Fixing Eric's model (27/April/2017)

By -
Eric's model

You and Your tight Moisture


a taxonomy of human existence that makes sense



By Host Eric (and now getting fixed by CASuaLII)
of
Talking with Famous People

Foreplay Introduction:

In this document blog post, I’ll attempt to fix the taxonomy model proposed by Host Eric, The model called “You and Your Moisture” has some nice ideas and good potential, it is not Socionics but it’s aight I guess.
Although the model sounds c00l to the untrained eye, it seems to have some issues resulting in me (Casual INTP) not approving of it. I tried to turn a blind eye but it seems that Eric believes it is perfect and he’s spreading it like AIDS, which made me go out of my way to be a little productive by finding a solution to this problem.
I think it is my duty to help reduce the amount of wrong information and assumptions in the typology community (MBTI has done enough), so here we go!

PS: this is probably not perfectly organized but I just came up with this yesterday and today is Eric’s birthday (one year closer to the end of his existence) so I thought it would be a good gift to release this Best, Greatest and Rich document.

The issue:

The problem or may I say problems of this model are the following:
  • Types are unbalanced; a type is either composed of three Physical functions and one Metaphysical function, or the other way around. The ratio being 3:1 makes the types unbalanced and doesn’t help with my obsession with symmetry!
  • Duality is what again? Duality is a joke in this model! Claiming that your Mirage is your dual if you’re an Irrational type and your Semi-dual is your dual if you’re a Rational type is hilarious and painful at the same time. It is also based on the assumption that your weak function will be supported by your dual’s weak function which by definition is wrong.
  • Two bullet points aren’t enough; I felt that two bullet points weren’t enough so I added this one for the sake of it. Actual I just forgot what I wanted to write, but the two first issues are enough to throw away the model.

The solution:

The solution that will fix the model and make it make sense is easy:
Swap Fe and Te in the Physical/Metaphysical dichotomy.
The reasons why exactly these two functions are:
  • Fe is not Metaphysical; Fe is noticing/interpreting body language, changing your tone of voice, being emotionally expressive, knowing the mood of people… how can noticing body language, changing tone of voice and being expressive be Metaphysical?
  • Te is not Physical; Te is planning efficiently, efficiency, optimizing processes, remembering facts, business logic… How can planning and optimizing processes be Physical? It is indeed Metaphysical, because it happens in your head and once you start acting on it, it’s Se or something else and NOT Te.
  • Socionics Abstract/Involved dichotomy[1]; There is in Socionics an important dichotomy (one of three that constitute the foundation of the information elements) the Abstract/Involved dichotomy which can be translated to Metaphysical/Physical dichotomy in Eric’s model. The Abstract elements (called functions in Eric’s model) are Ne Ti Te and Ni, the Involved elements are Se Fi Si and Fe. While Metaphysical functions are Ne Ti Fe and Ni and the Physical are Se Fi Si and Te.

New model:

If taken in consideration the proposed solution can fix all the current issues of Eric’s model.
  • Types balance; Each and every single type will have two Metaphysical functions and two Physical ones.
  • Duality; The ENTP’s proposed dual was INFJ. The ENTP in the new model will be MMPP and respecting the balance of the duality and taking in consideration the strong/weak functions we talked about earlier (getting help in weak function from your dual’s weak function) it is illogical and EVIL AND DISHONEST! To claim that an MMPP’s dual would be MPMP (INFJ) the dual of an MMPP type (when taking in consideration type balance and weak/strong functions) should be PPMM (or at least MMPP if the weak/strong functions isn’t taken in consideration) thus the proposed dual should be ESFJ, ISFJ, ESFP or ISFP. Taking in consideration Extraversion/Introversion balance in a dual we can rule out the Extraverts leaving ISFJ and ISFP for potential duals for the ENTP.

Conclusion:

It is really irritating how unorganized this paper is and the lake of graphs and cool-ass drawings and shit is also quite not that cool, brah. But still, it should be a solid argument to and how to fix the model. And again if your model, Eric, doesn’t say that my dual is the ESFJ, than DOWN THE SHITTER IS GOES!
[1]Article about the dichotomy (N°4)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Why Ni doms can't be the rarest types amongst women

By -
 Why Ni doms can't be the rarest types amongst women An MBTI critic from Socionics point of view. As we know, the most successful men in the dating game, and the men looked upon as desirable mates are all described by - but not limited to - the following words: Alpha male, Leader of the pack, Knows what he wants, Confident, Dominating, Controlling, Assertive, Strong, Powerful. You can clearly see the pattern there, indeed, that looks like a perfect description of the F, ‘Power Sensing’, or ‘Se’. People with F in their base function can easily be described as stated earlier. Which brings us to our point; If the majority of women want men that give the impression of being F base function, then that would mean that they are F suggestive, that their dual seeking function is F, making their Base Function T, ‘Intuition of Time’ or ‘Ni’. How can T Base Function be the rarest types if F Suggestive Function is the most common? I’ll leave this question up for debate before I answer it
Read more

Can you be forced into doing anything against your will?

By -
 Is it actually possible to do something against your will? First of all, let's assume that we have free will. And by that i mean that we have total control over our decisions and actions, whether or not these decisions/actions that we take are scripted or pre-programmed by some external entity is irrelevant. The question is as follows: if you take a decision, is it possible for someone to force you to act in an opposite way - not change your mind - by actually make you go against what you decide to go for? In my opinion it is impossible for such thing to be doable. With the exception of when you can be forced to do something without you actually doing it*. This probably doesn't make sense so let me try to explain it by an example: You're transporting an amount of money that isn't yours and that you shouldn't give to anybody except its recipient, but someone points a gun at you and asks you for it, the offender is determined to get the money at any c
Read more

Words and their meanings

By -
Whenever i think of "Vertical" or "Horizontal" i have to go through and extra step before knowing which is which. What i mean by that is the word "Horizontal" isn't directly link to a state or a representation of it, same with "Vertical". And what i mean by what i meant, is for example if i take "Right" and "Left", those word are linked directly to a direction. When i think "Right" i automatically know which side is it, the same goes for "Left." But for "Vertical/Horizontal", and "East/West" for that matter, it is NOT the case. I have to add another step in the process to know which is which. But why? Why is "Right/Left" directly understandable to me (one link or one layer of thinking), while "Horizontal/Vertical" need at least two links? Is it because i'm bad at "localization thinking" if that expression means anything? probably not si
Read more