Questions

[Ezra]

Is valuing a function being skilled in it and preferring to use it?

Does one still value a function if they use it unintentionally or if it comes naturally to them (even if they see it as a curse)?

Can one be a certain type that traditionally devalues certain functions, but actually values these functions? And vice versa?

[Slacker]

Valuing means that between two related functions (ie Fi and Fe) you like one better than the other, regardless of whether you're skilled at it. If you are a T type, for instance, you are skilled at both Te and Ti, but you value one of them and don't value the other - not that you dislike it, you just don't place any particular value on it; you take it for granted. Also, if you are a T type, you also value either Fi or Fe, but you aren't skilled in either. Sometimes I think the ones you aren't skilled in can be easier to spot because you really like one and really dislike the other. In the case of functions you aren't skilled at, you would look for your response to it or whether you appear to seek it rather than your performance at it.

Anyway, really it works best when comparing introverted and extraverted functions, Si vs Se, Ti vs Te, Fi vs Fe, and Ni vs Ne.

As to your last question - not if socionics works. It would be more likely, assuming Socionics has truth to it, that you simply misunderstood which function you were looking at.

[Ezra]

THANKYOU.

Si > Se for me. That's the first one I'm certain of.

Now, people say they see Ti and Fe with me. That may be the case. But I certainly see Te and Fi as more worthy of my time.

Ni/Ne I'm uncertain of.

[Slacker]

You know, I have to say I'm reconsidering my initial reaction to you. You have seemed much less abrasive lately (at least to me) and you haven't been reacting to Ne as I thought you would. I've kind of tested you a couple of times and you didn't bite. So I am open to the idea of you being some type that values Ne.

[Slacker]

I've kind of tested you a couple of times and you didn't bite. So I am open to the idea of you being some type that values Ne.

(Let's see.) Where do babies come from anyway?

Here's my example: He posted something saying that only certain types of people would ever be interested in Socionics, and only for a few very specific reasons. I said he lacks imagination, and there could be millions of reasons why different types might be interested in it. Dozens would probably have been more accurate, but whatever. Anyway, he didn't respond to that, so he didn't seem bothered by it, and then I read a post where he said that a type he had previously said couldn't be interested in Socionics could be, and maybe for this reason or this. That looked to me like someone who values Ne but isn't skilled at it.

[Ezra]

You know, I have to say I'm reconsidering my initial reaction to you.

The benefits of Aristocracy, eh?

[Ezra]

I've kind of tested you a couple of times and you didn't bite. So I am open to the idea of you being some type that values Ne.

(Let's see.) Where do babies come from anyway?

Here's my example: He posted something saying that only certain types of people would ever be interested in Socionics, and only for a few very specific reasons. I said he lacks imagination, and there could be millions of reasons why different types might be interested in it. Dozens would probably have been more accurate, but whatever. Anyway, he didn't respond to that, so he didn't seem bothered by it, and then I read a post where he said that a type he had previously said couldn't be interested in Socionics could be, and maybe for this reason or this. That looked to me like someone who values Ne but isn't skilled at it.

You can add Fi to that. I am not good in Fi (I know that much), and yet I do value it. Far more than Fe at least. For example, I'd rather be skilled in knowing what one needs than emotional manipulation of one or more people.

[detail]

You can add Fi to that. I am not good in Fi (I know that much), and yet I do value it. Far more than Fe at least. For example, I'd rather be skilled in knowing what one needs than emotional manipulation of one or more people.

Most people value more "knowing what one needs" than "emotional manipulation" even though all of these people don't necessarily value . The reason for that is that the two concepts do not equal to and .

[Slacker]

Yeah, in fact I bet someone who values Fe would call Fi "emotional manipulation" and Fe "knowing what one needs".

People can manipulate with Fe or Fi - they might manipulate differently with each of those but manipulation is manipulation. And people can need Fe or Fi, depending on which they value.

[Ezra]

You can add Fi to that. I am not good in Fi (I know that much), and yet I do value it. Far more than Fe at least. For example, I'd rather be skilled in knowing what one needs than emotional manipulation of one or more people.

Most people value more "knowing what one needs" than "emotional manipulation" even though all of these people don't necessarily value . The reason for that is that the two concepts do not equal to and .

I thought they did. For example, I think some people would actually think emotional manipulation techniques would be more useful than seeing chemistry between people.

Yeah, in fact I bet someone who values Fe would call Fi "emotional manipulation" and Fe "knowing what one needs".

This seems a strange way of seeing Fi and Fe. I could never really understand someone who thought in this way. To me, Fe is superficial and it's about getting the crowd on your side. Fi is more about the deeper, inner feelings of a person. It's about chemistry, and things which are actually happening; that which is actually there.

[Ezra]

Both may be important on some level, but if you had to pick one individual that was you, which one would it really be, Ezra? (Pick either the first one or the second one.)

The individual longs for situations where people are having fun, laughing and joking, and feel emotionally free and spontaneous. However, he is generally unable to produce this atmosphere himself and uses other means to create situations where there is a good chance that others will take the emotional initiative and create a fun and emotionally stimulating atmosphere. Failure at such attempts are met with dismay, which the individual either hides or reacts to with frustration and annoyance.

The individual is attracted to persons who value clear and unambiguous personal relationships with others and who follow a clear set of ethical principles, which gives them credibility and makes them deserving of trust in the individual's eyes. The individual is easily made insecure about the status of personal relationships and needs frequent reassurance that the other person's feelings have not changed.

The second one. You have my word.

The first I place little emphasis on, and it can even annoy me at times. I hate it when people try say things like "join the fun!", "smmmiiiiiilllllllle!", "get to the bar you boring sod!" and "we are going to get as much alcohol down you as possible". I'm sure they're intentions are good, and I'm also sure they're appealing to Fe dual seeking people, but it really puts me off going anywhere where that kind of atmosphere will be prevailent.

[detail]

I thought they did. For example, I think some people would actually think emotional manipulation techniques would be more useful than seeing chemistry between people.

Yes some people lack empathy/sympathy but it's not related to . Also your example doesn't support your interpretation at all. I guess you meant that everyone who "think emotional manipulation techniques would be more useful than seeing chemistry between people" were and everyone else was , which is not the case.

Yeah, in fact I bet someone who values Fe would call Fi "emotional manipulation" and Fe "knowing what one needs".

I've seen it happen.

This seems a strange way of seeing Fi and Fe. I could never really understand someone who thought in this way. To me, Fe is superficial and it's about getting the crowd on your side. Fi is more about the deeper, inner feelings of a person. It's about chemistry, and things which are actually happening; that which is actually there.

The deeper feelings of a person come "before" the functions. Both and are about things that are actually there if one values one or the other. Getting the crowd on your side is related to though, but not necessarily superficial.

[Ezra]

Yes some people lack empathy/sympathy but it's not related to .

No, it's related to Fi.

EDIT: Fi is related to empathy and sympathy, not a lack of it, sorry.

[Joy]

Is valuing a function being skilled in it and preferring to use it?

No. It means seeing that aspect of reality as being more important than other parts, generally speaking. If you value Ne/Si, you will generally find information from Ne/Si to be more important than information from Ni/Se. But you will not be skilled in both Ne AND Si.

Does one still value a function if they use it unintentionally or if it comes naturally to them (even if they see it as a curse)?

You're talking about strong functions or possibly conscious functions, not valued functions.

Can one be a certain type that traditionally devalues certain functions, but actually values these functions? And vice versa?

We all value every aspect of reality... we just value some aspects more than others.



Here's the breakdown:

1st and 2nd functions: Valued, Strong, Conscious (These are areas that are important to you, that you're actively aware of, and you're confident in.)
3rd and 4th functions: Unvalued, Weak, Conscious (These are areas that are unimportant to you, that you're actively aware of, and that you're not confident in.)
5th and 6th functions: Valued, Weak, Unconscious (These are areas that are important to you, that you're less aware of, and that you're not confident in.)
7th and 8th functions: Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious (These are areas that are unimportant to you, that you less aware of, and that you're confident in.)

[Joy]

Yes some people lack empathy/sympathy but it's not related to .

No, it's related to Fi.

It's related to Fi, Fe, and Ne/Si (in that Delta Fi is more sympathetic than Gamma Fi, and Alpha Fe is more sympathetic than Beta Fe).

[Ezra]

Here's the breakdown:

1st and 2nd functions: Valued, Strong, Conscious (These are areas that are important to you, that you're actively aware of, and you're confident in.)
3rd and 4th functions: Unvalued, Weak, Conscious (These are areas that are unimportant to you, that you're actively aware of, and that you're not confident in.)
5th and 6th functions: Valued, Weak, Unconscious (These are areas that are important to you, that you're less aware of, and that you're not confident in.)
7th and 8th functions: Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious (These are areas that are unimportant to you, that you less aware of, and that you're confident in.)

