Some thoughts about the terms of Socionics

[discourse]

Jung discovered extroversion and introversion. Extroversion means,that concious is clenched on a object (and that's why they say that extrovert lives in a objective world). Introversion means that conciouss is clenched on a possibilitie what that object means. Object is made in conciousness from object into sign. It's subjective. That's why they say that introvert lives in a subjective world.

When concioussly we are doing with an object some task in our mind, we are extroverted. When we are thinking of things, what that object means, then we are introverted , we deal with the semantics of an object.

I found two urges, one primary and one secondary. The primary is stronger than the secondary is.

Word verted means movement, am I right? Extroversion means an urge to move in objective world. Introversion means an urge to move from objective world into semantical world. This is my Primary Urge.

Extrovert lives in the World of objects. He is clenched on objects. At the same time he has a need to withdraw wrom that external world into innerworld, world of meanings. It is less powerfull than the first one is and that is what I call The Second Urge. I'll make it clear.

On the other hand, introvert has a strong urge to solve tasks with the meanings of the object, f.e introvert using it's Ti ''This table is symmetrical, that's why it is at the same time geometrical image, it can't be used for sitting ,because it's ineligible.'' And at the same time, introvert has lower urge to become one with that object. For that lower urge, The Secondary Urge, introvert uses it's second function, it's extroverted function.

Because we live mostly either in external world or internal world, to live in opposite world, we have to learn some steps. That's why the second function concists from learned movements.

And now we're arriveing to what Sergei Ganin sayd :'' First function takes the idea, second one makes it seated.'' When extrovert is one with the object, he solves the task and then gives it a meaning. It's fuzzy do understand it so I'll give an example of ENTp, , thinking about the table at the diner. says that the table was just cleaned (objective) and then the says that this table is just one of the clean tables among other tables being cleaned some time ago (signs of object). INTj, , discovers that the table was similar to other tables at the diner and it's says that table will be cleaned again in the future. Hope that this explaines the roles of the first and the second function.

And finaly I have some thoughts about the subtypes. My idea is that the subtype is preferenceing the second urge strong enough to move the balance of extroversion/introversion. Introvert developes it's extroverted second function to become more strongly part with the objective world. When introvert is long time part from the external worl, he is extroverted subtype. This means also that introvert has a strong nessecery to end it's thoughts and this ending is creative ,creative means coming to an idea of using the right way, which is learned, to seat the task. I think , everibody has now an idea, why there are the first and the second function.

These are some thoughts I have made. When I'll get more notes and if this posting has a warm reception, I''ll write about the eight functions.

Any feedback is welcomed!

[SFVB]

It's fuzzy do understand it so I'll give an example of ENTp, , thinking about the table at the diner. says that the table was just cleaned (objective) and then the says that this table is just one of the clean tables among other tables being cleaned some time ago (signs of object). INTj, , discovers that the table was similar to other tables at the diner and it's says that table will be cleaned again in the future.

With an ENTp I think that it would be more like this (looking at the other clean tables)....
"This table also has the potential to be cleaned." (And even without witnessing the other tables having been cleaned and never having cleaned one before himself.) "Here is how you should clean this table."
With an INTj....
"I understand how to make this table clean (witnessing the ENTp clean the table.)"
"Here are the potential results of cleaning this table."

This is sort of a poor analogy as INTjs and ENTps would never be concerned with cleaning anything, much less tables. However, this demonstrates the flow of information through Alpha quadra. The INTj receives the understanding created by the ENTp and attempts to create a universal law out of that understanding (for instance, "tables should be cleaned THIS way, and THIS way alone.) The INTj then demonstrates how this universal law applies to the objective world (tables cleaned in this way will always be cleanest.) This is why ENTps and INTjs often love to spend hours talking to one another, as the INTj is able to understand the ENTp's often confusing explanations of their intuitive perceptions and create new ways of understanding the universe. Often the understanding that's created by the ENTp is incomplete or misunderstood, which gives the INTj and opportunity to perfect the understanding and identify its potential for further application. (It then passes on to beta quadra where it is slowly (and painfully) beaten into the fabric of society. I might add that this is why it is SO important that the understanding and potential for the idea are developed effectively before it is passed on to the rest of the world. Otherwise, BAD things happen. E.g. Communism, nuclear weapons, etc...This is probably, alas, unavoidable, but I nevertheless remain hopeful that we (INTjs) are careful about our understanding of new ideas so that the ideas do not find prematurely those less eager to understand than to apply.)

