Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: A discussion of the nature of functions: category vs proces

  1. #1
    Dioklecian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    4,304
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default A discussion of the nature of functions: category vs. proces

    Personally I view functions as processes while it seems to me that Jung describes them as categories.
    Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.

  2. #2
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  3. #3
    Dioklecian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    4,304
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, Jung originated the first modern description of the psychological types, so I think that it is important to know what he had in mind.
    Well I am back. How's everyone? Don't have as much time now, but glad to see some of the old gang are still here.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Does this conform to your logic, Dio?

    http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13134

  5. #5
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    They're ways of placing the focus in snapshots of vectorized sensory data.

    The algorithm itself is not different between uses of different functions. Same process, different specifics.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    They're ways of placing the focus in snapshots of vectorized sensory data.

    The algorithm itself is not different between uses of different functions. Same process, different specifics.
    Agreed. So the type relations should hold for exertion the same as for metabolism, because it's the interaction of the processes themselves that produces the relation. I'm slowly piecing together a viewpoint of the exertion functions as "types" in their own right.

  7. #7
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    An interesting scenario would be two metabolism conflictors with dual exertion types holding conversation...

    I predict that such a duo would get along miraculously as long as the focus was kept on something far removed from both their lives. Also, no oppinions on the subject matter would have to be discussed, or things would go awry.

  8. #8
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Process!

    And I am not sure that functions would be described as categories by Jung. Remember, we can only know of functions indirectly, analogous to a black hole where we only know of its existence from how it interacts with/absence of light. "Categories" seem to miss the mark.
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •