# 16 Counter-Types



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

http://www.socioniko.net /ru/articles/gul-znaki.html 

http://www.socioniko.net /ru/articles/kolich.html 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Gulenko

"Gulenko has proposed other extensions to socionics beyond DCNH. In a 1990 paper, Gulenko proposed the existence of 16 "counter-types" opposite the sixteen identified by Augustinaviciute. Gulenko argues that the functions of these types process information differently and have different behavior and thinking from the other 16. In 1989, Alexander Bukalov cited the human shadow or inner function circuit as being describable using the counter-types paradigm."


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


*ILE's counter-type
*
-Ne +Ti
+Fi -Se
---------
-Fe +Si
+Ni -Te


Why don't the counter-types exist?

Is this an argument against Model A?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Didn't this turn into Model B?


----------



## westlose (Oct 9, 2014)

What?

Does it mean that there are two different subtypes of each type? Like an ILE+ and an ILE-?

Well, if it is true, that would mean that Model B would have no validity. Because - and + from Model B come from the dynamics of how information elements are blocked each other. If Fe is Fe+ with Se, then it couldn't become Fe-, because that would mean that it is blocked with Si/Ne.
That looks quite strange, and don't really make sense.

I assume that - and + here have the same meaning the one in Model B, correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

westlose said:


> What?
> 
> Does it mean that there are two different subtypes of each type? Like an ILE+ and an ILE-?
> 
> ...


Would mean that there are 32 types with 4 subtypes each, for a total of 128 differentiations.

Given the date of it compared to Model B, and the seeming abandonment of this, leads me to believe that this was a precursor to Model B.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

westlose said:


> What?
> 
> Does it mean that there are two different subtypes of each type? Like an ILE+ and an ILE-?
> 
> ...


I apologize for a delayed reply. I think you are right... +/- probably come from the dynamics of how IMs are blocked. 

This article seems to support that definition which renders the counter-types unfeasible. Gulenko must have supported (or does he still support?) definition 2. And model B is another argument against the counter-types. 

http://www.socioniko.net/ru/gazeta/2004-6/signs-trekhov.html


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Tellus said:


> I apologize for a delayed reply. I think you are right... +/- probably come from the dynamics of how IMs are blocked.
> 
> This article seems to support that definition which renders the counter-types unfeasible. Gulenko must have supported (or does he still support?) definition 2. And model B is another argument against the counter-types.
> 
> http://www.socioniko.net/ru/gazeta/2004-6/signs-trekhov.html


Tellus, keep in mind, the main sources of information such as "Boukalov 16-component structure of TIM and Socion // ", Cosmology and Astrophysics Personality Psychology", 1996, №4" are copyrighted publications that won't be posted in any language online. All the articles are just expansions and addenda and discussions on the original publications.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Tellus, keep in mind, the main sources of information such as "Boukalov 16-component structure of TIM and Socion // ", Cosmology and Astrophysics Personality Psychology", 1996, №4" are copyrighted publications that won't be posted in any language online. All the articles are just expansions and addenda and discussions on the original publications.


Yes... but we need that article in order to fully understand model B, although I am not sure if there is a consensus among socionists about the interpretation of this model.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

If we accept definition 1, then we must discard Yermak's placement of the signs in model A:

ILE: +Ne, -Ti, +Se, -Fi // -Si, +Fe, -Ni, +Te

Socionics - the16types.info - [Translation] Model A 

ILE: +Ne, -Ti, +Se, -Fi // +Si, -Fe, +Ni, -Te 

This implies that +Ni/-Te is more evident than -Ni/+Te in ILE, which we KNOW is incorrect. Model B is the only way forward.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Tellus said:


> Yes... but we need that article in order to fully understand model B, although I am not sure if there is a consensus among socionists about the interpretation of this model.


It's not an article, to my understanding, but is actually a book, as it only appears in searches as a book-priced purchase.

The understanding, which I have, is such that the two parts of each of the four dichotomies is always present in a function, but with opposing signs: one as the primary focus, and one as the necessitated result. You're using ILE, which is not something I am predispositioned to, so I will use my own type: For the EII, primary focus is on the expansion of positive relationships, while the necessitated result includes the reduction of negative emotions. For the id, the Ignoring function, in tandem with the leading function, ignores positive emotions, while it also constitutes the ignoring of the reduction of negative relationships. Thus, the EII spends his conscious life to increase positive subjective relationships with people by reducing the negative emotions, while also ignoring all the negative relationships by ignoring preferential positive emotional displays. When viewed as such, all aspects of "life" are covered, while allowing each type to "do what they do."

I do not have an original source for Hittas graph; however, I have viewed his conversations on the Russian forums, where he, basically, asks what method the original thought he came upon correlates with, to which there was no answer, but to which following such he began all his Model B posts, which leads me to believe that he ascertained that Model B was the source of the original thought he came upon. Though my original discoveries share the same end result as Bukalov, as evidence by my public position of reasonings for J=j, he does delve heavily into Ti to arrive at such, and thus my means to an end are not the same as his. His versions of this aspect of model B appear to arrive at the same conclusions as myself, but upon investigation, his models, via google, only show the existence of a shadow, which is contrary in nature. Should Model B be similar to "Leading is Te+/Te-", then no information would be produced; whereas, "Leading is Te+/Ti-" offers a plethora of new information and understanding. I am more inclined to think he spent his time developing something significant, than to think he spent his time on something trivial.


----------

