# Does Lenore Thomson's model of the psyche support Socionics Model A?



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Tellus said:


> MBTI Brain Types | Lenore Thomson Bentz
> 
> LTB: The only purpose of the brain map is to show how type preference relates to what the brain actually does. It doesn't mean that preference is a predetermined neurological structure, and it doesn't mean that you can drill into the cranium and locate the functions, cradled happily in their separate quadrants. What I'm trying to indicate is that tasks associated with the various functions implicate different parts of the brain.
> 
> ...


Brain maps:


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Left Brain : Right Brain

LEFT BRAIN FUNCTIONS (Fe, Te, Ni, Si)

uses logic
detail oriented
facts rule
words and language
present and past
math and science
can comprehend
knowing
acknowledges
order/pattern perception
knows object name
reality based
forms strategies
practical
safe


RIGHT BRAIN FUNCTIONS (Ne, Se, Fi, Ti) 

uses feeling
"big picture" oriented
imagination rules
symbols and images
present and future
philosophy & religion
can "get it" (i.e. meaning)
believes
appreciates
spatial perception
knows object function
fantasy based
presents possibilities
impetuous
risk taking


I think this largely corresponds with Lenore Thomson's brain map.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Tellus said:


> ESTJ
> 
> dominant: Te
> secondary: Si
> ...


My impression is that her order is what vosquoque pointed out, wherein she mapped the strongest to the weakest in use according to her function order, that is.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> The simpler guideline is that the more conscious you are of something, the more unconscious you are of its opposite.


That would make his consciousness strength  and completely ignores the other 4 functions.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> That would make his consciousness strength  and completely ignores the other 4 functions.


But strength is not the same as preference or development/skill of use. Yes, Jung claims that the strength is of equivalent value relative to preference that is, the more preferred something is, the stronger is its opposite equivalent. Jung thought that the more the ego identifies with Ni, the stronger the unconscious effects Se has on the psyche, but it doesn't mean Se suddenly becomes a developed or controlled function within said psyche. Rather, it is the opposite. The more the ego relies on Ni, the more the psyche is affected by uncontrolled impulses coming from unconscious Se.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> But strength is not the same as preference or development/skill of use.


There I disagree. It is exactly the same because you can´t really develop your functions that is nonsense. 



> Yes, Jung claims that the strength is of equivalent value relative to preference that is, the more preferred something is, the stronger is its opposite equivalent.


The orientation is not chosen but it is there.



> Jung thought that the more the ego identifies with Ni, the stronger the unconscious effects Se has on the psyche, but it doesn't mean Se suddenly becomes a developed or controlled function within said psyche.


Se may be weak and undeveloped but that doesn´t makes it unconscious. Unconscious are complementing and foreign influences. If Se were unconscious you wouldn´t be aware of it the same goes for Fi. 



> Rather, it is the opposite. The more the ego relies on Ni, the more the psyche is affected by uncontrolled impulses coming from unconscious Se.


Again Se is not unconscious just because heavy Ni is compensated by underdeveloped weak Se. Unconscious aren´t able to influence you directly.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> There I disagree. It is exactly the same because you can´t really develop your functions that is nonsense.


Then you must also disagree with the definition of the id block in Model A. And by development, I don't mean you can develop a function or element. I mean that they are simply more developed compared to other elements or functions. That's different. Or are you denying that the dominant is more developed over the inferior? Again, that's what Jung thought and how he defined the two. 




> The orientation is not chosen but it is there.


I made zero suggestions regarding orientations? 



> Se may be weak and undeveloped but that doesn´t makes it unconscious. Unconscious are complementing and foreign influences. If Se were unconscious you wouldn´t be aware of it the same goes for Fi.


Jung quite clearly writes himself that the inferior is of unconscious character. Now, one can argue that something is more or less conscious or unconscious, but that wasn't the point I was making here. 

And no, unconscious are not complementing and foreign influences only. They for one, definitely don't need to be foreign. Jung's idea of the shadow complex does not revolve around a sense of foreign-ness regarding the unconscious character of the shadow. 



> Again Se is not unconscious just because heavy Ni is compensated by underdeveloped weak Se. Unconscious aren´t able to influence you directly.


