Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 25/09/2009, 02:09 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default + and - functions

Anyone want to talk about + and - functions?

I've heard they've had some good and some bad press depending on who you talk to, however i've never looked into them that much myself.

I decided to read up about them for half an hour or so this morning, and it prompted me to make the following post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jewels
sigh. Actually, I think ENFps on that web site were something equally horrible. Like televangelists or telemarketers or something like that. But seriously, some IEEs please remind me about why ISTps are fun??? I haven't met any cool ones in a really long time and am forgetting why it's suppose to work. ... sigh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Maybe it is time to look for another type.

SLI's I know, they are typically boring and don't do much.

I don't know were all this talk of them being adventurous, risk takers and such comes from, as the ones I know are all home bodies who put a negative slant on doing anything which doesn't let them get to bed by a certain time at night.

Random example: My friend who is SLI, clever guy, has a doctorate in Chemistry - - - - however, it doesn't really stop the conversation from being boring or monotonous. I mean, he's a nice guy - and one of the good things is that I can talk about almost anything, but it's pretty much a neutrality of emotions. Another thing - for instance if it is a Friday night and we are out having a few beers - he will at some point just insist on going home - even if the company we are in is good, the conversation is flowing, he'll just go home. This is his Si "telling" him he's had enough to drink and that he should go home and get a proper nights sleep and such for overal balance - fair enough - however SEI's i've known and know would stay out and enjoy the aspects of the pleasant alcohol, pleasant company and surroundings, and be able to look after their health the next day. They're more concerned with enjoying and making Si fun.

SLI's just make it monotonous.

If the caregiver is like a parent, I want a fun one, not a boring old fuddy duddy one, but maybe that's just me.

Oh, i'm not IEE - I don't think anyway. I'm actually leaning towards an EP temperament for me and giving me ILE, although Pinochio seems to be considering IEE for me last I checked in with him (few days ago).

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

Here is an example of the difference in the of SLI and SEI:

SEI's Si: focuses on individual details and components with a short distance from the starting point.

SLI's Si: focuses on general plans with a long distance from the starting point.

[This is basically the difference between + (SEI's) and - (SLI's) functions (you may have heard + and - being used in reference to Gulenko, Filatova and Model B)]

Which ......... means SEI's are better adept at using their Si to obtain more immediate pleasure and comfort directly from the outside world with those things that are immediately available.

The SLI's are better adept at using their Si to focus on the general peace and harmony in their world - as such, he is more resistant to outside territory which affects this focus on Si.

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

The example I gave of my SLI friend above fits quite nicely into these SLI and SEI defintions, quite pleasingly infact.

I would like to ask you, which one do you prefer? I prefer the SEI one myself - it's seems more "free" and adaptable to me.

Although, quite nicely in this example - maybe SLI's Si is better for moving into old age, and SEI's are better for "youthful" general enjoyment of life, but then, quite nicely too the Alphas are seen as young at heart, and the Deltas as old at heart.
Basically, as I understand it, assigning + and - to types comes through doing it to the base function (I also think it is possible to assign + and - to all functions of a type - but I haven't looked into that part yet). However - assigning positive and negative traits - or just traits to the base function is a result of which function it is paired with in the ego block, consequently you could also describe how the base function works in the type by looking at the ego functions as a whole - that is, Ne will be influenced differently when it is combined with Fi than Ti (so therefore is the concept of + and - required? Maybe if it helps to differentiate exactly what's going on in the types, or to represent an aspect of a function as an information aspect's orientation).

So there is:

(scale): focus on individual details and components with (distance): short distance from starting point for PLUS types

(scale): focus on general plans and (distance): long distance from the starting point for MINUS types.

It seems also that this idea came about based on Augustas rings of social progress. I'm still looking into it so far, but this is for or less what I get of it so far, which as far as I know has something to do with following a progression through the types of benefactors and beneficiaries (or something: don't quote me on that part yet - as why not follow it through supervisory chain? I'm wondering if that has to do with duality being part of the supervisor/beneficiary arrangement towards a type, however there are other questions to be asked in these rings of social progress which might even deserve it's own post or thread).

