# Model G - How Does It Work?



## Tellus

Captain Mclain said:


> I never put my mind in the old definitions and Ni is still Ni. It is confusing that he say this of Ni IEI "Aim avoid previously committed mistakes." to later say "wondering about the future" and for ILI Ni "Thinking about the past and try to avoid making same mistakes". So he is basically changing them up.
> 
> Well, to a degree I think every human being avoid previously mistakes. I guess Ni paired up with 4D Fi have the vibe of a more optimistic future then Ni paired up with 4D Ti. I definitely would ignore the old ones and accept the new ones, the old one I think he was more focus on creating the structure of the spins. He is 4D Ti and Te on ignoring... I would not pay too much attention to the old ones.
> 
> They just seem to be description of the function within a specific dynamic with other function within type, giving the lead function a different flavor still doing the same thing.


IEI is positivist and ILI is negativist, so IEI would come across as more optimistic. But this doesn't necessarily have to imply that ILI has Ni-. I think we (ILIs) are "negative" about the present situation as a result of being very "positive/optimistic" about the future, so the 'here and now' is always inadequate. There is always room for improvement.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> Gulenko discards his previous descriptions (at least for eight types) and claim that these are accurate. What do you think?


It's because, apparently, he has merged his socionics with MBTI on J/P switch; whereas, the other schools don't do this, and it is evident in their writings. He is treating irrationality to be equivalent to judging and rationality to be equivalent to perceiving.

Some of these don't match with their stated MBTI types at all. ESFJ and ENFJ... All males I know that act as Fe- identify as ESFJ. ISFP and ISFJ... These are completely backwards for all I have typed in MBTI. INFPs are extremely warm and happy. ISFJs are the ones who make a little box for themselves because they think everyone is evil.

Also, the Si's seem identical but with altered semantics. Addition of comfort and removal of discomfort are the same end results and the same methods: You weren't comfortable, you did stuff, now you are comfortable.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Tellus said:


> IEI is positivist and ILI is negativist, so IEI would come across as more optimistic. But this doesn't necessarily have to imply that ILI has Ni-. I think we (ILIs) are "negative" about the present situation as a result of being very "positive/optimistic" about the future, so the 'here and now' is always inadequate. There is always room for improvement.


So the question is I suppose: Is Ni in ILI different from Ni in IEI? Im not sure 'being dissatisfied with the present because my vision of it is so much greater' counts. It is a lack of Se (sensor) to anchor in the present moment imo. Maybe something that drives you when you are in the present moment to do things. Should be same ILI and IEI. So what Gulenko is basically saying is that ILI do it to make the present moment more safe and IEI to make the present open to new ways.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> It's because, apparently, he has merged his socionics with MBTI on J/P switch; whereas, the other schools don't do this, and it is evident in their writings. He is treating irrationality to be equivalent to judging and rationality to be equivalent to perceiving.


No, I don't think that's the reason. His old descriptions correspond with the new descriptions for all MBTI Perceivers. 

Only direction and quality are related to Positivism/Negativism (but not identical), which Gulenko uses in Model G.

Socionics - the16types.info - [Translation] Model A 

The concept of sign functions is widely used by Yermak, although Victor Gulenko introduced them. According to Yermak, signs define "quality", "scale" "orientation" and "distance" of functions.
Signs of the functions define the following four properties of functions:

1. Quality
"+" Maximizing the positive. Competence only in the field of positive properties. Avoidance, fear of negative.
"-" Priority to leave [move away from] the negative. Competence in both positive and negative fields. (Viktor Gulenko: minimizing the negative)

2. Scale
"+" Close Up, locality, the detail in the limited area of competence.
"-" The general plan, globality, universality.

3. Direction
"+" Inside, into the area of responsibility. Protecting yours.
"-" Outside, capturing of new, influence.

4. Distance
"+" Close psychological distance.
"-" Large psychological distance.


----------



## Tellus

Captain Mclain said:


> So the question is I suppose: Is Ni in ILI different from Ni in IEI? Im not sure 'being dissatisfied with the present because my vision of it is so much greater' counts. It is a lack of Se (sensor) to anchor in the present moment imo. Maybe something that drives you when you are in the present moment to do things. Should be same ILI and IEI. So what Gulenko is basically saying is that ILI do it to make the present moment more safe and IEI to make the present open to new ways.


No, Ni itself isn't different in the two types, but when blocked with another function it gets a plus or minus "spin". This is the mainstream (Model A) explanation:

Functions in blocks: two poles of the information element vocabulary | School of System Socionics

We are trying to explain why ILI can be negativist with Ni+ as his/her base function. This doesn't make any sense since Model A uses quality, direction, scale and distance. Quality should be negative! If this was related to a weak Se, wouldn't ILI AND IEI be either positivist or negativist?


----------



## Tellus

The confusion lies in the fact that he defines the new +/- with Reinin positivism/negativism, but this trait is itself defined by +/- signs (lol).

Positivist and negativist - Wikisocion



Positivist types have either a static plus element or a dynamic minus element in base function.
Negativist types have either a dynamic plus element or a static minus element in base function.


----------



## reptilian

@Tellus

Why cant it be that some ILI have + and some -?


----------



## Captain Mclain

So if Ni _is_ the same in IEI and ILI, then these are just detailed description of each type and how Ni play out in that type. Nothing special really.


