Socionics, Model A, and Subtypes
Nov 24, 2016 20:44:16 GMT -5 by The Doctor
Auburn, mystery, and 1 more like this
Post by The Doctor on Nov 24, 2016 20:44:16 GMT -5
Socionics uses a JCF hierarchy that does not follow the standard Beebe, Barrens, or Thomson assumption. Quite simply, both systems assume the dominant and auxiliary functions are the same, but Socionics departs from there.
I'll use NiFe as an example for comparison.
Western model INFJ:
Primary functions
1 Ni
2 Fe
3 Ti
4 Se
Shadow functions
5 Ne
6 Fi
7 Te
8 Si
Socionics Model A INFp (which is INFJ in MBTI):
Ego functions
1 Ni
2 Fe
Superego functions
3 Si
4 Te
Super id functions
5 Se
6 Ti
Id functions
7 Ne
8 Fi
These functions are then considered to interact with each other in the following format:
However, Socionics also has subtypes, which appear to interact as follows:
Ni-INFp (INFJ in MBTI or NiFe)
Here we see the dominant function (Ni) directly interacting with the tertiary function (Ti), essentially bypassing the auxiliary (Fe). The significance here is that the auxiliary function is removed from the standard order of operations, and is only used directly and in opposition to its pair partner - rather than a mediating point for its pair partner to the dominant function. This also has the effect of turning the auxiliary function into a stepping stone into a loop of subconscious (or shadow) functions.
Fe-INFp (INFJ in MBTI or NiFe)
Here we see the 6th function in Beebe's model (or the 7th in Socionics), directly influencing the auxiliary function - bypassing the 8th function in Beebe's model (or the 3rd in Socionics). The significance here is that what is normally part of the shadow or subconscious circuit is actually rerouted into the primary circuit. This also turns the auxiliary function into the most active nexus of CF interaction, despite not being the dominant function or source of thought process origin.
This creates a situation where there are effectively 3 base patterns for how each type can develop ways in which the functions interact with themselves - and thus there are not 16 types, but actually 48.
This reminds me a LOT of the subtypes in Auburn 's book, and if we are to assume that signal strength and frequency of VR signals are indicative of strength and frequency of CF use, these two approaches seem to correlate rather well.
I'll use NiFe as an example for comparison.
Western model INFJ:
Primary functions
1 Ni
2 Fe
3 Ti
4 Se
Shadow functions
5 Ne
6 Fi
7 Te
8 Si
Socionics Model A INFp (which is INFJ in MBTI):
Ego functions
1 Ni
2 Fe
Superego functions
3 Si
4 Te
Super id functions
5 Se
6 Ti
Id functions
7 Ne
8 Fi
These functions are then considered to interact with each other in the following format:
However, Socionics also has subtypes, which appear to interact as follows:
Ni-INFp (INFJ in MBTI or NiFe)
Here we see the dominant function (Ni) directly interacting with the tertiary function (Ti), essentially bypassing the auxiliary (Fe). The significance here is that the auxiliary function is removed from the standard order of operations, and is only used directly and in opposition to its pair partner - rather than a mediating point for its pair partner to the dominant function. This also has the effect of turning the auxiliary function into a stepping stone into a loop of subconscious (or shadow) functions.
Fe-INFp (INFJ in MBTI or NiFe)
Here we see the 6th function in Beebe's model (or the 7th in Socionics), directly influencing the auxiliary function - bypassing the 8th function in Beebe's model (or the 3rd in Socionics). The significance here is that what is normally part of the shadow or subconscious circuit is actually rerouted into the primary circuit. This also turns the auxiliary function into the most active nexus of CF interaction, despite not being the dominant function or source of thought process origin.
This creates a situation where there are effectively 3 base patterns for how each type can develop ways in which the functions interact with themselves - and thus there are not 16 types, but actually 48.
This reminds me a LOT of the subtypes in Auburn 's book, and if we are to assume that signal strength and frequency of VR signals are indicative of strength and frequency of CF use, these two approaches seem to correlate rather well.