To summarise, it seems the difference in plus and minus comes about from the scale and distance applied by the base function when in action.

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

An example provided by Gulenko is for SLE and SEE is:

The SLE is oriented on the completion of important tasks (scale), connected to the overthrow or neutralization of his advancing enemy (quality). Initiative usually proceeds from himself (direction); however, the SLE is not demonstrative but prefers to remain in the shadows (distance).
The SEE solves concrete tactical missions (scale), and loves to be the focus of attention (distance). His initiative always answers to someone's call (direction). This way he does not attack, but only defends his territory and right to leadership (quality).

The other two possibles - direction and quality (which I left in this example) are apparently now considered to be obselete. (Something else of why I am not sure of at present - it would seem that the direction and distance generalise too much, however, I think everyone would agree that the scale and distance in the above example of SLE and SEE seems appropriate).

Plus types are: ILE, SEI, EIE, LSI, SEE, ILI, LSE, EII
Minus types are: ESE, LII, IEE, SLI, LIE, ESI, SLE, IEI.

Eh, seems i've written a lot, I guess i'm just looking into this today and thought it was somewhat interesting, given how it seemed to tie in quite nicely with how I see SLI's and SEI's . I haven't quite decided on how or if it works completely yet - but it seems sort of interesting for now.

Anyone got any (constructive) thoughts on this + and - approach?

EDIT: I apologise if I haven't layed this out cleanly - perhaps the quote I made that I posted here captures the essence of my thoughts on this for now, thanks.

Last edited by Cyclops; 25/09/2009 at 02:16 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 26/09/2009, 05:34 AM
RSV3's Avatar
RSV3 RSV3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 558
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Anyone want to talk about + and - functions?

I've heard they've had some good and some bad press depending on who you talk to, however i've never looked into them that much myself.

I decided to read up about them for half an hour or so this morning, and it prompted me to make the following post:





Basically, as I understand it, assigning + and - to types comes through doing it to the base function (I also think it is possible to assign + and - to all functions of a type - but I haven't looked into that part yet). However - assigning positive and negative traits - or just traits to the base function is a result of which function it is paired with in the ego block, consequently you could also describe how the base function works in the type by looking at the ego functions as a whole - that is, Ne will be influenced differently when it is combined with Fi than Ti (so therefore is the concept of + and - required? Maybe if it helps to differentiate exactly what's going on in the types, or to represent an aspect of a function as an information aspect's orientation).

So there is:

(scale): focus on individual details and components with (distance): short distance from starting point for PLUS types

(scale): focus on general plans and (distance): long distance from the starting point for MINUS types.

It seems also that this idea came about based on Augustas rings of social progress. I'm still looking into it so far, but this is for or less what I get of it so far, which as far as I know has something to do with following a progression through the types of benefactors and beneficiaries (or something: don't quote me on that part yet - as why not follow it through supervisory chain? I'm wondering if that has to do with duality being part of the supervisor/beneficiary arrangement towards a type, however there are other questions to be asked in these rings of social progress which might even deserve it's own post or thread).

To summarise, it seems the difference in plus and minus comes about from the scale and distance applied by the base function when in action.

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

An example provided by Gulenko is for SLE and SEE is:

The SLE is oriented on the completion of important tasks (scale), connected to the overthrow or neutralization of his advancing enemy (quality). Initiative usually proceeds from himself (direction); however, the SLE is not demonstrative but prefers to remain in the shadows (distance).
The SEE solves concrete tactical missions (scale), and loves to be the focus of attention (distance). His initiative always answers to someone's call (direction). This way he does not attack, but only defends his territory and right to leadership (quality).

The other two possibles - direction and quality (which I left in this example) are apparently now considered to be obselete. (Something else of why I am not sure of at present - it would seem that the direction and distance generalise too much, however, I think everyone would agree that the scale and distance in the above example of SLE and SEE seems appropriate).

Plus types are: ILE, SEI, EIE, LSI, SEE, ILI, LSE, EII
Minus types are: ESE, LII, IEE, SLI, LIE, ESI, SLE, IEI.

Eh, seems i've written a lot, I guess i'm just looking into this today and thought it was somewhat interesting, given how it seemed to tie in quite nicely with how I see SLI's and SEI's . I haven't quite decided on how or if it works completely yet - but it seems sort of interesting for now.

Anyone got any (constructive) thoughts on this + and - approach?

EDIT: I apologise if I haven't layed this out cleanly - perhaps the quote I made that I posted here captures the essence of my thoughts on this for now, thanks.
K, an element is + or - solely depending on what other element it is paired with. Half of what you are talking about is the process/result Reinin dichotomy (process types have + in their base function, and result types have - in their base function). Using the +/- distinction, every element will either be + or -, with one element in a pair being positive, and the other element in the pair being -; in other words, a judging function with either be positive or negative and the perceiving function will be the opposite polarity.

That being, said, the concept of +/- is misleading to the extent it suggests that their are two variations of each IM element. IMO, it is probably better to use the concept of an IM Pathway:

Quote:
Information metabolism occurs not only through the individualized use of functions, but also through the synthesis of multiple functions. More specifically, this synthesis occurs between a judging function (a function that contains a judging element) and a perceiving function (a function that contains a perceiving element). In this case, and as cliché as it sounds, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The concept of an IM Pathway is designed to account for and describe this difference.

Quote:
The pure definition of an individual IM element should not change depending on where it is placed within Model A or what type it is in. Saying, “Her writing definitely exhibits INTj Ti and not ISTj Ti” is illogical; Ti in a leading function is Ti in a leading function, and the INTj’s use of Ti, independent of any other function, will be the same as the ISTj’s use of Ti, independent of any other function. The differences being observed are rather attributable to the different IM pathways that an INTj and ISTj prefer to use; i.e., the synergy manifested by Ti combined with Ne versus the synergy manifested by Ti combined with Se.
__________________
Sociotype.com

Increased expression of one function (1) suppresses the opposing intradichotomy function and (2) suppresses the opposing intrablock function (and vise versa).
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 26/09/2009, 07:24 PM
stanprollyright's Avatar
stanprollyright stanprollyright is offline
The Looks
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3 View Post
K, an element is + or - solely depending on what other element it is paired with. Half of what you are talking about is the process/result Reinin dichotomy (process types have + in their base function, and result types have - in their base function). Using the +/- distinction, every element will either be + or -, with one element in a pair being positive, and the other element in the pair being -; in other words, a judging function with either be positive or negative and the perceiving function will be the opposite polarity.

That being, said, the concept of +/- is misleading to the extent it suggests that their are two variations of each IM element. IMO, it is probably better to use the concept of an IM Pathway:
This makes a lot of sense. Would you mind posting what combinations are what?
__________________
So this one time me an' my bes' frien' Stan, we went to a church service. That preacher was talkin' 'bout hell. So Stan leans over to me an' he says, "I bet hell is like a PoLR hit every day."

An' I says, "Stan, you prolly right."
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 27/09/2009, 09:33 AM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default

I agree with Ryan, the + and - are consistent with function pairing, it is like stressing the obvious: the word 'table' contains the following letters - t, a, b, l and a. Do you really need that?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 27/09/2009, 02:33 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

I had a wall of text lost there, probably for the best.

I thought about what you were saying initially, but i'm currently unsure.

Maybe it would be more prudent to ask how for example Fi makes ENFp have an opposite focus on scale and distance in comparison to ENTp, and explain this from a functional perspective of the ego block functions in comparison to ENTp and ESFp, as according to you guys it can be explained by functional analysis without applying + and - aspects to the functions.

Oh, i'm not currently convinced by + and - base functions, but i'm certainly interested enought to look at it.

Also, I would be reluctant to compare it to the process/result reinin dichotomy, although they are talking about same types, they seem to be derived from different principles.

Possible applications of this thing: seperating between mirror types and say for instance when deciding someone is EXFp (like RSV3 is considering for Crashing Diamond).

Last edited by Cyclops; 27/09/2009 at 02:39 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 27/09/2009, 05:31 PM
stanprollyright's Avatar
stanprollyright stanprollyright is offline
The Looks
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
the word 'table' contains the following letters - t, a, b, l and a. Do you really need that?
I believe the word you spelled is "tabla"

Seriously though, I'm pretty fuzzy on this part of the theory, would someone like to explain the Ne big picture to me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Possible applications of this thing: seperating between mirror types
Isn't that what temperament is for? Also, IME this is only really a problem on the forums, since temperament is kind of obvious in real life.
__________________
So this one time me an' my bes' frien' Stan, we went to a church service. That preacher was talkin' 'bout hell. So Stan leans over to me an' he says, "I bet hell is like a PoLR hit every day."

An' I says, "Stan, you prolly right."
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 27/09/2009, 06:10 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanprollyright View Post
I believe the word you spelled is "tabla"
I think this sounds better.
Quote:
Seriously though, I'm pretty fuzzy on this part of the theory, would someone like to explain the Ne big picture to me?
I'm not quite sure what you're asking for, however i'm still looking into the 'Ti' aspect of it myself. As you may know a function under model A has 3 dichotomies (and this is why Model A is sometimes known as the cubic model). Buchalov (a Ukraine socionist) seems to have added this + and - thing as an additional functional dichotomy to give 4 function dichotomies, which he calls Model B (for Buchalov), so whether this has further implications of describing Jung's functions, I don't know yet (well it does have implications, whether they are useful implications could be another thing, but anything that has the potential to shed light on such a fundamental aspect of socionics-the basis of functions, deserves to be explored somewhat imo). It's hard to get information on it so I might just have to piece it together myself, or just decide how much it's worth it! lol


Quote:
Isn't that what temperament is for? Also, IME this is only really a problem on the forums, since temperament is kind of obvious in real life.
Yeah I agree, however, sometimes it's not always easy, as can have for instance an extraverted introvert who also might not show all the temperament characteristics for instance at work. I think that if this was used for this purpose it would just be another possible string to the bow of determining between mirrors, but on this and sort of going back to my previous paragraph, adding for instance another dichotomy to a function could have other applications, along with describing another possible aspect of types (and functions).

Although i'll be honest and say it might be redundant, when I see things such as this I also find myself thinking it's just an excuse for a socionist or some dude (hopefully not me here, lol) to try and sound clever or something (like reinin dichotomies- I think that the more relevant reinin dichotomies can be explained in type behaviour without them, and some other ones are so vague that they don't mean anything), anyway I ramble probably because I see more questions than answers, but it leads back to the possible redundancy of adding another dichotomy to the functions, or not.

Last edited by Cyclops; 27/09/2009 at 06:13 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 27/09/2009, 09:59 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG View Post
I agree with Ryan, the + and - are consistent with function pairing, it is like stressing the obvious: the word 'table' contains the following letters - t, a, b, l and a. Do you really need that?
I think this could be right, but i'm not sure if function pairing describes it adequately, but then why shouldn't it? (rhetorical question).

Thanks for your input.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 27/09/2009, 11:13 PM
RSV3's Avatar
RSV3 RSV3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 558
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanprollyright View Post
would someone like to explain the Ne big picture to me?
+/- is a theory that suggests a function will manifest diferently depending on what other element it is paired with. You might find it useful if you think there are 2 different versions of every element (a + and - version), but imo, Ti is Ti, and Ne is Ne; any differences being observed are attributable to the different IM pathways each type prefers to use (e.g., Ti-->Ne versus Ti-->Se). Some socionists find it superfluous for this reason: saying -Ti is the equivalent of saying Ti blocked with Ne (i.e., why add this unecessary layer of notational complexity). Here is a list of the function pair and polarity correlation:

-Ti is always blocked with +Ne
+Ti is always blocked with -Se
+Fi is always blocked with -Ne
-Fi is always blocked with +Se

-Fe is always blocked with +Si
+Fe is always blocked with -Ni
+Te is always blocked with -Si
-Te is always blocked with +Ni
__________________
Sociotype.com

Increased expression of one function (1) suppresses the opposing intradichotomy function and (2) suppresses the opposing intrablock function (and vise versa).

