# Model D



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

This is my new model:

Model D - Imgur

Model D builds on Socionics Model A and Model B, and to some extent on Harold Grant's model. It consists of two sets of functions; main functions and secondary functions. These are separate systems (of functions), but for the most part it is only the main system that works independently. For example, information frequently goes from ILI's Ni+ directly to Se-, then to Ti+ and finally back to the main system (Fe-). This is why we often don't see Ne- in ILI. But if an ILI extroverts a lot, then he or she occasionally uses the complete secondary system. 

The basic structure of Model A, Vladimir Yermak's definitions of +/- functions and Viktor Gulenko's approximate descriptions of +/- functions apply to Model D:

Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet

Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet

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

Model D is different from Model B in three ways:

1) The model does not use information aspects/IM elements. It uses Jung's/Berens' cognitive processes with some improvements: Te is about facts and logical deductions, and Si is indirectly related to comfort etc. However, it is possible to replace the Jungian cognitive processes with information aspects/IM elements. It would still be a very accurate model.

2) The secondary functions are noticeable almost every day, unlike Bukalov's "Shadow functions" which are noticeable in some special situations. The conscious/mental functions in the secondary system are much more obvious than the unconscious/vital functions in the main system. This corresponds with Irina Eglit's and Vladimir Yermak's research on plus and minus functions. 

3) Aleksandr Bukalov claims that ILI's Shadow Ego is NiFe. I claim that ILI's second Ego is NeFi.

Is there any evidence that supports Model D? Yes. For example, ILI can spend months or years on a new theoretical model (Ti-) but has no patience whatsoever for concrete technical problems, like repairing the car (Ti+). Also, ILI oversimplifies any solutions (Ti+) to physical threats (Se-). ILI's Ti+ is obviously very weak. Another example is IEI who is more creative than ILI. This makes no sense if both IEI and ILI have Ne as Ignoring function in Model A. A third example is LII who sometimes has surprisingly high emotional intelligence (Tina Fey).

A key advantage of Model D is that it explains why people of the same type can be so different from each other. This is my new subtype system: 

1) Strengthening one function produces a domino effect across the entire functional layout, so all strong (or weak) functions are strengthened and all weak (or strong) functions are weakened. 

2) Some subtypes use their secondary functions more than others due to variations in extraversion/introversion.

3) 100 subtypes are needed in order to accurately describe all kinds of personalities. Hence, a very introverted or extroverted person with very strong Ego and Id functions is subtype 1,1. An ambivert with very strong Ego and Id functions is subtype 1,10. Here are some examples: David Keirsey Jr is LII-8,2. Tina Fey is LII-7,8. Bill Gates is LII-2,7. Seth Lloyd is LII-1,4. And Terence Tao is LII-1,1.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

I...wish I could say I understand your model. Alas, I do not. Do you plan on doing an explanatory writeup?


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Tellus said:


> Is there any evidence that supports Model D? Yes. For example, ILI can spend months or years on a new theoretical model (Ti-) but has no patience whatsoever for concrete technical problems, like repairing the car (Ti+). Also, ILI oversimplifies any solutions (Ti+) to physical threats (Se-). ILI's Ti+ is obviously very weak. *Another example is IEI who is more creative than ILI.* This makes no sense if both IEI and ILI have Ne as Ignoring function in Model A. A third example is LII who sometimes has surprisingly high emotional intelligence (Tina Fey).


I know picking one tiny piece out probably isn't that helpful, but why would IEI be more inherently creative than ILI?


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

owlet said:


> I know picking one tiny piece out probably isn't that helpful, but why would IEI be more inherently creative than ILI?


Apparently because "we know that".

I already regret my inability to resist.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I...wish I could say I understand your model. Alas, I do not. Do you plan on doing an explanatory writeup?


What is it that you don't understand?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

owlet said:


> I know picking one tiny piece out probably isn't that helpful, but why would IEI be more inherently creative than ILI?


Because Ne+ (i.e. Ne blocked with Ti) is very different from Ne- (i.e. Ne blocked with Fi). Ne+ is about creativity in the general sense. Ne- sees opportunities for people, it notices personality traits etc.

SSS:

Ethical intuition (Ne-): potential, personality traits, understanding, insight

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


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Tellus said:


> What is it that you don't understand?


"Model D builds on Socionics Model A and Model B, and to some extent on Harold Grant's model. It consists of two sets of functions; *main functions and secondary functions*. These are separate systems (of functions), but for the most part it is only the main system that works independently. For example, information frequently *goes from ILI's Ni+ directly to Se-, then to Ti+ and finally back to the main system (Fe-)*. This is why we often don't see Ne- in ILI. But if an ILI extroverts a lot, then he or she occasionally uses the complete secondary system. "

How were these conclusions reached? What functions are considered main, and what secondary? What would a type look like in this system, when describe in clarity? What blocks do they possess, and how do these interact more specifically in a way that is different and distinct from Model A?

"2) The secondary functions are noticeable almost every day, unlike Bukalov's "Shadow functions" which are noticeable in some special situations. The conscious/mental functions in the secondary system are much more obvious than the unconscious/vital functions in the main system. This corresponds with Irina Eglit's and Vladimir Yermak's research on plus and minus functions.

3) Aleksandr Bukalov claims that ILI's Shadow Ego is NiFe. I claim that ILI's second Ego is NeFi."

For platform 2, what exactly does this mean? I do not understand it at all, although this may be related to my poor understanding of plus and minus overall; I also do not understand the distinction of secondary functions or how they are determined/what they are for a given type.

For platform 3, why do you make this claim? What is your reasoning for disagreeing?

In that link to the model, how do I determine what is going on with the complex diagram? I don't follow how to link that back in to a type and gain any insight into it.

If you could show a type in the same way that a Model A type is presented (but with the additional detail of your secondary systems and their interactions), I believe I could see what you are getting at better.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> "Model D builds on Socionics Model A and Model B, and to some extent on Harold Grant's model. It consists of two sets of functions; *main functions and secondary functions*. These are separate systems (of functions), but for the most part it is only the main system that works independently. For example, information frequently *goes from ILI's Ni+ directly to Se-, then to Ti+ and finally back to the main system (Fe-)*. This is why we often don't see Ne- in ILI. But if an ILI extroverts a lot, then he or she occasionally uses the complete secondary system. "
> 
> How were these conclusions reached? What functions are considered main, and what secondary? What would a type look like in this system, when describe in clarity? What blocks do they possess, and how do these interact more specifically in a way that is different and distinct from Model A?
> 
> ...


I will answer all of those questions later. I must go now. IEI's secondary functions are ordered exactly the same as ILE's functions in Model A.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Tellus said:


> Because Ne+ (i.e. Ne blocked with Ti) is very different from Ne- (i.e. Ne blocked with Fi). Ne+ is about creativity in the general sense. Ne- sees opportunities for people, it notices personality traits etc.
> 
> SSS:
> 
> ...


Thank you for the explanation. The problem is that, while I understand the theory, I don't understand why Ne+ is creativity in the general sense. Why is it Ne+ in particular? What makes it inherently more creative? Maybe it would be better to ask: what do you mean by 'creative'? To get some kind of baseline to work from.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Tellus said:


> I will answer all of those questions later. I must go now. IEI's secondary functions are ordered exactly the same as ILE's functions in Model A.


I've always thought ILE and IEI were more similar than people think. Something about being tricksterish, having a capacity for it anyway.

I look forward to learning more about this, Tellus. And I hope this isn't just me being obtuse about what you are trying to impart!


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

owlet said:


> Thank you for the explanation. The problem is that, while I understand the theory, I don't understand why Ne+ is creativity in the general sense. Why is it Ne+ in particular? What makes it inherently more creative? Maybe it would be better to ask: what do you mean by 'creative'? To get some kind of baseline to work from.


First of all, a plus function is related to Reinin dichotomy 'process' and a minus function is related to 'result', so Ne+ is more intense and focused on something specific.

Secondly, Ti is about objects and Fi is about subjects. We usually don't associate creativity with subjects. Hence, IEEs aren't creative in the general sense. But they are actually very creative in any social setting.

EDIT: There is one exception that I missed. Literature! Authors (often EIIs) are definitely seen as creative.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> "Model D builds on Socionics Model A and Model B, and to some extent on Harold Grant's model. It consists of two sets of functions; main functions and secondary functions. These are separate systems (of functions), but for the most part it is only the main system that works independently. For example, information frequently goes from ILI's Ni+ directly to Se-, then to Ti+ and finally back to the main system (Fe-). This is why we often don't see Ne- in ILI. But if an ILI extroverts a lot, then he or she occasionally uses the complete secondary system. "
> How were these conclusions reached? What functions are considered main, and what secondary? What would a type look like in this system, when describe in clarity? What blocks do they possess, and how do these interact more specifically in a way that is different and distinct from Model A?


The conclusions were reached mainly by my own observations, but also other socionists' observations. The main functions are blue and the secondary functions are green. A type looks the same as in Model A, but it is described much more accurately. Model D is in a sense two model As that are fused together, so blocks and functions work the same way as in Model A.



> "2) The secondary functions are noticeable almost every day, unlike Bukalov's "Shadow functions" which are noticeable in some special situations. The conscious/mental functions in the secondary system are much more obvious than the unconscious/vital functions in the main system. This corresponds with Irina Eglit's and Vladimir Yermak's research on plus and minus functions.
> For platform 2, what exactly does this mean? I do not understand it at all, although this may be related to my poor understanding of plus and minus overall; I also do not understand the distinction of secondary functions or how they are determined/what they are for a given type.


+/- is a result of the blocking of functions, or rather the information aspects. So IEI's Ni+ is not nearly as obvious as IEI's Ni-. If they were equally obvious, then we would not be able to distinguish between IEI and ILI. Hence, IEI's Ni+ is NOT a Leading main function.

