Does Lenore Thomson's model of the psyche support Socionics Model A? - Page 4

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

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 74
Thank Tree32Thanks

This is a discussion on Does Lenore Thomson's model of the psyche support Socionics Model A? within the Socionics Forum forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; Originally Posted by ephemereality That would be just be unconsciousness affecting your consciousness, though, by becoming aware of unconscious content. ...

  1. #31

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemereality View Post
    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.

  2. #32

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellus View Post
    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:

    dominant: Te
    secondary: Si
    left-brain alternatives: Fe, Ni
    right-brain double agents: Se, Ti
    tertiary: Ne
    inferior: Fi"

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

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeBeer View Post
    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:

    hero: Si positive, confident, ego-focused = Model A Si Strong and valued EGO Leading function

    parent:Te positive, confident, others-focused = Model A Te Strong and valued EGO Creative other focused function

    child:Fi positive, vulnerable, others-focused = Model A Fi Weak and valued Super-ID Mobilizing other focused function

    anima:Ne positive, vulnerable, ego-focused = Model A Ne Weak and valued Super-ID Suggestive function

    opposing:Se negative, confident, ego-focused = Model A Se Strong and not valued ID Ignoring function

    witch/senex:Ti negative, confident, others-focused = Model A Ti Strong and not valued ID Demonstrative function

    trickster: Fe negative, vulnerable (compensatory), others-focused = Model A Fe Weak and not valued Super-EGO PolR function

    demon: Ni negative, vulnerable (compensatory), ego-focused = Model A Ni Weak and not valued Super-EGO Role function

    MBTI is broken to begin with when Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers screwed up on interpreting both J-P and introverts properly from the functions. The way MBTI describes introverts makes no sense when we look at their functions.

    The fact that ANIMA = SUGGESTIVE is telling already.

    It is difficult to imagine Ti-Se as the mechanic archetype....considering that one actually needs a Te preference for that. My Te preference for example manifests in me taking machines (and any objective info/system/statemnt) apart to understand how they work...its fun *shrug*...I just value Te, its not even a base preference as IEE, yet I consider doing this one of the most fun activities. I often need reassurance (why I seek feedback on the forums), but its all good.

    MBTI Si-Te imo is ISTP. *throws J-P out the window*
    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.

  3. #33

    "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)

  4. #34

    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 thanked this post.

  5. #35

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellus View Post
    "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.

  6. #36

    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.
    Last edited by Tellus; 02-01-2014 at 08:51 AM.

  7. #37

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    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.

  8. #38

    Quote Originally Posted by Kanerou View Post
    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?

  9. #39

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeBeer View Post
    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

  10. #40

    Quote Originally Posted by Zero11 View Post
    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.
    vosquoque thanked this post.


     
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Model A - The Socionics Cognitive Function Model
    By Figure in forum Socionics Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 06-22-2016, 12:29 AM
  2. An Introduction to Socionics Part 2: The Functions of Model A
    By woollysocks in forum Socionics Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-28-2015, 03:22 AM
  3. Socionics A-Model Function Order.
    By Marco Antonio in forum Socionics Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-08-2011, 09:05 AM
  4. Lenore Thomson
    By scarygirl in forum Myers Briggs Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-16-2010, 11:44 AM
  5. Socionics A-Model Function Order.
    By Marco Antonio in forum Socionics Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-23-2009, 03:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:59 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0