From Model A to Model M

On the Vulnerable Function and a Probable Case of Ambiguity or Mistake in Model A
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

& with a Universal Moral Truth as the sidekick! 🎈🎉🎋

If they have a "Ni PoLR" they want the default conception of time to be "now". But at least they can tell you what are they going to do. I have a "Ni lead" and I hate telling people, on demand, what am I going to do, because then I have to do something else than what I told I'd do.

This renders conventional psychotherapy inapplicable for me. If I arrived on time I'd hate the therapist for making me do that. The therapist, however, isn't culturally required to notice this. In fact, he is encouraged not to notice it. If he'd notice that he would get a reason to challenge society. Society would punish for that.

I would drop by to meet a friend who lives far away, not tell him I'm coming, and not get upset upon finding out he isn't home. I still wouldn't get upset if they told me later they heard the doorbell but were too drunk to welcome me. But society can never turn this trait of mine into an advantage.

Question: what type of a person would be most likely to require me to feel disappointed if I told them I didn't meet the friend I went to visit? Then I'd know not to tell this story in the wrong company. But I think any kind of a person might require such disappointment if they believe good things only to exist as rewards for doing something unpleasant.

It is said that: "The journey is the destination." But unfortunately someone might prompt me to tell the above story at a moment when I don't feel like "The journey is the destination." Then that someone would conclude that since I didn't feel like that when I told them that story, I mustn't have felt like that when the events of the story really happened, either.

If they jump into that conclusion there's often nothing better to do than to argue until the other person gets tired because they won't change their mind about that once they interpret it that way.

A drawback of "Ni" suggestive people is that, at moments of impaired judgment, they will become unable to contextualise the present moment more favourably. If they don't feel safe, they'll also refuse good contextualisations made by others because they can't evaluate them yet feel it's their responsibility to refuse to agree to decisions they don't understand.

But if they have a "Ni PoLR" they're more likely to play along with a contextualisation made by someone else. When evaluating the contextualisation they're more concerned about do they trust the person who makes the context than whether the context itself is good.

However, in this case they're more likely to hold the one who made the contextualisation as responsible for the outcome of the contextualisation. This is okay and it's even good that they appreciate a context that was made for them, but a "Ni lead" would essentially like to play with contexts and this isn't exactly funny for someone with a "Ni PoLR".

Even a dual of a "Ni" lead will require a "Ni" lead to tell what is he going to do if the dual has been culturally conditioned to believe everyone must truthfully explicate their intentions on demand. This is inconvenient if they've also been conditioned to believe that "no intentions" isn't an intention. Then they believe in a metaphysical stance called utilitarism but it doesn't serve you to think of it that way if the dual doesn't understand metaphysics. Problems usually get worse if the dual believes that everyone must be able to explicate their intentions immediately. This can provoke an argument so that the dual causes the argument yet has no way to identify himself√herself✓itself as the cause of the argument.

Regarding why someone would visit another person unexpectedly: Well if they've told you they like old things then it might occur to you that in the old times people had to show up unexpectedly because they didn't have telephones. I wouldn't otherwise do that.

Except if in need of help. But I don't want to only show up when my party is in need of help.

By the way, we could use definitions like the one in the previous sentence for explicating moral truths that would be universal in the sense of being independent of personality type.

"I don't want to only show up when my party is in need of help."

Nobody wants to be a person who only shows up when his party is in need of help. In this sense the rule describes a universal truth. But that truth is relative in the sense that for an "ISTj" this rule would be more important than it is for an "ESFj".

"ESFj" would be the type that's probably the most capable in countering the kind of social damage that ensues when the rule in question is broken. But if they had the choice, even they probably would prefer not to be known as someone who only shows up when their party is in need of help.

In case you want to know, a universal moral truth of the form "I don't want to X" corresponds to a 0000 transactional analysis relation.[1] These relations could come in handy for fixing the problem that as an "INTp", I find the descriptions of relations LKL and CMP to have gotten mixed up. These relations are defined so that their descriptions are correct only for some types. For other types, the descriptions have gotten mixed up.[2]

No need to thank me for not overriding the name of the CMP relation with an ambiguous notation in another theory you would consider unrelated. Instead of doing that, I used the notation COM. But I would rename the "CNT" relation as CTR and the "vulnerable" function as the proving function.

	[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R0x3DBZPSgyyBg6tSaxFU3p3eTFBm_qpUrU3BchIsb0/edit?usp=sharing
	[2] https://pastebin.com/BNMTyKAY