Main functions and secondary functions are separate systems. IEI's Fe+ "pushes" Fi+ to unconsciousness, but it doesn't affect Fi- at all. An IEI uses (a part of) the secondary system as soon as he/she considers an aspect of (for example) Ne+Ti-, like Model D. The only reason IEI uses Ni-Fe+ more than Ne+Ti- is because IEI is an introvert.



> 3) Aleksandr Bukalov claims that ILI's Shadow Ego is NiFe. I claim that ILI's second Ego is NeFi."
> For platform 3, why do you make this claim? What is your reasoning for disagreeing?


Because I can distinguish between Ego and Id functions. Ego functions are in a sense automatic, while Id functions take effort. Furthermore, ILI's most obvious functions are: Ni+, Te-, Si+, Fe-, Fi+, Se-, Ne- and Ti+. So either SSS is right, or I am right. But SSS assumes that ILI's Ti+ is 4D which is clearly inaccurate.



> In that link to the model, how do I determine what is going on with the complex diagram? I don't follow how to link that back in to a type and gain any insight into it.


Model A is often illustrated as a cube. I think it is impossible to accurately describe Model D in a simpler way. For example, Ni+ must connect with -Se as well as +Se.



> If you could show a type in the same way that a Model A type is presented (but with the additional detail of your secondary systems and their interactions), I believe I could see what you are getting at better.


IEI:

(main)
Ni- Fe+
Te+ Si-
--------
Ti+ Se-
Ne- Fi+

(secondary)
Ne+ Ti-
Fi- Se+
--------
Fe- Si+
Ni+ Te-


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Tellus said:


> The conclusions were reached mainly by my own observations, but also other socionists' observations. The main functions are blue and the secondary functions are green. A type looks the same as in Model A, but it is described much more accurately. Model D is in a sense two model As that are fused together, so blocks and functions work the same way as in Model A.


So by this logic, each person has all of the functions of two full types. Where is the Secondary set basically...positioned...within the psyche? The Model A has four Mental and four Vital functions, and one of each at each of the Dimensional levels. Where does this secondary set come in? Is the Secondary set entirely unconscious? What dimensionality does this secondary set have? If you do mean that they work exactly as the Model A functions, does that mean each person has all 8 functions Mental AND all 8 functions Vital but with differing signs and strengths? For example:

ILI would thus have (with *Bolded* being conscious/Mental):
4D: *+Ni*, -Ti, *-Ne*, +Te
3D: *-Te*, *+Ne*, +Ti, -Ni
2D: *+Si,* *-Se*, +Fe, -Fi
1D: *-Fe,* +Se, -Si, *+Fi*

Is that interpretation correct?



Tellus said:


> +/- is a result of the blocking of functions, or rather the information aspects. So IEI's Ni+ is not nearly as obvious as IEI's Ni-. If they were equally obvious, then we would not be able to distinguish between IEI and ILI. Hence, IEI's Ni+ is NOT a Leading main function.
> 
> Main functions and secondary functions are separate systems. IEI's Fe+ "pushes" Fi+ to unconsciousness, but it doesn't affect Fi- at all. An IEI uses (a part of) the secondary system as soon as he/she considers an aspect of (for example) Ne+Ti-, like Model D. The only reason IEI uses Ni-Fe+ more than Ne+Ti- is because IEI is an introvert.


So an IEI focuses on Fi- with no difficulty? Does this mean you are saying that Fi is Conscious/Mental? I see in your example below that you list Fi- there, but in that setup it seems to be in the PoLR position? Are you saying that in your model, an IEI's Fi- is 1D Mental/Weak/Unvalued? This is an interesting statement if that is what you are saying 



Tellus said:


> Because I can distinguish between Ego and Id functions. Ego functions are in a sense automatic, while Id functions take effort. Furthermore, ILI's most obvious functions are: Ni+, Te-, Si+, Fe-, Fi+, Se-, Ne- and Ti+. So either SSS is right, or I am right. But SSS assumes that ILI's Ti+ is 4D which is clearly inaccurate.
> 
> Why is ILI's Ti+ clearly not 4D? How do you distinguish, say, ILI's Ti- from ILI's Ti-?
> 
> ...


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Tellus said:


> First of all, a plus function is related to Reinin dichotomy 'process' and a minus function is related to 'result', so Ne+ is more intense and focused on something specific.
> 
> Secondly, Ti is about objects and Fi is about subjects. *We usually don't associate creativity with subjects. *Hence, IEEs aren't creative in the general sense. But they are actually very creative in any social setting.
> 
> EDIT: There is one exception that I missed. Literature! Authors (often EIIs) are definitely seen as creative.


Do we not usually associate creativity with subjects? I was wondering if you could go into more detail as to exactly how Ne+ was more creative, as in how the mind working in that particular way would make it more inclined to creativity. Rather than examples of particular careers etc. (Some authors are very technical, for example.)


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

owlet said:


> Do we not usually associate creativity with subjects? I was wondering if you could go into more detail as to exactly how Ne+ was more creative, as in how the mind working in that particular way would make it more inclined to creativity. Rather than examples of particular careers etc. (Some authors are very technical, for example.)


For example, an IEE psychologist sees many possible solutions for his or her patient. But this kind of creativity often goes unnoticed by friends, family and society. It seems like we need an object in order to acknowledge creativity.

I do not think Ne+ is more creative than Ne- in absolute terms, but it is perceived as more creative for the reasons I've already mentioned.

This applies to Ne+


Do things sequentially, from the beginning to the end.
Immersed to a process and inclined to single-tasking.
Focus between the beginning and the end of processes.

This applies to Ne-


Do things randomly, seemingly doing them from the end to the beginning.
Detached from processes and tends to multitasking.
Focus on the beginning and the end of processes.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> So by this logic, each person has all of the functions of two full types.


No, I am not saying that IEI has Ne as a Leading function. IEI has only Ne+ in his/her Ego. Two types share two systems.



> Where is the Secondary set basically...positioned...within the psyche?


They are unconscious and "not working" unless you use a relevant function. This is also true in Model A.



> The Model A has four Mental and four Vital functions, and one of each at each of the Dimensional levels. Where does this secondary set come in? Is the Secondary set entirely unconscious?


All functions that you are currently not using consciously, are unconscious. This is also true in Model A.



> What dimensionality does this secondary set have?
> If you do mean that they work exactly as the Model A functions, does that mean each person has all 8 functions Mental AND all 8 functions Vital but with differing signs and strengths? For example:


It depends on how you look at it. Ni+ and Ni- are either separate functions or two versions of Ni. It really doesn't matter. Yes, all types have both + and - of all functions.



> ILI would thus have (with Bolded being conscious/Mental):
> 4D: +Ni, -Ti, -Ne, +Te
> 3D: -Te, +Ne, +Ti, -Ni
> 2D: +Si, -Se, +Fe, -Fi
> ...


No, ILI has:

4D: *+Ni*, -Ti, *-Ne*, +Fe
3D: *-Te*, +Ne, *+Fi*, -Ni
2D: *+Si*, -Fi, *-Se*, +Te 
1D: *-Fe*, +Se, *+Ti*, -Si



> So an IEI focuses on Fi- with no difficulty?


IEI's Fi- is 1-dimensional. This seems strange of you look at Fi- in isolation (which you can't). But if you look at Fi- together with Se+, then you realize that IEI's Fi- is very weak. For example, IEI doesn't act confidently in a night club or at a busy party.



> Does this mean you are saying that Fi is Conscious/Mental?


Yes, IEI's Fi- is conscious/mental.



> I see in your example below that you list Fi- there, but in that setup it seems to be in the PoLR position? Are you saying that in your model, an IEI's Fi- is 1D Mental/Weak/Unvalued? This is an interesting statement if that is what you are saying


Yes, see example above.



> "Because I can distinguish between Ego and Id functions. Ego functions are in a sense automatic, while Id functions take effort. Furthermore, ILI's most obvious functions are: Ni+, Te-, Si+, Fe-, Fi+, Se-, Ne- and Ti+. So either SSS is right, or I am right. But SSS assumes that ILI's Ti+ is 4D which is clearly inaccurate."
> Why is ILI's Ti+ clearly not 4D? How do you distinguish, say, ILI's Ti- from ILI's Ti-?


See my comment about Ti+ in OP.



> So, essentially, speaking, the Secondary function is exactly like an ENTP? Why is this the case? How can you tell that these functions are there?


Well, IEI either has Ne+ or not. Our observations tell us that IEI can work creatively with objects. Hence, he/she has Ne+. Okay, so it must be placed in Ego, Super-Ego, Super-Id or Id... or something else. I don't think there is anything else.



> What distinguishes a Secondary function from a Primary function, given that they are in the same position (Such as IEI's Ni- and Ne+ as written here)?


There is no difference. IEI uses Ni- more than Ne+ because he/she is an introvert. Watch INFJ Advice on Youtube. Is she an INFJ or an ENTP according to you? Some people are convinced that she is INFJ and others are convinced that she is ENTP (including me).

EDIT: 

Why is IEI equally interested in NeTi? Because NiFe and NeTi complement each other. NiFe wants the best possible environment/conditions for people while NeTi wants as many smart products as possible. For example: Imagine a world where all people can connect with each other, so we can promote democracy etc (NiFe). Let's invent a product that makes this come true; the Internet (NeTi). 

ILI's NiTe and NeFi also complement each other; NiTe wants the best possible (now existing) society while NeFi wants as many opportunities as possible for people.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Thank you for answering my questions. I'll return for more discussion later. Color me intrigued, however.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Tellus said:


> For example, an IEE psychologist sees many possible solutions for his or her patient. But this kind of creativity often goes unnoticed by friends, family and society. It seems like we need an object in order to acknowledge creativity.
> 
> I do not think Ne+ is more creative than Ne- in absolute terms, but it is perceived as more creative for the reasons I've already mentioned.
> 
> ...