----------



## Captain Mclain

jkp said:


> @Tellus
> 
> Why cant it be that some ILI have + and some -?


Ni- seem to be matched up with Se+ and so on.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> No, I don't think that's the reason. His old descriptions correspond with the new descriptions for all MBTI Perceivers.
> 
> Only direction and quality are related to Positivism/Negativism (but not identical), which Gulenko uses in Model G.
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - [Translation] Model A
> 
> The concept of sign functions is widely used by Yermak, although Victor Gulenko introduced them. According to Yermak, signs define "quality", "scale" "orientation" and "distance" of functions.
> Signs of the functions define the following four properties of functions:
> 
> 1. Quality
> "+" Maximizing the positive. Competence only in the field of positive properties. Avoidance, fear of negative.
> "-" Priority to leave [move away from] the negative. Competence in both positive and negative fields. (Viktor Gulenko: minimizing the negative)
> 
> 2. Scale
> "+" Close Up, locality, the detail in the limited area of competence.
> "-" The general plan, globality, universality.
> 
> 3. Direction
> "+" Inside, into the area of responsibility. Protecting yours.
> "-" Outside, capturing of new, influence.
> 
> 4. Distance
> "+" Close psychological distance.
> "-" Large psychological distance.


Except that image captain posted doesn't correspond with such.

It most definitely is the reason. The types, with the polarity descriptions posted earlier are not accurate for all descriptions of the sociotypes outside of his school. SEI doesn't behave as ISFJ. ISFJ does behave as ESI. The usage of polarities, to such extent, simply unwrites all classical descriptions of the sociotypes and turns them into the J/P flip on MBTI.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Tellus said:


> Gulenko discards his previous descriptions (at least for eight types) and claim that these are accurate. What do you think?


I am by no means anything more than a hobbyist when it comes to Socionics, so I'm not sure my opinion is valid enough to criticise Gulenko. Nevertheless, through the lens of my personal experiences I can recall a number of people who show one side of a function (+/-) and seem to completely lack it's other form. 

For example, in myself, I see Se+, yet have always been cautious of people who display Se- tendencies, seeing them as tyrannical. Although I am far from certain on my own type (perhaps this correlates to PMs from three different regulars of this board all suggesting different types in the last few weeks alone, or the fact that I tend to be attracted more to SLIs and LSEs over ILIs and LIEs is another aspect which raises questions). Fe+ and Fe- are also excellent ways to tell the ESE and EIE apart, at least in my experience knowing several people of both types. 

The descriptions also visibly contrast with each other without spiraling into droves of superfluous paragraphs of information. The only one I think needs work is Si+/Si-, which could be differentiated a bit more.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> I am by no means anything more than a hobbyist when it comes to Socionics, so I'm not sure my opinion is valid enough to criticise Gulenko. Nevertheless, through the lens of my personal experiences I can recall a number of people who show one side of a function (+/-) and seem to completely lack it's other form.
> 
> For example, in myself, I see Se+, yet have always been cautious of people who display Se- tendencies, seeing them as tyrannical. Although I am far from certain on my own type (perhaps this correlates to PMs from three different regulars of this board all suggesting different types in the last few weeks alone, or the fact that I tend to be attracted more to SLIs and LSEs over ILIs and LIEs is another aspect which raises questions). Fe+ and Fe- are also excellent ways to tell the ESE and EIE apart, at least in my experience knowing several people of both types.
> 
> The descriptions also visibly contrast with each other without spiraling into droves of superfluous paragraphs of information. The only one I think needs work is Si+/Si-, which could be differentiated a bit more.


ESE females are Fe+ and ESE males are Fe-. Does this seem odd to you? Because on a polar scale, there is no accounting for the male/female dichotomy. If a male of X type is "this," then shouldn't the female be opposite? If a male is Se * + * - , then shouldn't a female be Se * + * + ?


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> ESE females are Fe+ and ESE males are Fe-. Does this seem odd to you?


Yes, because the cheeriest, most bubbly, friendly and open ESE I know is a guy... and _he's irritating_.



Jeremy8419 said:


> If a male of X type is "this," then shouldn't the female be opposite? If a male is Se * + * - , then shouldn't a female be Se * + * + ?


You seem to be overplaying the importance of genitalia. Does it play some aspect due to cultural norms and gender roles? Yes. Does it dichotomise temperaments? No.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> Yes, because the cheeriest, most bubbly, friendly and open ESE I know is a guy... and _he's irritating_.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be overplaying the importance of genitalia. Does it play some aspect due to cultural norms and gender roles? Yes. Does it dichotomise temperaments? No.


That was a statement, not a question. Try it as a question.


----------



## Captain Mclain

The_Wanderer said:


> You seem to be overplaying the importance of genitalia. Does it play some aspect due to cultural norms and gender roles? Yes. Does it dichotomise temperaments? No.


I agree with this, I do not think gender is needed to be mixed into the types/Socionics necessary. Moreso when talking about erotic attitude or in some descriptions. But at its core it would be the same informational processes in both gender.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> That was a statement, not a question. Try it as a question.


Why do you overplay the importance of genitalia?


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> Why do you overplay the importance of genitalia?


That's not overplaying at all. That's being straight and accepting reality. You are either primarily testosterone or primarily estrogen. There is no set dichotomy effect on the models for such. If you go into type descriptions of genders, you can clearly see the variations, but there is nothing in the models that say such.