Thank you, Joy.

When people claim that I value Se and Ti, I disagree. However, this does not mean that they are not strong. This is why I consider LSE to be a possibility. I think Se and Ti could be my 7th and 8th functions. Notice how every time someone takes me up on my Ti I am annoyed. This is because I'd rather not be seen as someone who utilises Ti. The same case can be made for Se, although it is more hazy. I'm not sure what I think of Se to be honest.

[Joy]

Another important thing to keep in mind is that we generally take our 1st function for granted. It's more like... we think through it instead of about it. It's natural and automatic, not something be pay a lot of attention to.

[Ezra]

Another important thing to keep in mind is that we generally take our 1st function for granted. It's more like... we think through it instead of about it. It's natural and automatic, not something be pay a lot of attention to.

What do you mean we take it for granted?

[leckysupport]

You know, I have to say I'm reconsidering my initial reaction to you. You have seemed much less abrasive lately (at least to me) and you haven't been reacting to Ne as I thought you would. I've kind of tested you a couple of times and you didn't bite. So I am open to the idea of you being some type that values Ne.

I don't think you can type on those types of interactions. For example you slightly annoy me for no real particular reason and I'm sure it's the same the other way round.

[Slacker]

You know, I have to say I'm reconsidering my initial reaction to you. You have seemed much less abrasive lately (at least to me) and you haven't been reacting to Ne as I thought you would. I've kind of tested you a couple of times and you didn't bite. So I am open to the idea of you being some type that values Ne.

I don't think you can type on those types of interactions. For example you slightly annoy me for no real particular reason and I'm sure it's the same the other way round.

Yes, you are correct that you annoy me.

I gave an example where I used Ne and he seemed to respond positively to it. Obviously that it's 100% but it's related to functions so it's better than a lot of typing information here. I don't personally care whether you see value in it.

[leckysupport]

You know, I have to say I'm reconsidering my initial reaction to you. You have seemed much less abrasive lately (at least to me) and you haven't been reacting to Ne as I thought you would. I've kind of tested you a couple of times and you didn't bite. So I am open to the idea of you being some type that values Ne.

I don't think you can type on those types of interactions. For example you slightly annoy me for no real particular reason and I'm sure it's the same the other way round.

Yes, you are correct that you annoy me.

I gave an example where I used Ne and he seemed to respond positively to it. Obviously that it's 100% but it's related to functions so it's better than a lot of typing information here. I don't personally care whether you see value in it.

Everything that is related functionally and is supposed to effect relationships in the model doesn't always appear in reality. Don't know why, just doesn't.

[BLauritson]

Ezra: Based purely on what's been written in this thread, I think Delta ST is most likely for you. I was initially thinking ISTp but then I figured there's nothing I've seen here to suggest ISTp>ESTj or the other way around. That's purely what I've read in this thread though, and assuming that all the assertions people have made have been accurate. I'm not taking anything outside of this thread into account when I say this.

Just my thoughts, feel free to discard them as necessary.

[Ezra]

Let me show you my original description. It was very poorly written, and I didn't think about what I was saying.

I'm an 8 (unknown wing) sp/sx/so on the Enneagram.

I'm loud, dominating and often very aggressive. I can also be very laid-back, laconic and can let things go if I'm in a more self-aware frame of mind. I like parties, but only once I'm at them - then the party begins. I don't like leaving people out of things, I like to be inclusive. I can be quite selfish and/or self-preservationist at times. I don't like being controlled, and don't mind taking control if it is necessary and/or a vacant position. I've been known to be cold-hearted and detached, and I'm impartial to romantic relationships and the relationship with my whole family. I often make lists, mainly about what I want to find out on the net i.e. on Wikipedia. I love to read, listen to music (but almost always while I'm doing something) and watch films. I'm happy to analyse them critically. I like Philosophy, but only when it has some sort of practical application. I can be very general/sweeping, but only for pragmatism or practicality's sake. I cut corners occasionally to get things done. I can get locked into a game/discussion/work for hours on end, and I often enjoy it IF it's productive/has some sort of reward at the end, like the feeling of having done something which is a) intense and b) good for me. I like to run and work out for that reason. I'm not always particularly systematic or logical in my reasoning. I don't like vagueness (even though I am often this). I like to find out about things that interest me. I occasionally can't articulate what I want or am feeling, but generally nearly always can. I can be quite the orator, and with a bit of practice, a good rhetorician. I'm intellectual. I've been called arrogant in the past, and although I don't admit that I am, I often question other people as to why they think that, and I generally like to make people think I'm arrogant for fun. I rarely think I'm wrong. My career choices are law and/or politics.