[SFVB]

The funtion most suppressed is the function opposite to the primary function in direction but not in manner (Ne/Si, Ni/Se, Fi/Te, Fe/Ti)

I understand it like this...Te suppresses Fe....Ti suppresses Fi....Ne/Se, Si/Ni.

Do you believe subtypes to be unchangeable and if so why?

I don't agree with subtype theories. I believe sub-types are observed as a result of chaotic, unpredictable environmental factors. Attempts to pigeon-hole people's personalities too deeply take away from the validity of the broader theory.

How does one begin to prefer a function other than the primary in a healthy manner?

The need to survive in an environment for which the dominant function does not bode well. It's not necessarily healthy though. It can also be said however that not developing the second function sufficiently can cause problems as well.

Would that cause a corresponding change in "base" type? (ie If Ne begins to dominate in a positive form of expression is the individual discernable from an Ne type?)

If that's the case then you can pretty much throw the whole theory out the window because people's actions and relationships would be too chaotic and unpredictable to explain and therefore predict as socionics attempts to do.

[CuriousSoul]

So in my view subtypes are just expressions of type with different amounts of expression of the other functions. So a INTJ subtype Ti would be an INTJ who allows less expression of all functions besides the primary than needed. An INTJ normal would be one who expresses each function as needed in subordination to Ti. Whereas an INTJ subtype Ne would be one who allows more expression than necessary to all functions except the primary. So the corresponding chain of mental health would look like this. Subtype Ti goes to Subtype Ne goes to Average type as Inhibition goes to Expression goes to Balance.

That's why I don't really believe in subtypes except as different ways of expressing the actual type. So in conclusion I have some questions. Do you believe subtypes to be unchangeable and if so why? How does one begin to prefer a function other than the primary in a healthy manner? Would that cause a corresponding change in "base" type? (ie If Ne begins to dominate in a positive form of expression is the individual discernable from an Ne type?) I'm sure I have more questions but I can't think of them right now.

I would go against the current and claim that the subtypes are quite real and generally as permanent as the basic socionics types, and while they may seem to complicate things I would say that much of the confusion in socionics arises exactly because there is so much variation within every type and the more closely we manage to define the types the easier it will become to correctly type people - as well as to make predictions on intertype relations. Perhaps ideally a bottom-up approach, Te rather than Ti, to socionics could be more conductive to making progress, for example give every "type face" their own subtype and see how many subtypes you will discover and what, if any, commonalities can be found between the representatives of one socionics subtype.

I think that the base function may be underdeveloped and poorly visible to the outside but it still remains your "home base". You may spend most of your time and energy with the other functions but you always start from the base and you return to the base. If the other functions though are much better developed than the base function the tests that rely on the four scales would often point to the wrong type. For example it seems unlikely that Madonna would test as INTJ or Bill Clinton as INTP but it seems to me increasingly plausible that these types may actually be correct. The order of the functions is of crusial importance - their relative strength though may be very unevenly developed. Everything currently remains in a state of flux as I cannot quite find sufficient evidence of my own type. It should be INFJ but it bothers me that I test as INFP and most INFJ descriptions do not seem to fit me very well, so I am still looking for the conclusice proof, perhaps the multifactor test could pin down my type correctly, though I remain skeptical...

[Creepy-]

@ SFVB I intended those questions for kaido sorry for the misunderstanding. But as long as we're here...

Quote:
The funtion most suppressed is the function opposite to the primary function in direction but not in manner (Ne/Si, Ni/Se, Fi/Te, Fe/Ti)


I understand it like this...Te suppresses Fe....Ti suppresses Fi....Ne/Se, Si/Ni.

What I meant is when you read a lot of typology books from say 1930-1970 you see a lot of this "When Ti is dominant Feeling is the most suppressed and undifferentiated of the functions." I want to know how the understanding of that changed in socionics. Why did it go from this type of model:

1-Ti, 2-Ne, 3-Se, 4-Fe to this kind of model 1-Ti, 2-Ne, 3-Fi, 4-Se,
5-Fe, 6-Si, 7-Te, 8-Ni ?

What happened to change the understaning? Connection of certain types of behavior with certain types of actions? If so how can we be sure the connections are correct?