----------



## Tellus

jkp said:


> @_Tellus_
> 
> Why cant it be that some ILI have + and some -?


Because Ni blocked with Te implies Ni+ and Te- in Model A/Model B, which is supported by the vast majority of socionists.

And apparently only Ni- works in Model G.

Furthermore, we would have 32 types which isn't supported by any research (Myers-Briggs or Socionics).


----------



## Tellus

Captain Mclain said:


> So if Ni _is_ the same in IEI and ILI, then these are just detailed description of each type and how Ni play out in that type. Nothing special really.


Well, it _is_ special... and socionists have argued A LOT about this (and probably still do). Even though Ni is the same in ILI and IEI, the function manifests itself very differently in the two types (as a result of being blocked with either Te or Fe). And since a function is always blocked with another function one might argue that it makes no sense to talk about Ni without +/- signs.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> Well, it _is_ special... and socionists have argued A LOT about this (and probably still do). Even though Ni is the same in ILI and IEI, the function manifests itself very differently in the two types (as a result of being blocked with either Te or Fe). And since a function is always blocked with another function one might argue that it makes no sense to talk about Ni without +/- signs.


Makes no sense to talk about elements individually at all, since individually, they have no manifestations. Only a block pair has manifestations, because doing anything at all implies Perception and Action. You can't do just one. This is why people get so confused when using the elements to type, because they think an element can entail something by itself, but it can't.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> Nope, sounds kind of passive.
> 
> 
> 
> I usually end up in a leadership role in group work, but the general purpose is less "king in the castle" and more "you're good at x, so go and do that while he handles y, and I do z"; it's a means to an end. I'm not egotistical enough to force myself into a leadership position if there's someone better suited for it, either.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha. Maybe you're an ESI with severe mental traumas (it's the only way you could be described as an ESI).


No idea lol. All I know is that once I get to know female LIE's very well, I get the mental image of them trying to rub their grodey ball-sweat over my face. Yuck.


----------



## Tellus

Model G (LII):

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

This is *inaccurate* since LII has a very obvious Ne+ (N.B. the "new" description of Ne+ corresponds with the "old" description of Ne+). 

*LIIs like to solve abstract problems.* "searching for the new" (Ne+) is essential, i.e. to be open-minded and explore new angles of a problem. It's the LIIs who are good at this, not the ILIs.

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

+I intuition of prospects [MBTI: Ne+] : searching for the new, exploring, inventing, taking risks, trying to be original, demonstrating ability. Such is the +I of an ILE (IP) [ENTP].

Functions in blocks: two poles of the information element vocabulary | School of System Socionics

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

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


----------



## Jeremy8419

@Tellus

Model G has a focus on energy conservation. Introverts are who accept energy, whereas extroverts exert energy. Model G is introvert focused, because it is concerned with not exerting energy. It has the "self" as the introverts' model's frame of reference, just like MBTI functional stacking. Model B shows how MBTI does this, whereas Socionics' model is from external world to the "self."

Model G is applying a Model A-esque model to MBTI, which is different functional stacking for external behaviors (J/P switch is false) than Socionics. This was already achieved by Model B. Model G and MBTI focus on the Libido flow outwards from the individual, which is in the Ego for the Extrovert and the Unconscious for the introvert (as described by Jung). Gulenko has rotated (holographic cognition) the psyche for the introvert, to show Libido first like extroverts, and applied socionics-esque modeling and elements (though neither are the same) to the premise of "Judging" and "Perceiving" in functional stacking that Myers-Briggs used.


----------



## Tellus

The_Wanderer said:


> Nope, sounds kind of passive.
> 
> I usually end up in a leadership role in group work, but the general purpose is less "king in the castle" and more "you're good at x, so go and do that while he handles y, and I do z"; it's a means to an end. I'm not egotistical enough to force myself into a leadership position if there's someone better suited for it, either.


I guess SEE is just as likely as IEE. Have you participated in any Socionics/MBTI interaction videos?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> I guess SEE is just as likely as IEE. Have you participated in any Socionics/MBTI interaction videos?


Sounded like Delta Aristocracy to me.


----------



## Tellus

Entropic said:


> I think you have access to both anyway, so it's just a supposed preference.


Yes, we must have access to both since we can observe all aspects of a function in each type. But the question is whether both the '+' side of Ni and the '-' side of Ni are maximally conscious in ILIs or not. I am convinced that one interpretation of Model B is accurate (Bukalov's, Gulenko's or the one that I have proposed). 



> I don't relate much to thinking about the past, honestly. I relate to thinking about the present the most, yet it's obvious that I think and live a lot in the future, I should add. I don't experience myself as doing that though.


I agree, we (ILIs) are not focused on the past. Model G is incorrect in this regard.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> Yes, we must have access to both since we can observe all aspects of a function in each type. But the question is whether both the '+' side of Ni and the '-' side of Ni are maximally conscious in ILIs or not. I am convinced that one interpretation of Model B is accurate (Bukalov's, Gulenko's or the one that I have proposed).
> 
> I agree, we (ILIs) are not focused on the past. Model G is incorrect in this regard.


Per Model B, you are Ni/Te in ego, and Si/Fe in Super-ego.

Libido goes, Ni(+) -> Te(-), then Te(+) -> Si(-), then Si(+) -> Fe(-), then Fe(+) -> Ni(-). This is the flow of information through your mental super-block. When the Libido crosses between blocks, it is going from one element to one in another block, thus switching signs.