Yes, they do. Beebe's model posits this, socionics posits this. Jung most definitely suggests this with his various complex projections all being projected because of unconscious influences. If we were aware of us projecting, we wouldn't do it.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> Jung quite clearly writes himself that the inferior is of unconscious character. Now, one can argue that something is more or less conscious or unconscious, but that wasn't the point I was making here.


You still can chose to focus more on Se than on Ni altough it goes against your configuration. Thats what I mean with conscious.



> And no, unconscious are not complementing and foreign influences only. They for one, definitely don't need to be foreign. Jung's idea of the shadow complex does not revolve around a sense of foreign-ness regarding the unconscious character of the shadow.


Well the word conscious seems to be interpreted differently.



> Yes, they do. Beebe's model posits this, socionics posits this. Jung most definitely suggests this with his various complex projections all being projected because of unconscious influences. If we were aware of us projecting, we wouldn't do it.


Well he was wrong it may sound correct but it isn´t and why are the PoLR and the Role function considered conscious?


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

Tellus said:


> Lenore Thomson's model of the functions support Socionics Model A in terms of strength and value, right?


I doubt about "strength". Left and right brains are equal (while functions there are not) or left is main for most people (right-handed) while weak functions of ESTJ (Fe, Ni) are related to left brain.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> You still can chose to focus more on Se than on Ni altough it goes against your configuration. Thats what I mean with conscious.


That would be just be unconsciousness affecting your consciousness, though, by becoming aware of unconscious content. 



> Well the word conscious seems to be interpreted differently.


Meaning?



> Well he was wrong it may sound correct but it isn´t and why are the PoLR and the Role function considered conscious?


Because the Model A isn't the same as Jung's original type theory? Augusta clearly draws on Freudian psychology when structuring her system, and Jung thought very differently about things in contrast to Freud. To Freud, id was considered all unconscious content, but clearly expanded upon by defining different parts of unconsciousness. Freud's idea of id would only fit a very narrow aspect of Jung's idea of unconsciousness, likely the best represented with his shadow complex. Jung didn't even have a real correlative term to superego, though he would likely attribute superego to merely ego.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> That would be just be unconsciousness affecting your consciousness, though, by becoming aware of unconscious content.


Gaaahhhhh the Inferior is not unconscious it is not healthy to overly use Se when you are not a Se ego but this decision is easily made when Se is more valued by Society.



> Meaning?


Conscious use of functions (which does not include the Shadow/Anima functions) vs. Control of the functions as "more or less conscious" (Ego and Super-id in Socionics)



> Because the Model A isn't the same as Jung's original type theory? Augusta clearly draws on Freudian psychology when structuring her system, and Jung thought very differently about things in contrast to Freud. To Freud, id was considered all unconscious content, but clearly expanded upon by defining different parts of unconsciousness. Freud's idea of id would only fit a very narrow aspect of Jung's idea of unconsciousness, likely the best represented with his shadow complex. Jung didn't even have a real correlative term to superego, though he would likely attribute superego to merely ego.


It has still jungian stuff in it but thanks for the reminder.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Tellus said:


> Personality Type, by Lenore Thomson, page 86- (Google books)
> 
> "The four functions between our strongest (the captain and the petty officer) and our weakest (the water-skier and would-be captain) have their own roles on our typological ship. But the best way to see how they work is to introduce a specific example. Grant, a fifty-nine-year-old ESTJ, had been an accountant for thirty years in a church-related lending institution. This is Grant's type lasagna - with the four additional functions sandwiched in the middle:
> 
> ...


Here is Beebe's model. Imo there is only one objectively accurate model and all three are it. They explain the same thing, different perceptions and wording. its like seeing the apple in 3 different ways, but its still the apple.

*I'll quote myself from another thread to avoid writing it up again:*



FreeBeer said:


> If you line up Beebee's model in MBTI and Socionics model A the functions will fit according to content and the resulting types will be identical. Both systems essentially describe the same Jungian types with the same valued weak and strong information elements within the same function positions:
> 
> _Example ISTJ:_
> 
> ...


The 4 MBTI functions are basically the valued aka conscious functions. 2 of them are strong and 2 are weak.

Model A for me is the easyest, most detailed / clearest model to understand and it works for MBTI as well....minus the introverts, because MBTI interpreted introverts wrong imo, thus the descriptions will match the 4 letter code but not the functions. MBTI imo simply fucked up on understanding rational vs irrational and the resulting substitution of these with J-P is an error.

*Basically J & P are not determined by the Je function being present in the strong and valued functions, but by the base function's rational or irrational nature.*

This makes Fi & Ti doms Js, Ni & Si doms Ps.

The way I see it...this is what the data shows / makes the most sense.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

"Model A Fe Weak and *not valued* Super-EGO PolR function."

"The 4 MBTI functions are basically the *valued aka conscious functions*."

Socionics Model A: Fe is a conscious function for ISTp. (ISTJ in MBTI = ISTp in Socionics)


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

I understand that some people are interested in possible parallels between the two theories, but why look to an MBTI model to "support" or "justify" Model A? That implies that Model A _needs_ the connection to be considered valid or worthwhile.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Tellus said:


> "Model A Fe Weak and *not valued* Super-EGO PolR function."
> 
> "The 4 MBTI functions are basically the *valued aka conscious functions*."
> 
> Socionics Model A: Fe is a conscious function for ISTp. (ISTJ in MBTI = ISTp in Socionics)


Not quite. Check out the mental vs. vital split.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Personality glossary | "ERIPEDIA"

Double Agents: Lenore Thomson’s designations of the dominant and auxiliary functions in the opposite attitude; corresponding to Beebe’s “opposing personality” and “witch/senex”.


Understanding the Archetypes involving the eight functions of type (Beebe model)

It has also been outlined in Socionics, by: 

Valued (i.e. primary):
1, 2 Strong
3, 4 Weak

Subdued (i.e. shadow):
5, 6 Strong
7, 8 Weak

[Numbers changed to Beebe's stacking order, with which they line up in this case] 

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

Okay, left/right-brain double agents are strong functions and right/left-brain alternatives are weak functions.

Conclusion: Lenore Thomson’s model supports Socionics Model A.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Helios said:


> Not quite. Check out the mental vs. vital split.


That's my point; Beebe's model is incorrect... and if erictb is right, then Socionics Model A is correct.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> I understand that some people are interested in possible parallels between the two theories, but why look to an MBTI model to "support" or "justify" Model A? That implies that Model A _needs_ the connection to be considered valid or worthwhile.


Maybe this is Ne, its obviously cross contextual thinking. I do not understand how one can ignore these obvious connections. The fact that more people divided by space and time thought of the same theory makes Model A more valid / compelling. Theories without evidence can not be used in practice. If I have no evidence to back up this shit I might as well believe in the Easter bunny or astrology. We need some cold hard evidence lol, the smoking gun, a body, anything. Imo these are clues pointing in the right direction.

Plus the facts do not lie, Beebe's model is Model A worded differently, maybe he stole it XD, but if Leonore thought the same, then are these really coincidence?


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> Maybe this is Ne, its obviously cross contextual thinking. I do not understand how one can ignore these obvious connections. The fact that more people divided by space and time thought of the same theory makes Model A more valid / compelling. Theories without evidence can not be used in practice. If I have no evidence to back up this shit I might as well believe in the Easter bunny or astrology. We need some cold hard evidence lol, the smoking gun, a body, anything. Imo these are clues pointing in the right direction.
> 
> Plus the facts do not lie, Beebe's model is Model A worded differently, maybe he stole it XD, but if Leonore thought the same, then are these really coincidence?



IEE

Monday-Friday: Te is a conscious function 

Saturday-Sunday: Se is a conscious function


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> Gaaahhhhh the Inferior is not unconscious it is not healthy to overly use Se when you are not a Se ego but this decision is easily made when Se is more valued by Society.


WTF? Can you actually provide a rational argument? 



> Conscious use of functions (which does not include the Shadow/Anima functions) vs. Control of the functions as "more or less conscious" (Ego and Super-id in Socionics)


Stick to one fucking system or understanding please. No complex is conscious. 



> It has still jungian stuff in it but thanks for the reminder.


Come back when you can actually argue rationally.


----------

