|
|
Post by vincent on Jan 9, 2021 18:12:50 GMT -5
Edit 17/01 This thread was initially part of this one which has been moved to Foundation.
As per the section description, discussions should happen here.
Feel free to comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Jan 9, 2021 18:34:46 GMT -5
because @cardia and winter and I have been simultaneously learning Model A as well as engaging with your proprietary framework, we're forming a voting bloc and are gonna pressure you to, when referencing the slots, do so by name rather than number  trying to actively translate on the fly between YOU saying "Fi 7th" and hearing someone in a socionics group say "Fi 4th" (when you both mean Fi Vulnerable / PoLR) is making our collective heads spin, so
making a conscious choice to use the names over the numbers in normal conversation will, I'm sure, leave us all extremely grateful for clarity's sake
Well, names are more telling than numbers, so using them will usually be "best practice" anyway.
But... sometimes... we will still have to use numbers for the ROWS themselves.
And then your collective heads will spin again.
So, the sooner you "acculturate" yourselves to our prop(ri)e(ta)r(y) order the better^^
|
|
hiddenglass
Swallow
lay me to rest, take me to sea // read my mind… let me be.
Posts: 179
Enneagram Core Fix: 5⁴
Relationship Status: searching
Occupation(s): idling
Education: ongoing
Interests: growing
Country/Region: chicago
|
Post by hiddenglass on Jan 12, 2021 1:32:31 GMT -5
pretty sure I can foresee myself ending up selecting a set of 8 singular terms and staunchly supporting their consistent use over all others
the mess of terms being haphazardly tossed about in the field is just that: a mess
really makes talking about and engaging with this stuff incredibly frustrating.
|
|
hiddenglass
Swallow
lay me to rest, take me to sea // read my mind… let me be.
Posts: 179
Enneagram Core Fix: 5⁴
Relationship Status: searching
Occupation(s): idling
Education: ongoing
Interests: growing
Country/Region: chicago
|
Post by hiddenglass on Jan 12, 2021 1:54:14 GMT -5
| Slot No. (In Beebian Ordering) | The Only Names I Will Use On EF | Alternate Names Used In Socionics And Elsewhere That I Will Not Use | | 1st | Frame | Base, Leading, Worldview, Program | | 2nd | Auxiliary / Tool | Creative | | 3rd | Tertiary / Agenda | Mobilizing, Activating, Relief, Launcher, Hidden Agenda (HA) | | 4th | Inferior / Seeking | Suggestive, Dual-Seeking, Manipulative | | 5th | Ignoring | Opposing, Observing, Control, Argumentative | | 6th | Demonstrative | n/a | | 7th | PoLR | Vulnerable, Blind, Oblivious, Brake, Deceiving | | 8th | Role | Adaptive |
I'll update this post as I update what I believe to be the most expedient and useful manner of engaging with this shitstorm of a topic
if you're gonna insist on doing what you mocked CPT for doing (building a one-man show of a JCT system) then I will fight at every step to maintain its intelligibility to those not already initiated.
I don't know much about this one.
When i looked into him, briefly and months ago, i failed to see what was so new and different in what he was doing. Anyway (and unless i'm mistaken) this guy is doing something that i wouldn't do, and something i think no one in his right mind should do :
he is doing his OWN thing. Solo. |
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Jan 12, 2021 12:06:16 GMT -5
pretty sure I can foresee myself ending up selecting a set of 8 singular terms and staunchly supporting their consistent use over all others
the mess of terms being haphazardly tossed about in the field is just that: a mess
really makes talking about and engaging with this stuff incredibly frustrating.
Yeah, "slots" are a mess in this field. Indeed.
And the reason for that is that they are at the core of the whole thing, and are intrinsically complex.
Some people have been trying to eliminate that mess by using a quantitative approach. (MBTI numbering without labeling, Auburn's vultology, Eric Strauss tests of proficiency). Beebe tried to look at the qualitative aspect but "enclosed" it into a narrative model.
Socionics tried to look at the qualitative aspect too, but in a very categorical yet "impressionnistic" way, multiplying alternate terms and "forked" models.
Others just multiplied exceptions, configurations, variations and subtypes, making slots basically meaningless.
The selection of terms we are using at the moment asserted itself progressively through "deep dive" typings. That's how they survived.
They are the best terms we have right now because they showed their heuristic merit for typing purposes.
They are not perfect, i'm sure. But that's something already.
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Jan 12, 2021 12:30:10 GMT -5
You can remove tertiary and just keep agenda for the third slot.
Tertiary is just a relic of MBTI numbering.
I can already agree on not using it anymore^^ I will have to insist on (un)ignoring for 5th though.
Also, i guess you can add Beebe's terms to the right column too, since you mentioned "and elsewhere".
Some of those "not already initiated" neophytes might come with a Beebian background after all. We don't have any escapee from CSJoseph lair yet but... who knows ?
Also, we might be doing "our own thing", but i am definitely NOT doing this solo  |
|
hiddenglass
Swallow
lay me to rest, take me to sea // read my mind… let me be.
Posts: 179
Enneagram Core Fix: 5⁴
Relationship Status: searching
Occupation(s): idling
Education: ongoing
Interests: growing
Country/Region: chicago
|
Post by hiddenglass on Jan 13, 2021 12:01:03 GMT -5
You can remove tertiary and just keep agenda for the third slot.