Last edited by RSV3; 27/09/2009 at 11:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 28/09/2009, 06:55 AM
stanprollyright's Avatar
stanprollyright stanprollyright is offline
The Looks
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3 View Post
Some socionists find it superfluous for this reason: saying -Ti is the equivalent of saying Ti blocked with Ne (i.e., why add this unecessary layer of notational complexity)
I'm finding myself agreeing with them.
__________________
So this one time me an' my bes' frien' Stan, we went to a church service. That preacher was talkin' 'bout hell. So Stan leans over to me an' he says, "I bet hell is like a PoLR hit every day."

An' I says, "Stan, you prolly right."
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 28/09/2009, 08:08 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanprollyright View Post
I'm finding myself agreeing with them.
It's all very well saying this, but it is another matter to describe why the creative function has this affect on the base function.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 28/09/2009, 06:29 PM
stanprollyright's Avatar
stanprollyright stanprollyright is offline
The Looks
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
It's all very well saying this, but it is another matter to describe why the creative function has this affect on the base function.
This is the way I understand it: You are never using just one function. The reason it seems one's leading function is different because of its creative function is because the ego block combination is the one that is used most frequently and confidently. If an NeFi decides to use Ne and Ti instead, he probably won't seem like an NeTi because of the limited flexibility and inherent weakness of Ti.
__________________
So this one time me an' my bes' frien' Stan, we went to a church service. That preacher was talkin' 'bout hell. So Stan leans over to me an' he says, "I bet hell is like a PoLR hit every day."

An' I says, "Stan, you prolly right."
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 28/09/2009, 07:24 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanprollyright View Post
This is the way I understand it: You are never using just one function. The reason it seems one's leading function is different because of its creative function is because the ego block combination is the one that is used most frequently and confidently. If an NeFi decides to use Ne and Ti instead, he probably won't seem like an NeTi because of the limited flexibility and inherent weakness of Ti.
No ones disputed on this thread that functions work in combinations. I am asking you or someone else to describe how for instance Ne blocked with Fi has this minus affect and Ne blocked with Ti has this plus affect, and how also for instance, Se blocked with Fi has a plus affect not a minus affect, and how for instance blocking Fi with Ne rather than Ne with Fi has an opposite affect.

If you or someone can explain this using their knowledge of functions i'd be really interested.

Which means-using what you know of Ne, Fi, Ti, Se, can you write how combining this actually produces this result? I don't think anyone has written about function combinations in any great depth as it seems people are still trying to describe function descriptions as stand alones in an adequate fashion.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 28/09/2009, 08:09 PM
stanprollyright's Avatar
stanprollyright stanprollyright is offline
The Looks
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 369
Default

Both of your examples seem to be just process/result. When you change the creative function, you're also changing 4 of the 8 functions. This puts the individual in a different quadra, different club, opposite process/result Reinin dichotomy, opposite aristocratic/democratic dichotomy, etc. I fail to see how there is any difference between kindreds/comparitives that isn't covered by all of this.
__________________
So this one time me an' my bes' frien' Stan, we went to a church service. That preacher was talkin' 'bout hell. So Stan leans over to me an' he says, "I bet hell is like a PoLR hit every day."

An' I says, "Stan, you prolly right."
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 28/09/2009, 08:27 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanprollyright View Post
Both of your examples seem to be just process/result. When you change the creative function, you're also changing 4 of the 8 functions. This puts the individual in a different quadra, different club, opposite process/result Reinin dichotomy, opposite aristocratic/democratic dichotomy, etc. I fail to see how there is any difference between kindreds/comparitives that isn't covered by all of this.
A small note is when you change the creative function to the mirror type then all these small groups that you mention don't change.

I'm not sure we understand what each other is saying, so i'll re-qualify.

You are saying that:
1. We don't require plus and minus functions because we can explain it by describing how the ego functions work as pairs with cubic functions only.