Information flow is reversed.

Both are reversed for extroverts.

Information or libido to one block does not have to cross blocks, but it does have to complete the block it is passed to, so the signs typically listed for each element for each TIM are the default signs based upon blocks.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> Sounded like Delta Aristocracy to me.


Do you think he is IEE?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> Do you think he is IEE?


I can see cases for both SEE and IEE. I would know pretty fast in person.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Tellus said:


> Have you participated in any Socionics/MBTI interaction videos?


No. 



Jeremy8419 said:


> Sounded like Delta Aristocracy to me.


How so? I know what people are good at by either previously working with them or simply just asking them if there isn't personal experience to go on. I don't really have any predetermined notions about people in the way that an IEE I know does; they seem to have ideas about what people are and try to help them grow or move in that direction, it's something I've never really understood. 



Jeremy8419 said:


> I can see cases for both SEE and IEE.


At least you're not saying ILE anymore :wink:.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> No.
> 
> How so? I know what people are good at by either previously working with them or simply just asking them if there isn't personal experience to go on. I don't really have any predetermined notions about people in the way that an IEE I know does; they seem to have ideas about what people are and try to help them grow or move in that direction, it's something I've never really understood.
> 
> At least you're not saying ILE anymore :wink:.


Because you are stereotyping someone into a role. At least, that's how I view it. Sooner or later you would have groups of plumbers, groups of carpenters, groups of whatever, based upon them being good in said roles or not.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> Because you are stereotyping someone into a role. At least, that's how I view it.


... not surprised you'd view it from the perspective of a Delta Aristocrat :wink:.



Jeremy8419 said:


> Sooner or later you would have groups of plumbers, groups of carpenters, groups of whatever, based upon them being good in said roles or not.


No, because it's a limited thing which is only a temporary action when it's necessary during group work. It has less to do with grouping people on any permanent basis and more to do with allocating roles within a group to solve an immediate problem.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> ... not surprised you'd view it from the perspective of a Delta Aristocrat :wink:.
> 
> No, because it's a limited thing which is only a temporary action when it's necessary during group work. It has less to do with grouping people on any permanent basis and more to do with allocating roles within a group to solve an immediate problem.


How's that not sound like Delta's "hey, let's get together and do this, and then be on our separate ways"? lol


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> How's that not sound like Delta's "hey, let's get together and do this, and then be on our separate ways"? lol


Because it's more "geez, I _have_ to get together and do this. Fine, everybody else is drooling? Ok, I'm in charge, lets get this done so I can go now."

Involuntary group work will be the death of me.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> Because it's more "geez, I _have_ to get together and do this. Fine, everybody else is drooling? Ok, I'm in charge, lets get this done so I can go now."
> 
> Involuntary group work will be the death of me.


 isn't that just Fi/Te? Lol


----------



## reptilian

Entropic said:


> I think you have access to both anyway, so it's just a supposed preference. I don't relate much to thinking about the past, honestly. I relate to thinking about the present the most, yet it's obvious that I think and live a lot in the future, I should add. I don't experience myself as doing that though.


The notion was probably deduced from a group of individuals that agreed. Which means the group of INTJ are limiting other INTJ within different realities, building a closed system that jumps from behavior, interprets it by rationalizing, and forming a general belief.


----------



## Entropic

jkp said:


> The notion was probably deduced from a group of individuals that agreed. Which means the group of INTJ are limiting other INTJ within different realities, building a closed system that jumps from behavior, interprets it by rationalizing, and forming a general belief.


Also self-perception=! Reality.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> It's because, apparently, he has merged his socionics with MBTI on J/P switch; whereas, the other schools don't do this, and it is evident in their writings. He is treating irrationality to be equivalent to judging and rationality to be equivalent to perceiving.


-T intuition of the past [MBTI: Ni- ] : thinking of the past, remembering past errors and trying to prevent them from happening again, extrapolating (looking for signs of the past repeating itself). That's how ILI (TL) [INTJ] operate.

This is Gulenko's "new" description of Ni-. He claims that ILI corresponds to Myers-Briggs INTJ, so he seems to support the J/P switch. 

No, he is not treating irrationality to be equivalent to Judging. Judging doesn't refer to the same thing as rationality or irrationality. (Bukalov is/was wrong).

What are you claiming the other Socionics schools do?


----------



## reptilian

Entropic said:


> Also self-perception=! Reality.


Yes, but presenting it correctly for other people to understand and make judgments later, is another question.

Ontopic: Considering enneagram 1w2 vs 1w9, which one is Si+ and Si-?

Have you studied the enneagram @Tellus, I know Entropic is often confident in his knowledge, You?


----------



## Jeremy8419

jkp said:


> Yes, but presenting it correctly for other people to understand and make judgments later, is another question.
> 
> Ontopic: Considering enneagram 1w2 vs 1w9, which one is Si+ and Si-?
> 
> Have you studied the enneagram @Tellus, I know Entropic is often confident in his knowledge, You?


You can't go to the basic, single-paragraph descriptions of the 9 base enneagrams and place an Ego to each? 8 seems blatantly SLE, for example. I'm not going to do it, simply because I think enneagram is an extremely retarded premise, and can't bring myself to force myself to learn it lol.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> I agree with this, I think the enneagram is well within the "mystical bullshit" area of typology.


LMAO. Well, it sure as hell isn't Te.


----------



## Tellus

jkp said:


> I am thankful someone is going deeper into function subdivision. But something is causing the subdivision to apply to a type, its not just "a type with + or -". I for example relate to intp model g Pictures, intp model g Images, intp model g Photos, intp model g Videos - Image - TinyPic - Free Image Hosting, Photo Sharing & Video Hosting
> While they kind of mock ENTPs on the fb page as being too Ti+. Which I agree from seeing it on the forum sometimes.


Gulenko is simply wrong when it comes to +/- in Model G. Both LII and ILE have Ti-/Ne+. The concept of externalities/internalities may be important... let's wait and see.



> From the Enneagram I extracted how som types deal with emotions. Their theory is somehow tied to hormonal balance. This helps me type someone and at the same time evade the stereotype typological descriptions contribute to types.
> If Jung contributes functions to gods split divine mind, its not going to make me want to understand it any less.


Horoscopes also deal with emotions... where is your limit? Enneagram is perhaps 50% arbitrary. It explains everything and nothing at the same time.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> @_Tellus_
> 
> Model G has a focus on energy conservation. Introverts are who accept energy, whereas extroverts exert energy. Model G is introvert focused, because it is concerned with not exerting energy. It has the "self" as the introverts' model's frame of reference, just like MBTI functional stacking. Model B shows how MBTI does this, whereas Socionics' model is from external world to the "self."
> 
> Model G is applying a Model A-esque model to MBTI, which is different functional stacking for external behaviors (J/P switch is false) than Socionics. This was already achieved by Model B. Model G and MBTI focus on the Libido flow outwards from the individual, which is in the Ego for the Extrovert and the Unconscious for the introvert (as described by Jung). Gulenko has rotated (holographic cognition) the psyche for the introvert, to show Libido first like extroverts, and applied socionics-esque modeling and elements (though neither are the same) to the premise of "Judging" and "Perceiving" in functional stacking that Myers-Briggs used.


I have discussed +/- and different models with a socionist. He has convinced me that Yermak's version of Model A is the most accurate, i.e. ILI: +Ni, -Te, +Si, -Fe // -Se, +Fi, -Ne, +Ti. For example, it explains the special connection between ILE and IEI (a strong accepting +Ne etc), and the similarity between ILI and IEE (a strong accepting -Ne etc). It also explains why ILI is the most suitable type for science (-Ne blocked with +Ti).

I don't think Model B's placement of the IM elements is supported by any research. Hence, there are no inner function circuits and your explanation doesn't work. (or there exist inner function circuits... like Filimonov says... but the model corresponds to Krig the Viking's trivial version, i.e. ILI: Ni+/Ni-...Te-/Te+ etc...)

Here is one of the socionist's arguments:

"If you have experience of communication with representatives of the ILI TIM you will notice that their logic is local, focused and has strong individual "tinge" which is attributed to the fact that it belongs to the vital track."

So Bukalov's (and my) proposal is incorrect. ILI doesn't have -Ti as his/her demonstrative function.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> I have discussed +/- and different models with a socionist. He has convinced me that Yermak's version of Model A is the most accurate, i.e. ILI: +Ni, -Te, +Si, -Fe // -Se, +Fi, -Ne, +Ti. For example, it explains the special connection between ILE and IEI (a strong accepting +Ne etc), and the similarity between ILI and IEE (a strong accepting -Ne etc). It also explains why ILI is the most suitable type for science (-Ne blocked with +Ti).
> 
> I don't think Model B's placement of the IM elements is supported by any research. Hence, there are no inner function circuits and your explanation doesn't work. (or there exist inner function circuits... like Filimonov says... but the model corresponds to Krig the Viking's trivial version, i.e. ILI: Ni+/Ni-...Te-/Te+ etc...)
> 
> Here is one of the socionist's arguments:
> 
> "If you have experience of communication with representatives of the ILI TIM you will notice that their logic is local, focused and has strong individual "tinge" which is attributed to the fact that it belongs to the vital track."
> 
> So Bukalov's (and my) proposal is incorrect. ILI doesn't have -Ti as his/her demonstrative function.


Model B uses signs as element pairs. Each type has all the signs. ILI, for instance has Te- when information is being processed within the Ego, but has Te+ when processing from super-ego to ego. Bukalovs proposal cannot be incorrect, because his definitions are different than Yermak's. It is only incorrect, if you treat the definitions as identical.

There is no special connection between ILE and IEI. IEI is INFP by both Bukalov and Yermak. The special connection is between ILE and EII, and is supervision ring and romance styles. ILI is not the most suitable for science. LII is. This is all descriptions.

"If you have experience of communication with representatives of the ILI TIM you will notice that their logic is local, focused and has strong individual "tinge" which is attributed to the fact that it belongs to the vital track."

Demonstrative is an internality under Bukalov.

Your arguments all hinge on your personal views of types, which all hinge on your incorrect belief that ILI is INTJ. No mainstream socionics school believes this, yet you're using it as a premise when discussing socionics.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Tellus said:


> I have discussed +/- and different models with a socionist. He has convinced me that Yermak's version of Model A is the most accurate, i.e. ILI: +Ni, -Te, +Si, -Fe // -Se, +Fi, -Ne, +Ti. For example, it explains the special connection between ILE and IEI (a strong accepting +Ne etc), and the similarity between ILI and IEE (a strong accepting -Ne etc). It also explains why ILI is the most suitable type for science (-Ne blocked with +Ti).
> 
> I don't think Model B's placement of the IM elements is supported by any research. Hence, there are no inner function circuits and your explanation doesn't work. (or there exist inner function circuits... like Filimonov says... but the model corresponds to Krig the Viking's trivial version, i.e. ILI: Ni+/Ni-...Te-/Te+ etc...)
> 
> Here is one of the socionist's arguments:
> 
> "If you have experience of communication with representatives of the ILI TIM you will notice that their logic is local, focused and has strong individual "tinge" which is attributed to the fact that it belongs to the vital track."
> 
> So Bukalov's (and my) proposal is incorrect. ILI doesn't have -Ti as his/her demonstrative function.


I assume if you really are into this model G stuff you are watching Ben David on youtube. 
youtube.com/watch?v=vS4ATj8PZS0


----------



## selena87

Tellus said:


> I am VERY skeptical of Enneagram, sorry. It is based on the assumption that there exist nine holy ideas, right? Why nine? A decree by God?





The_Wanderer said:


> I agree with this, I think the enneagram is well within the "mystical bullshit" area of typology.


Yeah agreed, too arbitrary and unstructured, it's ugly. On par with astrology in my mind, not sure why everybody is so into it. Well maybe I will understand in the future, but not now.


----------



## reptilian

Tellus said:


> Ti+ (rules, laws) is without a doubt IEE's PoLR, but what about Ti- (mathematics)? There are almost as few ILE mathematicians as there are IEE mathematicians. You should test his ability to understand mathematical proofs like this one:
> 
> Infinitely many prime numbers.
> 
> 1-dimensional Ti- should not be able to follow the logic. Does he show interest or annoyance?


I'm not going to do that. He studies economics and currently has to learn some analytic subject. If he would open the link, he would close it and start blaming me about how I think I'm smarter than him... So annoyance in every way.



Jeremy8419 said:


> ESFJ and alpha in general are the hedonists. Valued addition of pleasure/comfort with valued emotions. ESFP can be a fatty, but in a way that is critical of other fatties but not the self.
> 
> Your friend is LII description. If EII, he would be role + creative, and simply in an unhealthy transition phase. If IEI, he will chillax once he realizes that he has to be more emotionally appealing to have people carry his dead weight. If LII, well, he's just permanently unhealthy lol.
> 
> Mobilizing will just seem average, but something valuable. Demonstrative underlies all things done. When it demonstrates itself, it is omnipotent level element.


Se in general seem hypocritical a lot of times. I wonder why...

Pardon my description but I have no doubt my friend is EII.

I did not understand the underlined part, what did you mean by it?



Tellus said:


> Gulenko is simply wrong when it comes to +/- in Model G. Both LII and ILE have Ti-/Ne+. The concept of externalities/internalities may be important... let's wait and see.
> 
> Horoscopes also deal with emotions... where is your limit? Enneagram is perhaps 50% arbitrary. It explains everything and nothing at the same time.


Do you believe ILE/LII with Ti+ and Ne- is unhealthy? Or not a type?

Horoscope is always linked to dates and cosmos relations. Enneagram is based on self report and behavior analysis just like cognitive functions.



Jeremy8419 said:


> Your arguments all hinge on your personal views of types, which all hinge on your incorrect belief that ILI is INTJ. No mainstream socionics school believes this, yet you're using it as a premise when discussing socionics


I'm not sure I follow. They both use Ni, Te, Fi and Se in the same way, correct? They dont believe in the descriptions MBTI gave to INTJs stereotype because they have their own stereotype that fits the type more accurately. Or am I missing something?


----------



## Captain Mclain

selena87 said:


> Tellus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am VERY skeptical of Enneagram, sorry. It is based on the assumption that there exist nine holy ideas, right? Why nine? A decree by God?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah agreed, too arbitrary and unstructured, it's ugly. On par with astrology in my mind, not sure why everybody is so into it. Well maybe I will understand in the future, but not now.
Click to expand...

Is it not like Tellus avatar. Those 8 emotions.  Why 8?


----------



## Jeremy8419

jkp said:


> Se in general seem hypocritical a lot of times. I wonder why...


That was a description of Ignoring/Observant function. It's described as something you are critical of others for (as it is tied to the Base), but aren't critical of the Self's usage of such.



> Pardon my description but I have no doubt my friend is EII.


Probably just stuck in role+base, then. Once he gets a good, firm, whack to the heart, he'll probably wake up to Fi.



> I did not understand the underlined part, what did you mean by it?


As the preconscious base, it is the seat and gateway to the unconscious, which is built over the course of the entire life. From here up is built the conscious. When you Demonstrate, there is no denying the strength nor identity of the individual.



> I'm not sure I follow. They both use Ni, Te, Fi and Se in the same way, correct? They dont believe in the descriptions MBTI gave to INTJs stereotype because they have their own stereotype that fits the type more accurately. Or am I missing something?


Ah. Then I don't consider them to be that MBTI type. I would consider that to be their MBTI-esque system type. I hold that MBTI is based upon behaviors and preferences for practical social applications of stability and growth, you know, INFJ stuff. The theoretical underlying functions and stacking that were added as an addendum later just being a minor gift to INTJ's (they like that sort of stuff) that has left any practical application. MBTI contains a whole lot of junk to it, but MBTI type is the blanket for all of it, of which the functional stacking plays a very small role. If you do the reverse and try and blanket descriptions of reality under theory of functional stacking, then you run into logical contradictions, because reality can contain imagination and theory, but imagination and theory cannot contain reality.