Thank you again for the explanation. With Ne-, doesn't that come across as almost the stereotypical 'artist'? Still, it depends on how you're defining 'creative', as you can refer to 'creative' in terms of a way of thinking, as you did before, or as in 'creating something'.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Tellus said:


> ILI's NiTe and NeFi also complement each other; NiTe wants the best possible (now existing) society while NeFi wants as many opportunities as possible for people.


I see, so under this logic SEE should have SeFi and SiTe if I understood the idea correctly. Hm, this may be interesting for duality purposes and I wonder if I've seen this going on with my SEE friends.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

owlet said:


> Thank you again for the explanation. With Ne-, doesn't that come across as almost the stereotypical 'artist'? Still, it depends on how you're defining 'creative', as you can refer to 'creative' in terms of a way of thinking, as you did before, or as in 'creating something'.


It also depends on how you define 'artist'. For example, ESI (FiSe and FeNi) is usually the painting artist.


----------



## seriousguy (Nov 27, 2015)

Tellus said:


> We both extrovert (i.e. focus on the outside world) and introvert (i.e. focus on the inside world) in any environments. If we focus more on the outside world than the inside world, then we come across as outgoing, talkative, energetic etc.


Not necessarily. You can be reserved in a group (not talkative and energetic, etc.), but still heavily reliant on the information from the outside. I have several examples of it. You need to re-define introversion/extroversion, so that we can know if the frequency of someone using the secondary functions more depends on their enhanced external/internal focus or the social introversion/extroversion (reserved vs talkative, brooding/longing vs cheering/having-fun, etc.).



> You are describing an IEI who is using NiFe (studying people...). He or she comes across as reserved/introverted. A social environment does not have to imply that a type comes across as extroverted.


ILE studies people A LOT (that studying gaze that Socionics' profiles talk about!), so they are using NiFe according to you?



> Ne+ is not the potential behavior of subjects/people, that would be Ne-.


I didn't mean potential behavior. Ne+ sees the people as objects and notice something on them that resembles something else ("The way you move your eyes, it's like you are being programmed", "Your eyes look like the headlights on the Corolla car"). My IEI friend was heavily in the Pareidolia, so he regularly sees the patterns in the stuff, like seeing the faces in bed sheets, etc.. What the other person is thinking...... guessing it on their body movements, demeanor only and relating it to a big-picture is probably Ne+. 



> ESI's Ni- could be more obvious in social interactions since it is a 'contact' function. You also see ILI's Te more than Ni in social interactions.


What do you mean by "contact" functions? In your model, Demonstrative functions (which are accepting) are contact?


----------



## seriousguy (Nov 27, 2015)

I am convinced that Michael Pierce is an IEI/INFJ and John Barnes is an ILE/ENTP. If you look at Michael's comparison of the types, you will see that he covers how INFJs have difficulty in expressing their ideas in real-time and how ENTPs express their ideas freely/easily, he attributes it to Ni vs Ne. IF Michael is really ambiverting in his videos and thus using Ti-, then why he has trouble explaining concepts clearly without first writing them down on the paper? I personally able to explain/share ideas in real-time in the fashion of an ENTP/John Barnes, does that mean my Ne+ is more conscious than Michael's Ne+? But his Ti- is more conscious, but not getting enough support from Ne+? Or he is using Ti- with Ni+ unconsciously (sharing the singular insight) and not Ne+ (which draws out multiple interrelated insights)? How can you explain this?

There is no doubt Ni+ complements Ti-, Ne+ complements Te-, Ni- complements Fi+, Ne- complements Fe+ and so on. When someone focuses on one of these functions, then he/she start using the other complementary function as well, albeit unconsciously, i.e., LIE and ILE sharing the ideas and potential in new projects (Ne+) and how they can be improved (Te-). I do both at times without realizing if I am using Ne+ or Te-. Perhaps Michael (and other INFJs on YouTube who have trouble expressing their Ti- models/understanding) are using Ti- with Ni+ rather than Ti- with Ne+? Does that mean an IEI can use Ti- consciously without Ne+ consciously? Similarly, ESIs are able to use Ni- consciously without necessarily using Fe+ consciously.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

seriousguy said:


> I am convinced that Michael Pierce is an IEI/INFJ and John Barnes is an ILE/ENTP. If you look at Michael's comparison of the types, you will see that he covers how INFJs have difficulty in expressing their ideas in real-time and how ENTPs express their ideas freely/easily, he attributes it to Ni vs Ne.


You must be much more specific. What exactly does the INFJs have difficulty expressing? It could be Si-Te+, i.e. not finding the right words etc.



> IF Michael is really ambiverting in his videos and thus using Ti-, then why he has trouble explaining concepts clearly without first writing them down on the paper?


Maybe he doesn't remember the specifics. It does not have to be related to Ti-. Also, all extroverts (and ambiverts) express themselves more freely than introverts. 



> I personally able to explain/share ideas in real-time in the fashion of an ENTP/John Barnes, does that mean my Ne+ is more conscious than Michael's Ne+?


He seems to be a clear introvert, so he will use NeTi less than you, generally speaking. But your Ne+ is not more conscious due to ambiversion, even though you can access this function more easily. Main functions and secondary function don't affect each other in that way. BUT if your strong functions are stronger than his strong functions, then they are also more conscious!

It also depends on exactly what you are explaining and how you are explaining it, and the social context.



> But his Ti- is more conscious, but not getting enough support from Ne+?


No



> Or he is using Ti- with Ni+ unconsciously (sharing the singular insight) and not Ne+ (which draws out multiple interrelated insights)? How can you explain this?


No



> There is no doubt Ni+ complements Ti-, Ne+ complements Te-, Ni- complements Fi+, Ne- complements Fe+ and so on.


Correct. 'e' and 'i' actually mean that functions are the same in some respects.



> When someone focuses on one of these functions, then he/she start using the other complementary function as well, albeit unconsciously, i.e., LIE and ILE sharing the ideas and potential in new projects (Ne+) and how they can be improved (Te-). I do both at times without realizing if I am using Ne+ or Te-.


That is my view as well.



> Perhaps Michael (and other INFJs on YouTube who have trouble expressing their Ti- models/understanding) are using Ti- with Ni+ rather than Ti- with Ne+?


No, it is due to many other factors, including those I have mentioned above. He is more introverted than you, and his strong functions are probably weaker than yours.



> Does that mean an IEI can use Ti- consciously without Ne+ consciously? Similarly, ESIs are able to use Ni- consciously without necessarily using Fe+ consciously.


You can only use one function consciously at the same time.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

seriousguy said:


> Not necessarily. You can be reserved in a group (not talkative and energetic, etc.), but still heavily reliant on the information from the outside. I have several examples of it.


I said: "If we focus more on the outside world than the inside world, then we come across as outgoing, talkative, energetic etc."

There is no contradiction! If you are reserved in a group, then you are usually using your "introverted" functions more than your "extroverted" functions.



> You need to re-define introversion/extroversion, so that we can know if the frequency of someone using the secondary functions more depends on their enhanced external/internal focus or the social introversion/extroversion (reserved vs talkative, brooding/longing vs cheering/having-fun, etc.).


Those are the same thing. External focus leads to social extroversion (talkative etc.). Internal focus leads to social introversion (reserved etc.).

It is much easier to study the effects than the cause, so focus on social extraversion/introversion.



> ILE studies people A LOT (that studying gaze that Socionics' profiles talk about!), so they are using NiFe according to you?


Yes. Do you have any descriptions of this?



> I didn't mean potential behavior. Ne+ sees the people as objects and notice something on them that resembles something else ("The way you move your eyes, it's like you are being programmed", "Your eyes look like the headlights on the Corolla car").


Okay, that would be Ne+.



> My IEI friend was heavily in the Pareidolia, so he regularly sees the patterns in the stuff, like seeing the faces in bed sheets, etc.. What the other person is thinking...... guessing it on their body movements, demeanor only and relating it to a big-picture is probably Ne+.


This is mostly related to Ne+, yes. "seeing faces in bed sheets" 



> What do you mean by "contact" functions? In your model, Demonstrative functions (which are accepting) are contact?


Good question. I am not sure yet, but I think ILI's Ti- and Fi- are inert.

Many aspects of Model A still applies to Model D, even though I think lots of things must be modified.


----------



## seriousguy (Nov 27, 2015)

Tellus said:


> You must be much more specific. What exactly does the INFJs have difficulty expressing? It could be Si-Te+, i.e. not finding the right words etc.


Finding the right words....according to you it is Si-Te+ and not Ti+Se-? Can you explain how? For example, (as far as I know) it is a generally understood idea in both MBTI community and Socionics that IEIs try to be consistent in their words which is due to Ti HA.




> Maybe he doesn't remember the specifics. It does not have to be related to Ti-. Also, all extroverts (and ambiverts) express themselves more freely than introverts.


By specifics, do you mean he might be using Ti+/Te+ when reading/recalling from the notes and not "creating" the new Ti- information on-the-fly?




> He seems to be a clear introvert, so he will use NeTi less than you, generally speaking. But your Ne+ is not more conscious due to ambiversion, even though you can access this function more easily. Main functions and secondary function don't affect each other in that way. BUT if your strong functions are stronger than his strong functions, then they are also more conscious!


A lot of the times I am not using Ne+ consciously, but when I meet the same person again around whom I used the Ne+ consciously, then I start talking Ne+, albeit more unconsciously, like sharing the same jokes/humor again and again, which implies that Ne+ is not just "extroverted" process. I personally think that ambiverts use their secondary ego CONSCIOUSLY more than introvert/extrovert who use their secondary ego unconsciously, and that's it!


----------



## seriousguy (Nov 27, 2015)

Tellus said:


> I said: "If we focus more on the outside world than the inside world, then we come across as outgoing, talkative, energetic etc."
> 
> There is no contradiction! If you are reserved in a group, then you are usually using your "introverted" functions more than your "extroverted" functions.