I am asking:
1. You to describe how the functions in the ego block produce the plus and minus behaviour of the types by way of using cubic functions only.

I have already said:
I think it's useful for now not to confuse this with the process/result reinin dichotomy as although they refer to the same types they appear to have been derived from different ways.
And I also say:
Plus and minus types have been empirically verified as existing (for instance by Filatova and Gulenko and no doubt others).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

You can either back up what you are saying by describing it or not. Hopefully you will back up what you are saying as I would be interested in someone trying to explain it using cubic dichotomy functions and i'm only asking you to explain what you've said. (ps, i've already explained what cubic dichotomy functions are, it's basically functions of Model A, as it's also know as the cubic model, but I don't know if you're reading what i'm saying at all), and I don't want to keep asking the same question! :-)

Last edited by Cyclops; 28/09/2009 at 08:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 28/09/2009, 09:09 PM
stanprollyright's Avatar
stanprollyright stanprollyright is offline
The Looks
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 369
Default

I may need some help sounding coherent, but I think it can basically be described with quadra values and Reinins. I'll try an actual explanation later. In the meantime, can you describe me all the traits attributed to +/- types?
__________________
So this one time me an' my bes' frien' Stan, we went to a church service. That preacher was talkin' 'bout hell. So Stan leans over to me an' he says, "I bet hell is like a PoLR hit every day."

An' I says, "Stan, you prolly right."
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 29/09/2009, 02:36 AM
RSV3's Avatar
RSV3 RSV3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 558
Default

Eh, I wrote up some one word descriptions of each element as well as the synergy manifested by a pair of elements working together. And since I only used one word to describe each one, they are oversimplified. I didn't spend much time on this, so I'm not sure how accurate they are. Feel free to make other suggestsions on how they should be described.

Ti: Logic
Te: Knowledge
Fi: Relationships
Fe: Emotions
Ne: Possibilities
Ni: Change
Se: Power
Si: Sensation

Ti x Ne: Theoretical
Ti x Se: Systematic
Fi x Ne: ?
Fi x Se: Connected
Te x Ni: Planning
Te x Si: Operation
Fe x Ni: Idealistic
Fe x Si: Harmony
__________________
Sociotype.com

Increased expression of one function (1) suppresses the opposing intradichotomy function and (2) suppresses the opposing intrablock function (and vise versa).
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 29/09/2009, 10:50 AM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3 View Post
Eh, I wrote up some one word descriptions of each element as well as the synergy manifested by a pair of elements working together. And since I only used one word to describe each one, they are oversimplified. I didn't spend much time on this, so I'm not sure how accurate they are. Feel free to make other suggestsions on how they should be described.

Ti: Logic
Te: Knowledge
Fi: Relationships
Fe: Emotions
Ne: Possibilities
Ni: Change
Se: Power
Si: Sensation

Ti x Ne: Theoretical
Ti x Se: Systematic
Fi x Ne: ?
Fi x Se: Connected
Te x Ni: Planning
Te x Si: Operation
Fe x Ni: Idealistic
Fe x Si: Harmony
You should have a look at this page, where Gulenko attaches words to describe the elements along with related words: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...wo-letter_code

Namely this part:

Elements are denoted by the Latin letters F, I, P, E, S, T, L and R.
Letter/Latin Term/Element/Related words
F factor Se force, fact
I intueor Ne intuition, insight, idea
P profiteor Te profit, produce
E emoveo Fe emotion, expression
S sensus Si sensation
T tempus Ni time, temporal
L lex Ti logic, law
R relatio Fi relation
Although I can't help but laugh a little at the somewhat pretentiousness of giving these elements latin names (because everything that sounds credible in science has to have latin names )

However, that aside, it is quite interesting, lol. It's also another way to name the types, using 2 letter codes (I still prefer the 4 letter way of doing it, it has a good level of flexibility and is easier to read).

Anyway incorporating this into functional pairing, why not just add two words together?

Ti with Ne Logic with insights
Te with Se Logic with force

etc.

Last edited by Cyclops; 29/09/2009 at 10:50 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2007 SOCIONICS.COM