----------



## reptilian

Jeremy8419 said:


> That was a description of Ignoring/Observant function. It's described as something you are critical of others for (as it is tied to the Base), but aren't critical of the Self's usage of such.


I dont get it, isnt my ignoring function Ni?



Jeremy8419 said:


> Probably just stuck in role+base, then. Once he gets a good, firm, whack to the heart, he'll probably wake up to Fi.


Oops, I ment IEE, Ne-Fi. Not used to thinking in their terminology.



Jeremy8419 said:


> As the preconscious base, it is the seat and gateway to the unconscious, which is built over the course of the entire life. From here up is built the conscious. When you Demonstrate, there is no denying the strength nor identity of the individual.


So it is an automated response from the unconscious?


----------



## Tellus

Captain Mclain said:


> I assume if you really are into this model G stuff you are watching Ben David on youtube.
> youtube.com/watch?v=vS4ATj8PZS0


I am a member of Ben's Facebook group, but I think Gulenko is wrong when it comes to +/- in Model G.


----------



## Tellus

Captain Mclain said:


> Is it not like Tellus avatar. Those 8 emotions.  Why 8?


There are eight basic emotions according to scientific research by Robert Plutchik. There are other theories of emotions as well, but Plutchik's theory is the most generally accepted.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Tellus said:


> There are eight basic emotions according to scientific research by Robert Plutchik. There are other theories of emotions as well, but Plutchik's theory is the most generally accepted.


Ye right, does not mean a lot really. It is like that 5 types of intelligence thing.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> Model B uses signs as element pairs. Each type has all the signs. ILI, for instance has Te- when information is being processed within the Ego, but has Te+ when processing from super-ego to ego. Bukalovs proposal cannot be incorrect, because his definitions are different than Yermak's. It is only incorrect, if you treat the definitions as identical.
> 
> There is no special connection between ILE and IEI. IEI is INFP by both Bukalov and Yermak. The special connection is between ILE and EII, and is supervision ring and romance styles. ILI is not the most suitable for science. LII is. This is all descriptions.
> 
> "If you have experience of communication with representatives of the ILI TIM you will notice that their logic is local, focused and has strong individual "tinge" which is attributed to the fact that it belongs to the vital track."
> 
> Demonstrative is an internality under Bukalov.
> 
> Your arguments all hinge on your personal views of types, which all hinge on your incorrect belief that ILI is INTJ. No mainstream socionics school believes this, yet you're using it as a premise when discussing socionics.


Yermak's version of Model A also includes plus AND minus for each function, just as Model B, but in a different manner. ILI does NOT have a 4D -Ti as Bukalov claims. It is as simple as that.

Everyone accepts the J/P switch except you and Sergei Ganin 

Gulenko:

T- intuition of the past [MBTI: Ni- ] : thinking of the past, remembering past errors and trying to prevent them from happening again, extrapolating (looking for signs of the past repeating itself). That's how ILI (TL) [INTJ] operate.


----------



## Tellus

Captain Mclain said:


> Ye right, does not mean a lot really. It is like that 5 types of intelligence thing.


huh?


----------



## Tellus

jkp said:


> Do you believe ILE/LII with Ti+ and Ne- is unhealthy? Or not a type?


It is not a type.


----------



## Captain Mclain

enneagram 9 types of stances to ego. some theory of 9 types of intelligence. some wheel of 8 types of emotion. fun stuff. 

should be same legit as type. why not so?


----------



## Tellus

jkp said:


> I dont get it, isnt my ignoring function Ni?


Yes it is. -Ni to be precise. Jeremy is referring to his own interpretation of Model B. (I do not support Model B any more)


----------



## Captain Mclain

btw it is stupid to say that the spins in model G is not correct. You have to declare model G incorrect. It is going to be deeply imbedded in the theory.


----------



## Tellus

Captain Mclain said:


> enneagram 9 types of stances to ego. some theory of 9 types of intelligence. some wheel of 8 types of emotion. fun stuff.
> 
> should be same legit as type. why not so?


Plutchik's research is academic and should not be mixed up with typology or Enneagram (unless you want to prove a correlation).

As I said earlier, why _nine_ holy ideas? Why nine types? In contrast, lots of evidence suggest 16 MBTI/Socionics types.

Tell Me who I Am, O Enneagram - Christian Research Institute

Significantly, Ichazo’s enneagram employs the numerological background of the Sufi decimal point symbolism in understanding personality dynamics. For instance, according to the system, the number _one_ gets worse by following the direction of the arrow on the line connected to type_four_; _four_ gets worse by becoming like a _two_, and so forth. People improve by moving in the direction opposite the arrows; that is, a _one_ gets better by becoming like a _seven_, a _seven_should become like a _five_, and so on. Remember that this inner dynamic of the six-point figure and of the triangle is based on the numerology of dividing seven into one or three into one, a dynamic rooted in occultism and divination. This occultic dynamic was Ichazo’s _a priori _structure into which he conformed the nine personality types and their inner principles of spiritual improvement or regression. Many people accept this and adjust their spiritual and psychological life to these principles.