Don't jump ahead yet. What would be your initial thoughts based on that?

Now, let me rewrite it so that it actually represents the way I am.

I'm an 8 sp/sx/so on the Enneagram.

In conversation with those my age, I'm loud, and often seem very dominating and aggressive. Friends have commented on the way I sound consistently confrontational whatever I say, even if I ask a basic question. I'm not really aggressive; it's just the way I say things in a straightforward and tactless manner that makes it seem that way. I dominate the conversation by using my incredible loud voice, but if I'm aware of my domination, I'll take a back seat or try and include others in the conversation. This is, however, a very recent development. I take the appearance of a laid-back, patient and laconic person - I look like an 8w9. I can let things go if I'm in this more self-aware frame of mind. I like it when there is someone to draw the reigns in; someone to say "Ezra - calm down".

I like parties, but only if the people are interesting. I don't like superficial surface talk at all, although I can cope with it to a degree. I like clubbing, but only in small doses, and only to the kind of music I enjoy - house and quality dance/trance music. I don't like leaving people out of things, I like to be inclusive. For example, if we're dancing in a group and I see someone who's not in the circle, I'll make space for them so that they are. I like to see that everyone's having a good time. I despise being led; I like to take charge. I don't like it when people try to include me dancing or doing active things - I can include myself if I wish.

I like philosophy, but only when it has some sort of practical application. Basically, I can study critical thinking, because it's good to be able to argue well. Rationality is important to me - I don't like being seen as someone who does things spontaneously or impulsively, because - for the most part - this is not me. I love to discuss politics or philosophy with people for hours on end, primarily with much older people, because I enjoy mature and intelligent conversations, and this is where I can find it. It also gives me an incentive to be aware of people. I'm much more well-behaved with those older than me. When I'm around my friends, I become more rowdy, but I tend to think this is because they egg me on. They're not used to my informal and challenging style; they're almost taken aback by it. I'm not adept at doing or saying things 'at the right time'. If something's on my mind, I say it - simple as. I don't perceive this as 'wrong' in any way.

I like to pursue my interests alone, unless I think that my friends might enjoy something I have, like music or film. If they show interest, I'll introduce them to the Enneagram or socionics or whatever, but most of the time I like to keep it to myself.

[BLauritson]

Let me show you my original description. It was very poorly written, and I didn't think about what I was saying.

I'm an 8 (unknown wing) sp/sx/so on the Enneagram.

I'm loud, dominating and often very aggressive. I can also be very laid-back, laconic and can let things go if I'm in a more self-aware frame of mind. I like parties, but only once I'm at them - then the party begins. I don't like leaving people out of things, I like to be inclusive. I can be quite selfish and/or self-preservationist at times. I don't like being controlled, and don't mind taking control if it is necessary and/or a vacant position. I've been known to be cold-hearted and detached, and I'm impartial to romantic relationships and the relationship with my whole family. I often make lists, mainly about what I want to find out on the net i.e. on Wikipedia. I love to read, listen to music (but almost always while I'm doing something) and watch films. I'm happy to analyse them critically. I like Philosophy, but only when it has some sort of practical application. I can be very general/sweeping, but only for pragmatism or practicality's sake. I cut corners occasionally to get things done. I can get locked into a game/discussion/work for hours on end, and I often enjoy it IF it's productive/has some sort of reward at the end, like the feeling of having done something which is a) intense and b) good for me. I like to run and work out for that reason. I'm not always particularly systematic or logical in my reasoning. I don't like vagueness (even though I am often this). I like to find out about things that interest me. I occasionally can't articulate what I want or am feeling, but generally nearly always can. I can be quite the orator, and with a bit of practice, a good rhetorician. I'm intellectual. I've been called arrogant in the past, and although I don't admit that I am, I often question other people as to why they think that, and I generally like to make people think I'm arrogant for fun. I rarely think I'm wrong. My career choices are law and/or politics.

Don't jump ahead yet. What would be your initial thoughts based on that?

I got a mixture of things really, the first parts about things like the being loud, dominating and aggressive suggested Beta Se to me; not wanting to be controlled also suggests general Se. Basically I get a kind of Beta ST feeling from the first half of that description, although I get glimpses of Si and Fe (not simultaneously) elsewhere in the description (Fe I got from the party aspect, Si I got from "like the feeling of having done something which is a) intense and b) good for me. I like to run and work out for that reason".