Not really, not always, "generally" yes. Ne+ is not just an "extroverted" process according to me in the sense that a lot of the time my head is filled with potential from the outside world, and I get maniac thoughts, where I just keep moving my eyes/head from one object to another, but a lot of the time in that state, I don't "talk" about it but still use Ne+ and not Ni- which is about fantasy/imagination. For example, many introverted SEEs keep observing people and moving their head/eyes from one person to another, doesn't mean they are using Si-/Ni- just because they are reserved. They are using Se+ which is about the movements/behavior of people, so for example, they will smile at someone and say "lol look at this person what he is doing now!" in their mind.... that is Se+, but this is not being used in traditional "extroverted" fashion.





> Those are the same thing. External focus leads to social extroversion (talkative etc.). Internal focus leads to social introversion (reserved etc.).
> 
> It is much easier to study the effects than the cause, so focus on social extraversion/introversion.


No! "leads" to... in general, yes, but many have social anxiety, for example, my IEI friend online from depression/anxiety groups, he use Ne+ TOO much online and keep sharing new stuff/ideas on his Facebook profile often in maniac fashion, but he is not someone who would come under the label of social extroversion, but he is an ambivert according to me (and he even looks like ILE-like., because he is more interested in what is outside of himself and feels "energized" when sharing those ideas or talking with people online, but due to depression/anxiety, he can't do socializing in real-life. Introverted IEIs look very different to ambiverted IEIs. Same for other types.



> Yes. Do you have any descriptions of this?


"...likes staring with a studying gaze while not considering other people's reactions."

ILE Profile by Gulenko - Wikisocion

Couldn't find more descriptions :tongue: But it's obvious to me how ILEs have studying gaze anyway, same for an IEI.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

seriousguy said:


> Finding the right words....according to you it is Si-Te+ and not Ti+Se-? Can you explain how? For example, (as far as I know) it is a generally understood idea in both MBTI community and Socionics that IEIs try to be consistent in their words which is due to Ti HA.


Finding the right words is Si-Te+. Si processes minute distinctions and Se processes action/behavior. Language is about minute distinctions, hence it is processed in the left brain. Te makes sure the words are placed in the right order, i.e. grammatically correct etc. Fe makes sure you articulate the words properly.



> By specifics, do you mean he might be using Ti+/Te+ when reading/recalling from the notes and not "creating" the new Ti- information on-the-fly?


Yes



> A lot of the times I am not using Ne+ consciously, but when I meet the same person again around whom I used the Ne+ consciously, then I start talking Ne+, albeit more unconsciously, like sharing the same jokes/humor again and again, which implies that Ne+ is not just "extroverted" process.


It depends on what we mean by "extroverted". It is very important that we define 'e' and 'i' correctly.



> I personally think that ambiverts use their secondary ego CONSCIOUSLY more than introvert/extrovert who use their secondary ego unconsciously, and that's it!


I disagree... the main functions and the secondary functions are different systems. An IEI who focuses on NiFe don't want/need NeTi. They complement each other, but they don't support each other directly. 



> Ne+ is not just an "extroverted" process according to me in the sense that a lot of the time my head is filled with potential from the outside world, and I get maniac thoughts, where I just keep moving my eyes/head from one object to another, but a lot of the time in that state, I don't "talk" about it but still use Ne+ and not Ni- which is about fantasy/imagination.


But you agree with me that you don't have to look at outside objects. Those "maniac thoughts" can be based on memory as well, right?



> For example, many introverted SEEs keep observing people and moving their head/eyes from one person to another, doesn't mean they are using Si-/Ni- just because they are reserved. They are using Se+ which is about the movements/behavior of people, so for example, they will smile at someone and say "lol look at this person what he is doing now!" in their mind.... that is Se+, but this is not being used in traditional "extroverted" fashion.


Observing people is Se, but saying "lol look at this person what he is doing now!" is Si, Te and Fe. 



> No! "leads" to... in general, yes, but many have social anxiety, for example, my IEI friend online from depression/anxiety groups, he use Ne+ TOO much online and keep sharing new stuff/ideas on his Facebook profile often in maniac fashion, but he is not someone who would come under the label of social extroversion,


Extraversion or Introversion is the result of ALL functions. Using "extroverted" functions more than "introverted" functions means that someone is an extrovert.



> but he is an ambivert according to me (and he even looks like ILE-like., because he is more interested in what is outside of himself and feels "energized" when sharing those ideas or talking with people online, but due to depression/anxiety, he can't do socializing in real-life. Introverted IEIs look very different to ambiverted IEIs. Same for other types.


But depression/anxiety is not the same thing as introversion, so there is no contradiction.



> "...likes staring with a studying gaze while not considering other people's reactions."
> ILE Profile by Gulenko - Wikisocion
> Couldn't find more descriptions But it's obvious to me how ILEs have studying gaze anyway, same for an IEI.


Okay


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Here's an updated description of Model D.

Model D

https://imgur.com/ZMJ3J6x (mk3)

https://imgur.com/AfGrdXq (mk3b)


LIE 

Primary functions: Te- Ni+ Fe- Si+ // Ne+ Ti- Se+ Fi- 

Secondary functions: Ti+ Se- Fi+ Ne- // Si- Te+ Ni- Fe+


ILI 

Primary functions: Ni+ Te- Si+ Fe- // Ti- Ne+ Fi- Se+

Secondary functions: Ne- Fi+ Se- Ti+ // Fe+ Ni- Te+ Si-


https://introvertdear.com/news/intr...ns-really-are-different-according-to-science/

_"Everyone’s nervous system has two sides — the sympathetic side, which triggers the “fight, fright, or flight” response, and the parasympathetic side, which is responsible for “rest and digest” mode. Think of the sympathetic side as hitting the gas pedal and the parasympathetic side as slamming on the brakes. When your sympathetic system is activated, your body gears up for action. Adrenaline is released, glucose energizes muscles, and oxygen increases. Areas of your brain that control thinking are turned off, although dopamine increases alertness in the back of your brain. But when you use the parasympathetic side, your muscles relax, energy is stored, and food is metabolized. Acetylcholine increases blood flow and alertness in the front of your brain. *Of course, extroverts and introverts use both sides at different times.* But which side do we introverts prefer? You’ve probably already guessed: according to Dr. Laney, the parasympathetic side, which slows us down and calms us."_

*This is why we need two systems of functions (like Model D); one system with a dominant "extroverted" function and another system with a dominant "introverted" function.*

*Extroverted behavior is a consequence of accepting "extroverted" functions and producing "introverted" functions (and vice versa). This corresponds perfectly with Keirsey's fourth ring, expressive vs. attentive: *

_"The fourth ring describes how people interact with their environment. Individuals who tend to act before observing are described as expressive, whereas people who tend to observe before acting are described as attentive."_


EDIT 20-01-2018 ... Here are 10 important changes and clarifications:

1. There are no valued and unvalued functions. Type compatibility is based on mutual relaxation instead. SEE, ESI and ESE are compatible with ILI. (EDIT 05-03-2018)

Why are SEE and ILI duals? Because ILI is sensitive about Si+ and Fe- (especially SiFe), but he or she is insensitive about Se+ and Fi-. SEE's indirect and childlike Si+ and Fe- match ILI's Si+ and Fe-. 

2. There are probably only two basic levels of strong/weak functions. So ILI's Ni+ and Te- are equally strong. But 1D, 2D, 3D and 4D could be relevant in subtypes.

3. ILI's strong functions are Ni+, Te-, Ti-, Ne+ and Ne-, Fi+, Fe+, Ni- ... stronger = more sophisticated (they process more information).

4. One needs high-dimensional sensing in order to process high-dimensional (concrete) logic. For example, Se- (weak) -> Ti+ (strong) is not possible.

5. 'Plus' / 'minus' is a consequence of the blocking of functions.

6. 'Plus' functions are about analysis. They deal with "how", "what", "who" and "where" questions. 'Minus' functions are about synthesis. They deal with "why" questions. This is yet another reason why we need 16 functions. 

7. All mental functions are equally conscious, and all vital functions are equally unconscious.

*8. Why are there mental and vital functions? Because two functions must process information simultaneously. You cannot observe structural differences (Ti: longer, bigger, more...) without being somewhat aware of the object (Si or Ni). *

9. The vital functions correspond to Jung's "personal unconscious". 

Jung: "more or less superficial layer of the unconscious." ... "they constitute the personal and private side of psychic life."

Yermak: "Some socionists suppose that the functioning of the superblock of personal life is unconscious. It is incorrect. Founders of psychoanalysis differently considered the concept of the 'unconscious'. The term 'preconscious' is appropriate to the content of processes, which take place in the superblock of personal life. In normal conditions, the preconscious processes function out of consciousness, automatically. But these processes can become conscious, if there is a need. In turn, functioning of the superblock of social life is obviously conscious."

"the contents of vital track functions is the result of individual period of psyche development, the period when we are individuals, when we are the hub of the universe, when everything rotates around us, around our interests, when we are still children and we are not interested in the society with all its demands. Socionists say: the vital track is the superblock of individual life activity. This means that vital track functions work for our individual needs and in the way that is customary and comfortable for us."

10. ILI's SiFe is not just about people and social relationships. It supports NiTe as well. ILI's intense study of certain subjects/facts is dependent on Si+ (...Fe- evaluates if it is good or bad behavior/action). The same thing applies to NeFi. This is why Model D mk3 makes sense. Te- speculates about something (i.e. induction and abduction... Te+ is about deduction). If the ILI is confident then the information is confirmed by Si+. If he (or she) isn't confident then the information goes to Ne-, which sees alternative conclusions.


EDIT 07-02-2018

Why does ILI have NeFi as a second ego? My current view is that NiTe and NeFi complement each other (see previous comments). But there is another way of looking at it. Maybe NeFi counterbalances NiTe instead. IEE is the most open and trusting type, and ILI is the most suspicious, skeptical and independent type. If ILI's NeFi is always somewhat present, then it cannot be completely ignored. This could prevent the ILI from being too single-minded, arrogant, insensitive etc.

A third alternative: NeFi is both a complement and a counterbalance.