Even if one demythologizes the occultism, or assumes good will among those who are ignorant of the occultic roots, one must nonetheless demand an examination of this system by psychologists and behavioral scientists. What is the evidence that a resentful perfectionist (one) should seek the virtue of the happy-go-lucky planner (seven)? Why should the vengeful, power-hungry person (eight) become a helper (two) rather than seek other virtues? Besides faith in the antiquity of the system, which it does not possess, how can anyone know the best virtues to pursue for any individual type? No research has been done in this regard, yet enneagram experts suggest specific spiritual goals based on this system to their students in parishes and retreat houses. The lack of scientific study should set off alarms for anyone interested in this approach to spiritual growth.

A second area to be questioned and tested is the existence of the nine personality types. Nine is the _a priori_ number suggested to Ichazo and Naranjo by the _occultic _enneagram figure. What _psychological_ proof do they have that only nine basic types exist? And what is the evidence that these are in fact the correct nine? This has not been researched, either.

A third area needing research is the theory of personality structure taught by enneagram experts. Following Gurdjieff, they assume everyone was born in their essence but chose an ego fixation around age three or four. Children choose these egos as a defense against their parents’ egos, but get trapped by their own defense mechanisms.


----------



## Tellus

Captain Mclain said:


> btw it is stupid to say that the spins in model G is not correct. You have to declare model G incorrect. It is going to be deeply imbedded in the theory.


The descriptions of +/- in Model G are inaccurate (which I meant). This doesn't necessarily have to imply that Gulenko's definitions are incorrect.


----------



## Ben Vaserlan

See this video on my channel about functional charges.


----------



## Tellus

Ben Vaserlan said:


> See this video on my channel about functional charges.


I think his initial descriptions are much better. These new ones don't include process/result, but they still shouldn't be contradictory.

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


----------



## DavidH

He is an LII. He is a subjectivist emotivist. He simply repeats his feelings about logic while supplying none.


----------



## Ben Vaserlan

Tellus said:


> I think his initial descriptions are much better. These new ones don't include process/result, but they still shouldn't be contradictory.
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - plus/minus by Victor Gulenko


Hangout recorded on Saturday June 23rd 2018 with Dr G talking about Left vs Right Spinners AKA Result/Process.


----------



## Tellus

Ben Vaserlan said:


> ...


Gulenko seems to suggest that Externalities/Internalities is more important than Mental/Vital. I seriously doubt that.

How did he come to that conclusion?


----------



## DavidH

Tellus said:


> Gulenko seems to suggest that Externalities/Internalities is more important than Mental/Vital. I seriously doubt that.
> 
> How did he come to that conclusion?


If you’re considering Vital, you’re just considering the opposite of Mental. Mental already contains all the necessary information of Vital, so it has no deterministic purpose for identification and validation of a type.


----------



## Veni Vidi Vici

Ben Vaserlan said:


> Hangout recorded on Saturday June 23rd 2018 with Dr G talking about Left vs Right Spinners AKA Result/Process.


Does it mean the same quadra may not share the same plus/minus signs? Wouldn’t that change duality pairings?


----------



## Ben Vaserlan

Veni Vidi Vici said:


> Does it mean the same quadra may not share the same plus/minus signs? Wouldn’t that change duality pairings?


Each dual is of the same spin eg FeSx and TiNx are both Left Spinners.


----------



## Ben Vaserlan

Model G for LIE.


----------



## Lollla

thank. I now own the information


----------



## Ben Vaserlan

To find out more about model G, i suggest folks watch videos in this playlist about Social Benefit Rings which is how Model G is organised: horizontally in a Benefit Ring and vertically in a supervision ring.


----------



## Jared Vaughan

Jeremy8419 said:


> @Tellus
> 
> 
> This is a core flaw in this model. He states that both the two strongest functions are the E/I of the individual, then states that (per Model A) the first and second functions are the E/I preference of the individual and the opposing E/I, respectively. He then goes on to state, that this difference in empirical strengths is the proof necessary for the existence of Model G.
> 
> He is incorrectly stating that Model A places the second function as being one of the two strongest functions. Model A places the first function and the eighth function as the strongest functions. He is committing an apples and oranges fallacy here by erroneously assigning the number "2" as "2nd strongest", when no part of model A states such.
> 
> At the same time, Model A DOES state that the energy assigned to functional processing is strongest in base function then creative function. If this is the route which he is taking, then he is not disproving Model A, nor is he proving the existence of another model unaccounted for by Model A; he would merely be giving a hologram (as is his own self-claimed cognition style) of Model A, something which provides no new information, and exists solely for the purpose of providing evidence that some links between the theory of Model A and reality need to have better deterministic reasonings.
> 
> Though, I have not fully read through all of Model G, I have casually browsed and skimmed through the thread and some of the resources provided, and I can say, that all of this seems to support this. None of his Model G mentions Model B at all, none of his Model G contradicts nor expands on Model A, and each resource that I have read or browsed is laden with inconsistencies with empirical reality. Model B actually already clearly states anything of the most remote value that Model G seeks to describe, and it makes me wonder if Gulenko even has the slightest understanding of it, because, not only does Model B include Model A, but it also has both information and energy described in it, without Gulenkos need for two separate models to exist. All in all, this entire model, if it gains any significant weight, really just seems like an exercise for Model B to explain things word-for-word that it previously took as "common sense."


Model A states the demonstrative and dominant are the strongest.


----------

