch signs in the shadow and/or as unconscious functions?
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I will comment on the rest later.


His definition is both the original meanings, being the long/short ranges and the descriptions, as well as being the pairings of functions.
E.g., Fe+ is short-range, building of positive relationships, and works with Ne. Fi- is long-range, reduction of negative relationships, and blocked with Se.

To make sure all parts of reality are taken care of by a type. You have information and libido, and you have mental and vital, so you have four sets of tracks of 4 elements each, totaling 16. Thus, every aspect of reality is able to be processed by every type.

For ILI:
Mental Libido: Ni -> Te (Primary)
Mental Information: Te -> Ni (Shadow)
Vital Libido: Ne -> Ti (Shadow)
Vital Information: Ti -> Ne (Primary)

Vital track speculation, since no examples are given in either article.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Here. I drew this on my notepad lol.
Bottom order is unknown. It may be E on bottom left and i on bottom right, or it may be i on bottom left and E on bottom right.
Or, both sides could be the Primary, and Shadow could be the reverse of all 4.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Stupid junk keeps rotating pic lol


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> Your alternative 4 is the first article. EII is Fi+ to Ne- for libido, and is Ne- to Fi+ for information. IEE is Ne- to F+ for information, and is Fi+ to Ne- for libido. One type spits libido out its ego and the other accepts it. One type spits information out its ego and the other accepts it. This is true for all extrovert to introvert interactions.


Do you suggest that extroverts only "spit out" libido (=psychic energy) and no information at all?

Does libido follow the arrows just like information according to you?

The arrows seem to suggest that information can go (in ILE) from outside to, let's say +Ne, to +Ti, to -Ti, to -Ne and then back to +Ne... don't they?



> Fig 3's point is just to show the processing flows over time between all of the elements without contradiction. Figure 5 is the full psyche model for all right ring social progress types. Figure 6 is the full psyche model for all left ring social progress types.


Yes


----------



## isuma

I think that the J/P switch is used by intuitives more than sensors because intuitives are talking about an abstract idea - it doesn't bother them to imagine that there are two completely different systems with two completely different meanings, and it doesn't bother them to create infinity new abstract systems with infinity new meanings of words and symbols; whereas sensors are more inclined to think that the two different systems are referring to the same real-world physical objects, and therefore the two systems have a one-to-one translation which is absolute, and sensors don't like creating infinity new abstract meanings for symbols, especially if the same symbol has more than one meaning. It's always intuitives who are describing themselves as "INTP / LII" or "INFP / EII," and both types are Se-PoLR. Those two are the most frequent types that I see doing the J/P switch. I myself can't stand it when people label themselves 'P' (perceiver) and ignore the fact that P refers to a real-world phenomenon, and just give P an arbitrary new meaning ('it means that Ti and Ne are my functions, or Fi and Ne'). 

I should not casually open this can of worms now, because I'm in a hurry and I'm about to leave the place where I'm using the wifi, and have no wifi at home, so something which ought to be a lengthy discussion is just a brief little 'hi! bye!' Just a pet peeve. I've been seeing that the J/P switch always seems to be used by particular types, not because those types objectively are J/P switched for real, but rather because particular types are more tolerant of the *idea* of doing the J/P switch and having two completely different unrelated systems which, by sheer coincidence, happen to be describing 16 types of people and happen to have both been inspired by Jung in the beginning, but which now have two completely different meanings and developed into two completely separate universes that have hardly any connection at all. I'm saying, the tendency to believe the J/P switch is okay, is type-related. Sensors don't like it, and intuitives think it's okay, as a very, very general rule of thumb. It has to do with intuitives' tolerance for having multiple/infinity meanings attached to the same symbols and words, while sensors prefer to have just one symbol representing only one thing, and have the symbol stay the same and have the same meaning forever, as it refers to a real-world physical object that we are all talking about (16 types of people, the same 16 types for both systems, the same dichotomies, etc). 

I myself view this in a very rigid, angry way and get frustrated at anybody who questions a one-to-one translation of the two systems, but I have to admit that if you don't mind creating infinity arbitrary new meanings that don't refer to real-world objects, then technically it should be okay for the symbols to mean whatever you want them to mean ('I'm using the letters ISTP to refer to myself, and "I" means that I have brown hair, "S" means fluffy rainbows, "T" means that I'm allergic to peanuts, and "P" means that I make $1,000,000 a year. Coincidentally, those same four letters are used in a totally different system, but they mean something else there.')

P is perceiving and translates to 'irrational.' J is judging and translates to 'rational.' The end, forever. There is one and only one translation between the systems. If someone's type does not fit this translation then either one or the other of their types is wrong. Having a different function order for introverts is wrong, period, don't even try to rationalize some reason why it would be true. Myers, or whoever, wasn't noticing some secret, esoteric thing about how the demonstrative function is used more often in introverts, or anything. It was just a plain old mundane mistake, like a typo, or a misunderstanding, nothing more. The J/P switch for introverts does not exist and should never, ever be done, and the function order for introverts is wrong, and it's ruining all the systems.

opening a can of worms; in a hurry and can't write much; feeling sick today and need to go home and take a nap before I work this evening; sorry.... off topic sort of. I'm grumpy and incoherent and ranting, and I shall leave now before I do further damage to this thread.


----------



## Jeremy8419

@Tellus

Here's some homework...
1) In the article this thread is on, it shows a hypercube. There are 16 vertices, 32 lines, and 24 faces. Does it necessarily have to be a perfect hypercube, or can it be irregular?
2) How does the answer to #1 relate to individuality?
3) If the outer cube is the external world, what would the current preoccupation (with examples) with any line or face on the external cube represent?


----------



## Tellus

Zamyatin said:


> Are you serious? Just read your own article, lol. Model A + Gulenko's signs is a set of 8 variables with two values for each variable, expressed in rotating arrangement with each other in blocks of 2, for a total of 16 permutations. The Reinins are 15 variables with 2 values for each, also expressed in rotating arrangement. It's perfectly symmetrical and perfectly predictable. When you work with a numerical structure like that there are lots of things you can do with the math. It's a predictably ordered set of numbers, and that's how ordered sets work.
> 
> The thing is, reality almost never works in strict, mathematically ordered ways like that. Can you imagine someone creating a complicated math model like Model A to explain the circulatory system, or the digestion of food? I certainly can't. Instead, describing those natural systems requires talking about asymmetries, subsystems that don't directly compare to anything else, and flukes of evolution that defy intelligent reasoning. So why would human psychology, a product of the same unplanned development, be a shining symbol of math in nature? Why should human thought and the workings of the brain fit into neat, ordered, predictable categories when the digestion of a cheeseburger doesn't?
> 
> It's probable that Socionics manages to make some good observations about human behavior that were otherwise missed by psychology. It's even more probable that some of its more rigid claims are error introduced by the implausibly rigid structure it was built on.



*My *article?

Are you confirming the validity of the "The Mathematics of Socionics" paper? LOL If so, please explain how it works.

_You: " rigid mathematical structure" = Model A 

lol... just lol


_


> The funny thing is you're claiming that ILIs appreciate formulaic systems because of _unvalued_ Ti, when essentially every description of demonstrative Ti and ILI says they really dislike the use of Ti to explain the world, seeing it as too rigid. For example, here.


For the last time: your interpretation of an unvalued function is incorrect. It doesn't mean that ILIs dislike 
-Ti... however, we often think LIIs overuse this function. Id functions are private.


----------