_INFJ (Ni Fe Ti Se): "With our extraverted feeling function, INFJs tend to avoid conflicts. We need our introverted thinking to remind us that pleasing others doesn’t always resolve the issue. Sometimes it’s best, to tell the truth even if it hurts the other person and ourselves (we feel the pain when someone is hurt). Our introverted thinking also allows our extraverted feeling to take a break. Always thinking in terms of the group is rather taxing on us._

_INFJs also have a tough time making decisions because of this constant tug-of-war between the brain and the heart. Even though we understand logically (Ti) that some decision isn’t the best for us, we are still very concerned about the implications of our decision on other people (Fe)."_

I experience Fi+ in a similar way. 


EDIT 05-03-2018

_How to Find Yourself and Your Best Match. Socionics. The Modern Approach to Psychological Types ... by Rod Novichkov and Julia Varabyova:_

_"Complementary (C). All Intellectual Intuitive types are Complementary to the Emotional Sensory group and vice versa. All Intellectual Sensory types are Comlementary to the Emotional Intuitive group. Relationships between these groups are best for marriage and romance. The subconscious of Intellectual Intuitive types is Emotional and Sensing. Partners in these relationships "cover each other's back". Together they cover all aspects of Informational Metabolism. They have the same type of emotionality, same type of sexuality, same type of thinking and understanding. Partners make each other comfortable and relaxed. These relationships do not contribute to personal growth. Although C1 is the best type of relationship, it's not that easy to establish. In the beginning, partners don't seem to see each other or attract to each other. It almost takes knowledge of Socionics to even enter in such relationship. Only as the time goes along, when partners engage in common activity and spend some time with each other, they start seeing each other's qualities and get attracted to each other. Once you've been in C1, you'll never want anything else. The types of relationships where partners easily get attracted to each other are C2 and C3. These are the most common of all happy marriages. Keep in mind that even complementary types may have problems with each other because of issues outside of Socionics."_

_R.K. Sedih, "Informational psychoanalysis" (Conflict Relations):_

_"Partners usually find each other quite interesting. Among socionists the most wide-spread name for this type of relations is "conflict". This is justified only on low level of interaction when both partners are poorly developed and un-dualized. In this case, partners not realizing it will hit each other's weakest spots. This is a very difficult situation if both of them have to live together, sharing a room for example. Situation improves if even one partner is dualized. In this case partners can affect each other positively and even derive benefit from these relations. This aspect of interaction is satisfactory only if there is tolerance between partners. In socionics, there is a tradition to consider this interaction as the most harsh and uncomfortable for the individual. My own research has shown, however, that it is almost always not the case. Over many years of studying socionics, I have not found any cases of such classic conflict as described by A. Augustinavichiute. Our observations and some recent theoretical developments suggest that in general this type of relation falls into the same level of comfort as semi-duality and activation relations."_


EDIT 24-01-2018 

Definitions of the Cognitive Functions (or IM elements)


******


ESI

primary functions: Fi- Se+ Ti- Ne+ .... 

secondary functions: Fe+ Ni- Te+ Si- .... 


EII 

primary functions: Fi+ Ne- Ti+ Se- ....

secondary functions: Fe- Si+ Te- Ni+ ....


Naomi L Quenk:

_'As an INFP psychotherapist, I find that cleaning the house, organizing drawers, or alphabetizing spices can provide a relaxing and welcome break from seeing clients, theorizing, doing research, and writing.This gives my dominant Feeling and auxiliary Intuition a rest when they have been used particularly intensively. Another INFP engages her tertiary Sensing in her detailed, photorealistic drawings of objects and people, and many INFPs mention crafts as a hobby. An ISFP relaxes most successfully while doing the Sunday New York Times crossword puzzle. He enjoys being able to put the many facts he knows into the logical order of the English language and giving his tertiary Intuition free rein to fill in the gaps in the puzzle.'_

_'When one ISFP becomes especially irritated with her husband’s chronic indecision, she provides him with lengthy, logical accounts of his available choices, adopting a combative, lawyerlike tone. One INFP makes almost vicious attacks on people who fail to live up to his ethical standards. “One winter I found out the gas company had turned off service to my disabled neighbor, who couldn’t pay her bill. I flew into a rage, called the president of the company, and threatened to expose him to the newspapers. Even I was surprised at the language I used,” he said.'_

_'An ISFP finds it stressful to “work with people who are very focused on regulations and rules,” and another said, “I dislike strict deadlines and like to move at my own pace.” '_

_'An ISFP commented that she becomes “very aware that people at work are not following procedures and are making the same mistakes over and over again. But when I think about it later, I have to admit there are no more mistakes than usual.” '_

_'Introverted Feeling types may select hobbies that engage their Thinking function. One INFP thoroughly enjoys computer games that require logic and strategy. Another relaxes by analyzing companies for possible investment.'_


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

ILI 

primary functions: Ni+ Te- Si+ Fe- ....

secondary functions: Ne- Fi+ Se- Ti+ ....


IEI

primary functions: Ni- Fe+ Si- Te+ ....

secondary functions: Ne+ Ti- Se+ Fi- ....


_'Introverted Intuitive types easily gloss over facts and details in their everyday behavior but can be hypersensitive about this. When they become aware that they have made a “Sensing” mistake, or an error of fact is pointed out to them, they are likely to become annoyed and defensive.

Like their Extraverted Intuitive counterparts, they may compensate for their uneasiness in this area by becoming expert in some highly specific area. This can sometimes resemble a fetish. An INFJ who had little interest in most aspects of housekeeping knew all the ingredients of different household detergents; an INTJ was pleased with his ability to identify any kind of cloud formation.'
_
This is actually about Si+ and Si-.


_'INTJs and INFJs readily project their own distrust of the environment onto others. They may comment on other people’s failure to notice details or assume that everyone experiences the anxieties they experience when dealing with an unfamiliar environment. They may therefore be overly cautious in giving people directions and provide too many—often irrelevant—details. One INFJ instructed his 28-year-old son as he was about to head out on a long trip in the car, “And when you smoke, you use the ashtray.” ' _(Si- or Se+)

_'Discomfort with the environment can also be seen in an overconcern with keeping track of things. One INTJ reported having to check his pocket two or three times to be sure his keys were there. Introverted Intuitive types try very hard to avoid losing things or getting lost in unfamiliar surroundings. They can become disproportionately upset when their efforts fail, frequently blaming others for their own carelessness.' _(Se-)

_'In giving a friend directions to her new house, an INTJ detailed the following: Take Central Avenue to Fifth Street and turn right. Go two blocks to Smith Street and make a left at the next corner, Avenue M. Go three blocks and turn right into Mulberry. That’s my street. About halfway down the block you’ll see a blue house with a two-car garage and a “For Sale” sign on the lawn. Next door to that house is a small cottage with a peaked roof. My house has no address number on it, but it’s diagonally across from the blue house. . . . Oh, and did I mention that my house is the only two-story house on the block?'_ (Si+)

_'For Introverted Intuitive types, relaxing their dominant and auxiliary functions may occur through such sensual pleasures as eating, exercising, and gardening. One INTJ especially enjoys and appreciates sunshine in spring, autumn, and winter. Another likes to “go somewhere beautiful—mountains, ocean, water.” '_ (Si+)

_'Introverted Intuitive types mention going for walks or drives and noticing interesting details, such as the shapes of houses, the designs on garage doors, the arrangements of trees and flower beds in parks. One INFJ described taking walks by himself and noticing how many different shades of green he could identify on a nature trail, or closing his eyes and trying to identify as many different sounds as he could.'_ (Si-)

_'In effective dominant Extraverted Sensing types, the enjoyment of sensual pleasures is natural, spontaneous, and quite consistent with their focus on the reality of the immediate environment. _

_In Introverted Intuitive types in the grip of inferior Extraverted Sensing, this quality takes the form of sensual excess rather than sensual pleasure. It is interesting that a number of INTJs and INFJs described themselves as becoming “self-centered” and “self-indulgent” when they are in the grip—a descriptor often projected onto well-functioning Extraverted Sensing types by INTJs and INFJs (and by other types as well). _

_An INFJ said, “I have to get away from reality. I do too much of something— one thing. I eat more or stop eating; I shop for useless things.” Another said, “I eat too much, spend too much, watch TV or read excessively to escape. I’m late for everything.” '_ (Se+)

_'Of the four dominant Introverted types, it is Introverted Intuitive types who most frequently mention “too much extraverting” as a common trigger for inferior function responses. They describe being provoked by such things as crowds; people overload; noisy, busy environments; feeling that their personal space is being invaded; and frequent interruptions. When faced with such provocations, they retreat inside themselves and become intolerant of intrusions by others. They either express irritation at people’s questions or do not respond at all to attempts to communicate with them.'_ (Se+ and Se-)

------

Super-Ego (Socionics):

_"Zone of self-criticism, self-doubt, guilt, and self-perfection. What you think about when things go wrong."_

_"failure, incompetence, and oversensitivity cause low self-esteem, complexes, and psychosomatic disorders"_

_"The Super-Ego functions are the source of much self-consciousness. When among strangers or critical onlookers, people tend to suddenly become aware of the possible inadequacy of their Super-Ego functions and often respond in one of two ways: (1) demonstratively act through these functions to create an illusion of confidence, or (2) demonstratively state their complete incompetency or rejection of these areas."

_I agree wholeheartedly with these descriptions of the weak and conscious functions.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

*https://www.facebook.com/groups/255791568132476/

Model D (the16types.info)

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/876530-model-d.html#post41476233 (PerC)*


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

I am considering Model D mk4, which partially contradicts mk3. 

IEE

primary functions: Ne- Fi+ Se- Ti+ // Ti- Ne+ Fi- Se+

secondary functions: Ni+ Te- Si+ Fe- // Fe+ Ni- Te+ Si-



- FiSe "protects" or "controls" NeFi ... and TiNe "protects" or "controls" SeTi. 

- Ti- and Ne+ are strong functions.