Now, let me rewrite it so that it actually represents the way I am.

I'm an 8 sp/sx/so on the Enneagram.

In conversation with those my age, I'm loud, and often seem very dominating and aggressive. Friends have commented on the way I sound consistently confrontational whatever I say, even if I ask a basic question. I'm not really aggressive; it's just the way I say things in a straightforward and tactless manner that makes it seem that way. I dominate the conversation by using my incredible loud voice, but if I'm aware of my domination, I'll take a back seat or try and include others in the conversation. This is, however, a very recent development. I take the appearance of a laid-back, patient and laconic person - I look like an 8w9. I can let things go if I'm in this more self-aware frame of mind. I like it when there is someone to draw the reigns in; someone to say "Ezra - calm down".

Hmm.. I'm not certain on this, but I think weak Fe has a place in this. It may involve Se also, I'm not sure, but I also don't know whether either of these two are necessarily valued. I think either Fe or Fi could be valued in this example, but weak feeling is apparent to me in this one. I just don't know where the two functions would be located in Model-A.

I like parties, but only if the people are interesting. I don't like superficial surface talk at all, although I can cope with it to a degree. I like clubbing, but only in small doses, and only to the kind of music I enjoy - house and quality dance/trance music. I don't like leaving people out of things, I like to be inclusive. For example, if we're dancing in a group and I see someone who's not in the circle, I'll make space for them so that they are. I like to see that everyone's having a good time. I despise being led; I like to take charge. I don't like it when people try to include me dancing or doing active things - I can include myself if I wish.

I'm definitely thinking Fe>Fi here, since you're trying to include everyone rather than selecting specific people. Saying that though, writing towards the latter end made me think it could be Delta Fi (I think I've read elsewhere before now that Delta Fi tries to be all-inclusive, but I'm not certain on this). Pleasant sensations appear to be important to you, so I'm thinking Si>Se, but then there's also that you mention you hate being led, which suggests to me Se>Si. Bearing in mind I'm assuming everything here is Socionics-related, I've mentioned elsewhere recently I don't know how to differentiate confidently between Socionics and non-Socionics behaviours.

I like philosophy, but only when it has some sort of practical application. Basically, I can study critical thinking, because it's good to be able to argue well. Rationality is important to me - I don't like being seen as someone who does things spontaneously or impulsively, because - for the most part - this is not me. I love to discuss politics or philosophy with people for hours on end, primarily with much older people, because I enjoy mature and intelligent conversations, and this is where I can find it. It also gives me an incentive to be aware of people. I'm much more well-behaved with those older than me. When I'm around my friends, I become more rowdy, but I tend to think this is because they egg me on. They're not used to my informal and challenging style; they're almost taken aback by it. I'm not adept at doing or saying things 'at the right time'. If something's on my mind, I say it - simple as. I don't perceive this as 'wrong' in any way.

You mention practicality, that suggests some sort of ST to me (not that they're the only ones concerned with practicality though). I'm not sure whether your social behaviour suggests observance of Fi or Fe here. I'm sort of thinking Fi, but I can't really explain why, it's just an intuitive haze.

I like to pursue my interests alone, unless I think that my friends might enjoy something I have, like music or film. If they show interest, I'll introduce them to the Enneagram or socionics or whatever, but most of the time I like to keep it to myself.

I'd guess that's just to do with conservatism in general, which I know is common for Delta STs but I don't know about other types in this regard.

Welp, I'm not 100% confident in all my functional analysis there (especially relating to Fe and Fi) but I'm still thinking Delta ST for you, although I'm not sure between ISTp and ESTj. I'm sort of thinking ESTj but I can't explain why; again it's just an intuitive haze for me.

Welp, there you go, this is the first time I've felt confident enough to publicly try to type someone with functional analysis. Feel privileged

[Ezra]

I do. Well done. That was a good analysis. I've seen much, much worse.

Your reasoning may be a bit annoying to hardcore logical types ("I have an intuitive haze"), but there is a lot of stuff which is based on the "P1, P2 therefore C" model.

[BLauritson]

Yeah.. it often takes me a while to be able to formulate my knowledge or thoughts into words, which is one reason why I'm normally iffy about doing type analyses (interestingly enough though, I seem to be quite accurate in typing people I know personally, yet I'd find it much harder to describe exactly how I arrived at those types). But I figured it's better to give too much than too little information, plus I didn't want to leave any aspects ignored.