Tertiary is just a relic of MBTI numbering.
I can already agree on not using it anymore^^
also not sure why you'd have an issue with "Tertiary" but not "Auxiliary". I think your version of subtypes (of which there seem to be three? "normal", "creative subtype", and "jumper") needs to be clarified before I understand or can agree why Tertiary is a poor term. I'm also unclear on how you model function strength / preference currently as well. I think that's a needless change to what's an already-established naming convention. (I'm aware I sound hypocritical right now lol) but: my understanding is that you have a slightly different or more nuanced interpretation of how the Ignoring function manifests, and think the name is thusly misleading.
if that's the case, then I think you should either choose a different name rather than resort to what's tantamount to negating the existing name, or accept that a single-word name will never serve as an explanatory summation of a slot's operation anyway. not without the addition of exactly the sort of nuance your interpretation contains being presupposed in any individual in question by understanding in the first place.
that's a messy sentence but basically neither "Ignoring" nor "(un)Ignoring" evoke exactly what you think is the correct understanding of your 5th slot. and if you think the correct interpretation of the 5th slot is "Ignoring, except not 'ignoring' at all" then why even use "Ignoring" as the basis of your newly-devised term? no one starts with CSJ and escapes, I'll bet on that lol. so no need to include those.
I'll add Beebe though. with whom are you doing it? |
|
ahmed
Terra9Incognita
Posts: 166
Enneagram Core Fix: 9w1
|
Post by ahmed on Jan 27, 2021 17:20:18 GMT -5
Maybe this will be cleared up when the post for the role is out.
With 5th, main function space stays the same but the attitude opposes the frame and function is of relative value.
the movement from 1->5th is only a difference with the i/e orientation.
But with 6th, with the movement seeming to be 3rd -> 6th and not 2nd -> 6th
the i/e attitude stays the same & is still of an absolute value, but the function changes.
What takes the precedence, the function space before applying the attitudes (S/N - T/F) or P/J with the attitudes (Pe/Pi - Ji/Je) before the spaces?
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Jan 27, 2021 17:27:54 GMT -5
I see what you mean and it has something to do with with the schema you posted with the missing line in the shadow stack.
Yeah, the post about role will probably clear at least a bit of that up.
But i'll reply specifically to this soon.
stay tuned !
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Feb 1, 2021 12:20:23 GMT -5
Actually, the movement CAN be 2nd -> 6th.
And it can also be PolR -> 6th
It depends on circumstances (what's the "cognitive task" at play ? is the initial prompt internal or external ? how (un)healthy are we ? etc).
There is no absolute rules of precedence here.
But there is something like a law of gravity : information tends to move UP, back to our main stack, in healthy individuals.
As long as this is the case, shadow functions are usually used only ponctually and specifically, in service of our main functions. So you rarely see them used in conjonction with each others, along their axis line.
In unhealth, we start to delve there for a lot longer, information get stuck at the bottom of the stack.
Role get overhelmed. Demonstrative get weaponized. Polr Freakouts.
Then you start seeing lots of horizontal movement from one shadow function to another.
The horizontal movement from 5th to 8th is the last one to manifest, in full shadow mode.
|
|
ahmed
Terra9Incognita
Posts: 166
Enneagram Core Fix: 9w1
|
Post by ahmed on Feb 1, 2021 15:47:33 GMT -5
In unhealth, we start to delve there for a lot longer, information get stuck at the bottom of the stack.
Role get overhelmed. Demonstrative get weaponized. Polr Freakouts.
Then you start seeing lots of horizontal move from one shadow function to another.
The horizontal move from 5th to 8th is the last one to manifest, in full shadow mode.
Thanks a lot @-@ yes, this and the role post definitely cleared things up. I thought that the role could potentially be replacing the frame in a shadow mode - both are from the same "family tree" - since it would be much harder to access 5th. with more diagonal movements (back through the main stack) or loops (Je-Pe/Pi-Ji shadow loops) occuring rather than completely horizontal movements. With (un)ignoring in health not possible through role (perhaps though, through a prompt from 4th?🤔). But considering the relative weakness of the role even if it's still an absolute value function, accessing it is more of an achilles heel move..in a way at least. and in a case of complete submersion within the shadow..it wouldn't work as a frame, you'd still be "getting back to the main spaces of strength". And if you're fully submerged there, yeah..harder to pull back up, the functions will start adapting and the axes will form. I suppose now, i wanna see more of those working in a full shadow mode  any good exemplars? |
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Feb 3, 2021 15:02:14 GMT -5
And if you're fully submerged there, yeah..harder to pull back up, the functions will start adapting and the axes will form. I suppose now, i wanna see more of those working in a full shadow mode any good exemplars?
Well, one of the main characteristics of full shadow mode is that J types will really comes off as P, and P types will really comes off as J.
At higher level of health, the whole J vs P thing (judgers vs perceivers, or rational vs irrationnal in socionics terms) is usually neither clear cut nor very relevant.
But in full shadow mode, it really becomes a thing.
You can see an example of this here
|
|
trying to actively translate on the fly between YOU saying "Fi 7th" and hearing someone in a socionics group say "Fi 4th" (when you both mean Fi Vulnerable / PoLR) is making our collective heads spin, so
any good exemplars?