- All "static" functions work together. 

- This model explains why many young IEEs like logic puzzles.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

I think this could be accurate.

IEE

Ne- Fi+ ---> Fi- Se+ (fast, automatic) ---> Se- Ti+ ---> Ti- Ne+ (fast, automatic) ---> Ne- Fi+ etc


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

This is my current view on the functions. 


"Irrational" functions process information about physical entities.

"Rational" functions process information about relationships between physical entities.

"Static" functions process information about the actual objects/subjects.

"Dynamic" functions process information about the meaning of the objects/subjects. (language, numbers, other symbols)

"External" functions (S, T) process information which describes the objects/subjects.

"Internal" functions (N, F) process information which clarifies vague descriptions of the objects/subjects.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Tellus said:


> primary functions: Ne- Fi+ Se- Ti+ // Ti- Ne+ Fi- Se+
> secondary functions: Ni+ Te- Si+ Fe- // Fe+ Ni- Te+ Si-


What definitions do you use for the signs, Gulenko's? 




Tellus said:


> "Dynamic" functions process information about the meaning of the objects/subjects. (language, numbers, other symbols)


This one is definitely wrong. How is it anything like the definition of "dynamic"? Since when is dynamic about meaning? What you're describing is information that is quite abstract (symbols, numbers), but I think all the elements deal that information in different ways. 



> "External" functions (S, T) process information which describes the objects/subjects.
> "Internal" functions (N, F) process information which clarifies vague descriptions of the objects/subjects.


There isn't a huge difference here. 

Most people see rational vs irrational as reasoning vs perception. Static seems right to me.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Wisteria said:


> What definitions do you use for the signs, Gulenko's?


I don't fully agree with Gulenko and Yermak on +/- functions. But I agree with most socionists that +/- is a consequence of the blocking of functions.



> This one is definitely wrong. How is it anything like the definition of "dynamic"? Since when is dynamic about meaning? What you're describing is information that is quite abstract (symbols, numbers), but I think all the elements deal that information in different ways.


I don't think Socionics static/dynamic is accurate. For example, perceiving a football flying through the air must be about a dynamic function. But Se is a static function in Socionics. 

My dichotomy is entirely different. 



> Most people see rational vs irrational as reasoning vs perception.


Well... Ti, Fi and Fe aren't about reasoning (in my view).


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Tellus said:


> I don't fully agree with Gulenko and Yermak on +/- functions. But I agree with most socionists that +/- is a consequence of the blocking of functions.


Same. You are using the signs a lot though, so I wondered about the meaning of them to you.



> I don't think Socionics static/dynamic is accurate. For example, perceiving a football flying through the air must be about a dynamic function. But Se is a static function in Socionics.
> 
> My dichotomy is entirely different.


The football flying through the air is static perception, from what i've read. It's a single event, not a series of events.



> Well... Ti, Fi and Fe aren't about reasoning (in my view).


Then what are they about?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Wisteria said:


> Same. You are using the signs a lot though, so I wondered about the meaning of them to you.


My current view is that 'plus' functions deal with what/how/where/when questions, and 'minus' functions deal with why questions. 



> The football flying through the air is static perception, from what i've read. It's a single event, not a series of events.


That is a plausible explanation, which I have considered... so we never perceive a continuous motion. But socionists would still be wrong about static/dynamic, though.

_"Dynamic information is continuous and about things that are in constant fluctuation: _
_Si: one's continuous physical exchanges with one's environment."
_
_"Si: Person X is comfortable with Condition Y or is not." _

This must include vision, right?

Or... Why should somatosensation be different from vision? 



> Then what are they about?


There is only one kind of reasoning, i.e. logical reasoning (Te).

Fe processes information which clarifies a vague description of the meaning of a relationship between two (or more) objects/subjects. For example, facial expressions is (often) processed by Fe.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Ti is about size/length, quantity and direction/angle.

Fi is about social cognition. 









_"E.g. Judging a person's beliefs vs. attributes about an object."_


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Tellus said:


> My current view is that 'plus' functions deal with what/how/where/when questions, and 'minus' functions deal with why questions.


Why.. I know your probably going to mention static/dynamic elements, but still.



> That is a plausible explanation, which I have considered... so we never perceive a continuous motion. But socionists would still be wrong about static/dynamic, though.
> 
> _"Dynamic information is continuous and about things that are in constant fluctuation: _
> _Si: one's continuous physical exchanges with one's environment."
> ...


Si is dynamic because your inner state and bodily sensations constantly changes. 

Se percieves the outward characteristics of an object, and no matter what happens their perception of it won't change. Somatosensation on the other hand is dynamic because you can perceive the same thing different depending on your inner state. We only have certain bodily sensations because the conditions are changing. How could you realise comfort, if you didn't know what it was like to experience discomfort? How would you be aware of any physical sensation if it remained constant all the time? Always the same body temperature, comfort, awakeness, etc. Since Si is about these bodily sensations, it has been classed as dynamic.

No matter what happens, you vision always stays the same to your senses. It's not the same as somatosensation.



> There is only one kind of reasoning, i.e. logical reasoning (Te).
> 
> Fe processes information which clarifies a vague description of the meaning of a relationship between two (or more) objects/subjects. For example, facial expressions is (often) processed by Fe.


Isn't that Fi? Fe is explicit (concrete, evident), while Fi is implicit (abstract, not noticeable)


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Wisteria said:


> Why.. I know your probably going to mention static/dynamic elements, but still.


We know that mathematicians are often LII, and mechanics are often LSI. So what is the key difference between Ti- and Ti+? In mathematics you already have an equation etc (i.e. a logical structure), and you try to figure out why it is true. In mechanics you construct a logical structure, so you naturally ask what/how questions. "Is this screw too big?" 



> Si is dynamic because your inner state and bodily sensations constantly changes.
> 
> Se percieves the outward characteristics of an object, and no matter what happens their perception of it won't change. Somatosensation on the other hand is dynamic because you can perceive the same thing different depending on your inner state. We only have certain bodily sensations because the conditions are changing. How could you realise comfort, if you didn't know what it was like to experience discomfort? How would you be aware of any physical sensation if it remained constant all the time? Always the same body temperature, comfort, awakeness, etc. Since Si is about these bodily sensations, it has been classed as dynamic.
> 
> No matter what happens, you vision always stays the same to your senses. It's not the same as somatosensation.


What do you mean by outward characteristics of an object? It is not as if we know the true nature of objects. For example, if you are dizzy your vision may be affected... and your perception of an object may be changed.

How would you be aware of motion if an object's position in space remained constant all the time? 

I think Se must include dynamic processes. Otherwise we cannot explain motion perception. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_perception

_"Si is dynamic because your inner state and bodily sensations constantly changes."_

That would mean that you experience one kind of discomfort now and a moment later your experience must have changed. I don't think that is an accurate description of reality.



> Isn't that Fi? Fe is explicit (concrete, evident), while Fi is implicit (abstract, not noticeable)


Again, my definitions are completely different from Socionics "internal statics of fields" etc. 

Both Fi and Fe are internal (implicit) in Socionics.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Btw, if our perceptions of a moving object and an object that is standing still were the same, then we wouldn't need a word such as 'teleportation'.

Our perception of an _accelerating_ object is certainly a changing/dynamic "image".


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Tellus said:


> We know that mathematicians are often LII, and mechanics are often LSI. So what is the key difference between Ti- and Ti+? In mathematics you already have an equation etc (i.e. a logical structure), and you try to figure out why it is true. In mechanics you construct a logical structure, so you naturally ask what/how questions. "Is this screw too big?"


I didn't know that. I hope you're not getting that idea from MBTI ISTPs for LSI. You ask "why" questions in mathematics too. For any system you're learning that already exists as the formula was invented by someone else, you will ask why in order to understand. When I get taught a theory or system at college, myself or another person will often ask "why is this the case?" "is this why x happens?" etc

"Is this screw too big" is probably Te, because it's about it's physical properties. Te is thought of as algorithmic, because you're thinking about the result of the manipulating a physical object. Like "this screw is a strong metallic material, therefore it can hold these other materials together after we drill the screw in" or even the process of creating the screw as a tool in the first place. 



> What do you mean by outward characteristics of an object? It is not as if we know the true nature of objects. For example, if you are dizzy your vision may be affected... and your perception of an object may be changed.


The visual appearance (might be a bit vague though, as it's true for sensing in general). Si is the perception of your relation to the object, like realising it's giving you a dizzy sensation. You perception does change, because you remember that the next time you experience it, even it's only you who feels that way. That's the subjective nature of Si. For example you a food that gave you food poisoning and it made you feel sick, therefore you always associate that food with the feeling of sickness. 

It's more of a jungian perspective but it still applies to socionics Se. It's not a subjective or relationship based element.



> How would you be aware of motion if an object's position in space remained constant all the time?
> I think Se must include dynamic processes. Otherwise we cannot explain motion perception.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_perception


Is Se simply about perceiving motion and change? It's more about the impact of the object in the present moment I think, as it's about volition and force, which can shown through physical appearance. For example we often perceive a powerful person or creature as something very large and foreboding (this is probably a low dimensional Se example). This perception doesn't change. The person doesn't suddenly become small, and no matter how time or events progress, it doesn't change. 

I'm not a neurobiologist so I can't explain anything to do with the brain. 



> _"Si is dynamic because your inner state and bodily sensations constantly changes."_
> That would mean that you experience one kind of discomfort now and a moment later your experience must have changed. I don't think that is an accurate description of reality.


Well I'm sure socionics goes deeper into it. Why isn't that accurate for reality? Sense of comfort does affect how you experience things sensually.



> Again, my definitions are completely different from Socionics "internal statics of fields" etc.
> Both Fi and Fe are internal (implicit) in Socionics.


Implicit doesn't mean internal, it's just a description of something not visible to the naked eye, which feeling and intuition isn't. It's abstract. Sensation relates to something visual or concrete, so does Logic. Or at least Te does based on the example i attempted to describe earlier.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Wisteria said:


> ...


1) Thinking (Te and/or Ti) is about logical reasoning.

2) There are three kinds of logical reasoning: deduction, induction and abduction.

3) "Logical deduction is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion."

4) 2x = 6 ... You use deductive reasoning in order to solve this equation.

5) 2x, = and 6 are certainly real/concrete "objects". Your Sensing function perceives this information.

6) Judging functions are "blind". They don't provide information.

7) Socionics Se is about form, shape, strength, power, readiness, willpower... outward traits of objects (not language/numbers)

8) Socionics Si is about "how events affect one's inner state; sensations, what one experiences physically".

9) Hence, Socionics Se and Si are inaccurate definitions/descriptions of the functions (or IM elements).

-----

N.B. Socionics Si doesn't complement Socionics Te either!!!


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Wisteria said:


> I didn't know that. I hope you're not getting that idea from MBTI ISTPs for LSI. You ask "why" questions in mathematics too. For any system you're learning that already exists as the formula was invented by someone else, you will ask why in order to understand. When I get taught a theory or system at college, myself or another person will often ask "why is this the case?" "is this why x happens?" etc .


Yes... that is Te- and Ti-.



> "Is this screw too big" is probably Te, because it's about it's physical properties. Te is thought of as algorithmic, because you're thinking about the result of the manipulating a physical object. Like "this screw is a strong metallic material, therefore it can hold these other materials together after we drill the screw in" or even the process of creating the screw as a tool in the first place.


You must distinguish between logical reasoning and logical structure. Mathematics and mechanics are mainly about logical structure (or physical properties ... calculations, logical reasoning, is just a complement). Hence, mathematicians are often LII, and mechanics are often LSI (TiSe).

Yes, algorithms are about logical reasoning, Te. But a logical function itself cannot be about concrete/physical objects. A judging function is "blind". It's a Sensing function that provides concrete information. 

Why would "external dynamics of objects" be about physical properties? 



> The visual appearance (might be a bit vague though, as it's true for sensing in general). Si is the perception of your relation to the object, like realising it's giving you a dizzy sensation. You perception does change, because you remember that the next time you experience it, even it's only you who feels that way. That's the subjective nature of Si. For example you a food that gave you food poisoning and it made you feel sick, therefore you always associate that food with the feeling of sickness.
> 
> Well I'm sure socionics goes deeper into it. Why isn't that accurate for reality? Sense of comfort does affect how you experience things sensually.


If Si is a dynamic function, then it must change all the time... every single moment. "Next time you experience it" is not good enough. 



> Is Se simply about perceiving motion and change? It's more about the impact of the object in the present moment I think, as it's about volition and force, which can shown through physical appearance. For example we often perceive a powerful person or creature as something very large and foreboding (this is probably a low dimensional Se example). This perception doesn't change. The person doesn't suddenly become small, and no matter how time or events progress, it doesn't change.


You are comparing apples and oranges. Your visual perception isn't just about "a powerful person". It is also about the surrounding objects. The complete "picture" is certainly dynamic/changing.



> Implicit doesn't mean internal, it's just a description of something not visible to the naked eye, which feeling and intuition isn't. It's abstract. Sensation relates to something visual or concrete, so does Logic. Or at least Te does based on the example i attempted to describe earlier.


I know...


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Tellus said:


> Yes... that is Te- and Ti-.


According to you, not socionics.



> You must distinguish between logical reasoning and logical structure. Mathematics and mechanics are mainly about logical structure (or physical properties ... calculations, logical reasoning, is just a complement). Hence, mathematicians are often LII, and mechanics are often LSI (TiSe).
> 
> Yes, algorithms are about logical reasoning, Te. But a logical function itself cannot be about concrete/physical objects. A judging function is "blind". It's a Sensing function that provides concrete information.
> 
> Why would "external dynamics of objects" be about physical properties?


Sensing simply being about concrete information seems too basic. We all perceive information through the senses. This isn't what socionics classes as Sensation, it's the basics of the information elements. The macroelement of Sensing is Space. No idea if all schools describe it this way, but it relates to the objects vs fields (/relations) idea. 

Yes my explanation had physical (or sensory based) perceptions. The screw example is probably Si blocked with Te specifically.

Are algorithms not a dynamic concept? Te in socionics is often thought of dynamic because it's focused on actions, algorithms. "Work" is a term used for Te. That also gives you the impression that Te is something continuous. The action of hammering a screw into a material is a continuous process. Static is like perceiving events in a series of snapshots. That is more like Ti (system logic) than Te.



> If Si is a dynamic function, then it must change all the time... every single moment. "Next time you experience it" is not good enough.


I don't know what else to say, I've already explained why socionics classes Si as dynamic. 



> You are comparing apples and oranges. Your visual perception isn't just about "a powerful person". It is also about the surrounding objects. The complete "picture" is certainly dynamic/changing.


Where is the disagreement about Se here? The way you just described it "Se is about form, shape, strength, power, readiness, willpower... outward traits of objects (not language/numbers)" is no different from how I understand Se. Why would i think it's about language and numbers? honestly! 




> I know...


Then why did you say it's internal?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Wisteria said:


> According to you, not socionics.


Yes



> Sensing simply being about concrete information seems too basic. We all perceive information through the senses. This isn't what socionics classes as Sensation, it's the basics of the information elements. The macroelement of Sensing is Space. No idea if all schools describe it this way, but it relates to the objects vs fields (/relations) idea.


You are mixing up mainstream Socionics/SRSI/IIS definitions with SSS definitions.



> Yes my explanation had physical (or sensory based) perceptions. The screw example is probably Si blocked with Te specifically.


So we would have a SiTe ego type as the "mechanic". This is why socionists are confused about LSI and SLI. Their definitions are inaccurate, so their descriptions of the types are also unclear/inaccurate.



> Are algorithms not a dynamic concept? Te in socionics is often thought of dynamic because it's focused on actions, algorithms. "Work" is a term used for Te. That also gives you the impression that Te is something continuous. The action of hammering a screw into a material is a continuous process. Static is like perceiving events in a series of snapshots. That is more like Ti (system logic) than Te.


No, algorithms are not necessarily dynamic.

This is what you said: " 'Is this screw too big' is probably Te, because it's about it's physical properties."

'continuous' is not the same thing as 'dynamic'. 

There is a reason why SSS abandoned "external dynamics of objects" etc.



> I don't know what else to say, I've already explained why socionics classes Si as dynamic.


... and I have explained why they are wrong.



> Where is the disagreement about Se here? The way you just described it "Se is about form, shape, strength, power, readiness, willpower... outward traits of objects (not language/numbers)" is no different from how I understand Se. Why would i think it's about language and numbers? honestly!


"form, shape, strength" ... is NOT my view. 



> Then why did you say it's internal?


Because I am explaining socionists' view as well. I: "internal" ... Quotation marks actually mean something.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Tellus said:


> You are mixing up mainstream Socionics/SRSI/IIS definitions with SSS definitions.


I was only referring to the school system view. If you're going to tell me i'm wrong or misinformed the least you can do is explain why.



> So we would have a SiTe ego type as the "mechanic". This is why socionists are confused about LSI and SLI. Their definitions are inaccurate, so their descriptions of the types are also unclear/inaccurate.


Does socionics call LSI the mechanic? I've never heard of that.



> No, algorithms are not necessarily dynamic.
> This is what you said: " 'Is this screw too big' is probably Te, because it's about it's physical properties."
> 'continuous' is not the same thing as 'dynamic'.
> There is a reason why SSS abandoned "external dynamics of objects" etc.


What defintion of dynamic do you mean? The problem with using a certain school or even your own theories is that is hard for people to know wtf you're talking about. I can't tell if you're talking about your views or socionics. 



> "form, shape, strength" ... is NOT my view.


What do you think Se is then, being able to see things with your eyesight? It's too basic.



> Because I am explaining socionists' view as well. I: "internal" ... Quotation marks actually mean something.


You didn't use quotation marks.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Wisteria said:


> I was only referring to the school system view. If you're going to tell me i'm wrong or misinformed the least you can do is explain why.


You: "The macroelement of Sensing is Space. No idea if all schools describe it this way, but it relates to the objects vs fields (/relations) idea."

SSS is not using "external dynamics of objects" at all. 

Information elements | School of System Socionics

Objects/fields is about "extraverted"/"introverted" functions (or IM elements) in Socionics.

"Objects: Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)

Fields: Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject"



> Does socionics call LSI the mechanic? I've never heard of that.


Sensory-Logical Intratim - ISTp (The Artisan) ... IGNORE!



> What defintion of dynamic do you mean? The problem with using a certain school or even your own theories is that is hard for people to know wtf you're talking about. I can't tell if you're talking about your views or socionics.


Dynamic --> mainstream Socionics, SRSI

"Dynamic" --> my definition.



> What do you think Se is then, being able to see things with your eyesight? It's too basic.


"Irrational" functions process information about physical entities.

"Static" functions process information about the actual objects/subjects.

"External" functions (S, T) process information which describes the objects/subjects.

----

Yes, Se is more than just being able to see things with your eyesight. My current view is that Se is about qualia and memories of past qualia.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Tellus said:


> You: "The macroelement of Sensing is Space. No idea if all schools describe it this way, but it relates to the objects vs fields (/relations) idea."
> 
> SSS is not using "external dynamics of objects" at all.
> 
> ...


You should know by now that i'm already familiar with SSS. I don't get why you're explaining all that to me.

Yes school system doesn't discuss static/dynamic. I noticed that. I think the defintions of the IEs on there are explained nicely, and it uses the original objects vs fields idea. I was focusing on the definitions of the information elements to explain Sensing more clearly.



> Sensory-Logical Intratim - ISTp (The Artisan) ... IGNORE!


Yes I don't read crap like that.



> Dynamic --> mainstream Socionics, SRSI
> 
> "Dynamic" --> my definition.


What is SRSI?



> "Static" functions process information about the actual objects/subjects.
> 
> "External" functions (S, T) process information which describes the objects/subjects.


Whats the difference? lol



> Yes, Se is more than just being able to see things with your eyesight. My current view is that Se is about qualia and memories of past qualia.


Isn't that Ni and cognitive function version of Si? imao

You're mistaking Se for basic perception through the five senses. The first dimension, which is experience, is literally what you are describing. To also sense motion and flow of events, is Ni (temporal intuition). Ni pretty much has the same definition everywhere. 

Keep approaching the theory at an angle like this and you'll end up creating stupid definitions of the elements that look just like cognitive functions descriptions, despite analysing the theory to reach your conclusions.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Wisteria said:


> You should know by now that i'm already familiar with SSS. I don't get why you're explaining all that to me.


You mentioned 'Space' _once_.



> I think the defintions of the IEs on there are explained nicely,


Yes, but that doesn't mean they are right.



> What is SRSI?


http:// socionics.ru/



> Whats the difference? lol


You can describe both actual objects and symbolic representations of objects.



> Isn't that Ni and cognitive function version of Si? imao
> You're mistaking Se for basic perception through the five senses. The first dimension, which is experience, is literally what you are describing. To also sense motion and flow of events, is Ni (temporal intuition). Ni pretty much has the same definition everywhere.
> Keep approaching the theory at an angle like this and you'll end up creating stupid definitions of the elements that look just like cognitive functions descriptions, despite analysing the theory to reach your conclusions.


Ni is not about "Time". Socionists got it wrong. For example, SSS's ILI is NOT the "scientist" or "physicist".

SSS: «objects», «space», «energy», and «time» ... let's define information ... then let's explain psychological types. LOL!!!

Jung: cognitive processes ... then let's explain psychological types.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Tellus said:


> You mentioned 'Space' _once_.


Your point??



> Yes, but that doesn't mean they are right.


Doesn't mean they're wrong either. 



> You can describe both actual objects and symbolic representations of objects.


Are you referring to static and "external" here?



> Ni is not about "Time". Socionists got it wrong. For example, SSS's ILI is NOT the "scientist" or "physicist".
> 
> SSS: «objects», «space», «energy», and «time» ... let's define information ... then let's explain psychological types. LOL!!!
> 
> Jung: cognitive processes ... then let's explain psychological types.


Which version of ILI is the scientist or physicist? None from what i've seen. Where are you actually getting that from.

Cognitive process is similar information processing. Except actually claiming to know a cognitive process is probably more prone to error and pure speculating. At least SSS actually describes things that are concrete and tangible, rather than weird and pretentious.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

SSS:

"The informational macroelement «time» is subdivided into the essence component «possibilities» («potentiality intuition», «black intuition» ) and the relational component «events» («temporal intuition», «white intuition» ). 

Let us imagine that we are standing somewhere in an open place. We have a lot of possibilities to turn around ourselves at any angle up to 360° and make a step. But all these possibilities are potential and not yet realised. From the variety, we can choose only one possibility and make that step. And this undertaken step will crate a realised possibility, i.e., an event. This illustration is very simple, however at any moment in our lives we indeed have an immence choice of options. The exact development of further events depends on the choices we make. Thus, a possibility is a potential event, and it constitutes the essence of «time» macroelement. Possibility intuition is related to such notions as insight, positive (negative) potential, abilities, essence, ideas, originality, uncommon, interest, fabulous, good and bad variants, possibilities, positive and negative traits, «the other side of the coin», lack of prospects, meaninglessness, mediocrity. 

Instead, it is an accomplished event that will be registereg on the timeline. It determines the developments of history. We subjectively perceive sequential events as flow of time. Not only something grand and historical is considered to be an event, but any realised possibility or change: a pen which fell from a table is also an event. Flow of time can be described only in terms of events or happenigs. Try to write an essay about how you have spent your day, and you will see that you are writing about what has happened during the day. The man perceives time through events, i.e., realised possibilities. Therefore, co-relations between possibilities as they are realised is translated into events, or changes in time. Time intuition is assosiated with such notions as: perspective, events, changes, forsight, prediction, being late, delay, waste of time, cavalcade of history, fortune, etc."

-----

F4 is an accurate _description_ (not definition!) of Ne:


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Wisteria said:


> Your point??


That I probably should be explaining SSS theory to you.



> Are you referring to static and "external" here?


My point is that 'describe objects' and 'actual objects' are not the same thing... which you asked me about.



> Which version of ILI is the scientist or physicist? None from what i've seen. Where are you actually getting that from.
> Cognitive process is similar information processing. Except actually claiming to know a cognitive process is probably more prone to error and pure speculating. At least SSS actually describes things that are concrete and tangible, rather than weird and pretentious.


https://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality

... and ILI corresponds to INTJ. A type is defined by the functions, and "Time" corresponds to "Introverted" Intuition.

Socionists have defined IM elements and types that don't exist in the real world!!!


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Tellus said:


> That I probably should be explaining SSS theory to you.


I have a better suggestion;

Stop treating me like i'm fucking stupid 



> My point is that 'describe objects' and 'actual objects' are not the same thing... which you asked me about.


Uhh no i asked what the difference was between your version of static and explicit elements, as they looked pretty much the same to me.



> https://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality
> 
> ... and ILI corresponds to INTJ. A type is defined by the functions, and "Time" corresponds to "Introverted" Intuition.
> 
> Socionists have defined IM elements and types that don't exist in the real world!!!


ILI doesn't correspond to INTJ, wtf.

An MBTI type is not defined by functions. 

Am i correct in assuming you think the Harold Grant version of INTJ is legit, but the socionics elements are wrong? haha


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Wisteria said:


> ILI doesn't correspond to INTJ, wtf.
> 
> An MBTI type is not defined by functions.
> 
> Am i correct in assuming you think the Harold Grant version of INTJ is legit, but the socionics elements are wrong? haha


Good God. He could have at least remained in the realm of common sense by mentioning the Big Five or some shit like that. :laughing:


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Bastard said:


> Good God. He could have at least remained in the realm of common sense by mentioning the Big Five or some shit like that. :laughing:


Big Five is not about personality _types_... it is about personality _traits_.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Wisteria said:


> Uhh no i asked what the difference was between your version of static and explicit elements, as they looked pretty much the same to me.


I have explained the difference (see posts 73 and 90).

Those are not elements... you need three dichotomies to get one kind of information, i.e. an information aspect (or element).



> ILI doesn't correspond to INTJ, wtf.
> An MBTI type is not defined by functions.


ILI and INTJ refer to the same group of people even though the descriptions of the types differ.

Yes, it is... first came Jungian functions, then MBTI dichotomies.



> Am i correct in assuming you think the Harold Grant version of INTJ is legit, but the socionics elements are wrong? haha


No, Harold Grant function stack is inaccurate, and it is not the official model. "INTJ" only refers to the first two functions.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Tellus said:


> Big Five is not about personality _types_... it is about personality _traits_.


Do you want a cookie?


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Tellus said:


> ILI and INTJ refer to the same group of people even though the descriptions of the types differ.


No, they're not. Why the heck could someone who types as INTP not be an ILI? If you're using intuition and logic elements, then you might type as INTx. Socionics and MBTI are two seperate theories. Deal with it 



> Yes, it is... first came Jungian functions, then MBTI dichotomies.


Omg really?! :shocked:I thought Jung was in fact inspired by MBTI!! The facts you present are simply groundbreaking!



> No, Harold Grant function stack is inaccurate, and it is not the official model..


Tell me something i don't know.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Wisteria said:


> No, they're not. Why the heck could someone who types as INTP not be an ILI? If you're using intuition and logic elements, then you might type as INTx. Socionics and MBTI are two seperate theories. Deal with it


INTx only means that you don't know what type he/she is. It doesn't mean that he/she is both types.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Tellus said:


> INTx only means that you don't know what type he/she is. It doesn't mean that he/she is both types.


Ugh I give up. What's the point with discussing typology with someone who believes they have superior intelligence and I don't know anything?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Wisteria said:


> Ugh I give up. What's the point with discussing typology with someone who believes they have superior intelligence and I don't know anything?


https://lindaberens.com/resources/methodology-articles/cognitive-dynamics/

"Ti – introverted Thinking

Analyzing; categorizing; evaluating according to principles and whether something fits the framework or model; figuring out the principles on which something works; checking for inconsistencies; clarifying definitions to get more precision. *Gaining leverage using a framework."


Socionics:

Te: technology, function, action, deed, fact, knowledge, use, benefit, business, method, reason, instrument, tool, expediency, business team, effectiveness, price, movement, mechanism

Ti: system, analysis, instruction, mathematics, structure, classification, register, parameter, regularity, law, synthesis, proof, understanding, right, duty, responsibilities

-----

INTP (mbti) corresponds to LII.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Tellus said:


> https://lindaberens.com/resources/methodology-articles/cognitive-dynamics/
> 
> "Ti – introverted Thinking
> 
> ...


INTP =/= a socionics TIM with Ti leading and Ne creative

INTP is literally Introversion, intuition, thinking and perceiving preferences.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Wisteria said:


> INTP =/= a socionics TIM with Ti leading and Ne creative
> 
> INTP is literally Introversion, intuition, thinking and perceiving preferences.


https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/correspond

"to match or *be similar* or equal" 

mbti INTP (ego: TiNe) is similar to LII (ego: TiNe)

mbti INTP (ego: TiNe) is *not* similar to ILI (ego: NiTe) ... see post 102

-----

No, INTP (mbti) means Introversion + dominant Thinking and auxiliary Intuition.

https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/understanding-mbti-type-dynamics/

_Type is more than just the sum of the four preferences. The four-letter MBTI® type formula is a shorthand way of telling you about the interaction of your four mental functions and which ones you prefer to use first. This is called type dynamics, and it is an important part of understanding your MBTI® results.

_Otherwise INT in INTP and INTJ would be identical. That is obviously not the case.


----------

