Function A can be extraverted or introverted as long as the function B is the opposite. Function C can be extraverted or introverted as long as D is the opposite. This is one possibility.
Why functions are positive and negative
Function A can be extraverted or introverted as long as the function B is the opposite. Function C can be extraverted or introverted as long as D is the opposite. This is one possibility.
The other possibility is that when functions cross from the introverted to the extraverted world, the polarities change. So this would mean that if one person is sad and depressed on the inside, the would appear to be happy and playful on the outside because a polarity can only exist in one of the introverted and extraverted worlds. The polarities also switch when they go from conscious to unconscious. Comparing function 1 and 7 you would have -Ti /+Te in function 1 and +Ti/-Te in function 7 for INTjs. Basically going from introverted to extraverted is the same as going from conscious to unconscious. As -Ti would exist in the conscious mind +Ti would exist in the unconscious mind. So you could look at it as a single polarity switch or you could look at it as a switch from introversion to extraversion. Basically it would probably be plausible to say that -Ti/+Te in the conscious mind IS +Ti/-Te in the unconscious mind as saying that -Ti is the same as +Te as comparing them both in the conscious mind. Going from conscious to unconscious is like an extraverted to introverted shift.
What I'm wondering about is this: what is the difference between the INTj's ego block Te+ function and his ID block Te- function...? How do you tell the two apart? When is either of the two used? Can YOU intuitively detect when these are in action?
+Te and -Te are like the antithesis of each other. +Te wants to be unlike -Te. INTjs try not be be like -Te for example. 1 dislikes function 7. 2 dislikes function 8.Originally Posted by labcoat
Think about it like this, +Ti is grouping and -Ti is degrouping. To group things together, one must see the parts and group it together as a whole. So in a way for someone with +Ti base function, its like they initially view things as -Ti. -Ti is kind of instinctive for a +Ti user. Now the opposite, -Ti has to see +Ti to degroup. -Ti would initially see things in groups created(possibly by society), then degroup them. Its kind of instinctual initial interpretation.
Well I'm in debate on whether or not both -Ti and +Te are static and dynamic. -Ti could be static and +Te could be dynamic. They could both be static. They could both be dynamic. I'm still in debate over this. My honest opinion, although I'm prepared to be wrong is that -Ti is static and +Te is dynamic.
Are these plus and minus differences actually clearly observable in real life events?
Or is this just theory.
latter.
Thats only because your not smart enough to see it.latter.
If you're going to open things up a bit....why consider the -/+ polarities as being tied to functional ordering/emphasis?
In other words, in traditional Socionics, the difference between Alpha and Gamma NTs is that Alphas emphasize Ne and Ti, whereas Gammas emphasize Ni and Te. But in your system, the difference is that Alphas emphasize Ne+ Ni- Te+ and Ti-, and Gammas the reverse polarities. If that's true, why "lock" it into the other interpretation? Why not rather have 32 types ... i.e.,
Ego block Ti-/Te+ Ne+/Ni- would be one type,
Ego block Ti+/Te- Ne-/Ni+ would be another type,
Ego block Ni+/Ne- Te-/Te+ would be yet another type...
...and so on...
Well thats quite possible, from my observation though it seems that polarities work the same way that extraversion/introversion worked in the old model. You can only have one extraverted positive polarity per block for example.If you're going to open things up a bit....why consider the -/+ polarities as being tied to functional ordering/emphasis?
In other words, in traditional Socionics, the difference between Alpha and Gamma NTs is that Alphas emphasize Ne and Ti, whereas Gammas emphasize Ni and Te. But in your system, the difference is that Alphas emphasize Ne+ Ni- Te+ and Ti-, and Gammas the reverse polarities. If that's true, why "lock" it into the other interpretation? Why not rather have 32 types ... i.e.,
Ego block Ti-/Te+ Ne+/Ni- would be one type,
Ego block Ti+/Te- Ne-/Ni+ would be another type,
Ego block Ni+/Ne- Te-/Te+ would be yet another type...
...and so on...
Basically what Hitta's theories imply, is that an INTj will under certain circumstances behave like an ESTj, and under yet other circumstances like an ENFj. Is this correct?
Te+ necessarily pairs with Si- and Ni- necessarily pairs with Fe+. Either that, or they are regressing rather than advancing versions of either.
I'm asserting that +Te can pair with any negative perceiving introverted function or positive perceiving extraverted function. There could be two dichotomies that one could divide types into based on thinking styles(not content). For instance a type with +extraverted functions in their ego block would process positive or proactive extraverted information. This could just be random thinking, but for -Ti/+Te for INTjs there is two pairs in which it could combine, +Ne/-Ni and +Se/-Si. These are both functions of the same order; both perceiving and both +E/-I. Basically the POLR could be looked at as the alternate function that the ego base function could have connected to. When you compare an INTj to an ESTj you basically have a relationship in which individuals share their most sacred function, and the function in which individuals find the most repulsive. Comparing an INTj to an ISTp you have an opposite functional reaction. You have the repulsive function as a base with the sacred function as its creative liberal function. When I think of the creative function, I think of it as the topic of the base function. The base function is how you see things, and the creative function is the topic of how you see things. Now I don't know if I have defined that +/- aspects of the functions correctly yet, but I am trying to do my best to come to the best conclusion as I can with them, although they may be a bit off for now, but I expect to continue to modify them. For any function to work, one must be able to see the antithesis function instinctively. I gave the example in an earlier post that to be able to use the -Ti de-grouping function one must be able to see things in groups, otherwise a -Ti dominant type would have nothing to de-group. This is similar to how Hegel the concept of ideas, accept I'm relating the antithesis to the unconscious functions. Everyone automatically sees the antithesis of the dominant function instinctively.
Basically I have this idea for a model that combines the Myers-Briggs model with the socionics Model A. Basically I don't think that the creative function is completely conscious, and I don't think that the agenda function 6 is completely unconscious. I think they both "leak" into the conscious and the unconscious. When I think of valued function, I want to know why in the hell are they valued. There has to be a reason. There has to be a reason why model A produces some correct results. There has to be a reason for everything. I find it odd that one values functions 1 and 2 and doesn't value functions 3 and 4. There has to be another distinction. There has to be a reason. We refer to the 1,3,5,7 set as accepting, and the 2,4,6,8 set as producing, and while this works and seems correct, there has to be a reason for it. There has to be a reason that the functions in model A work as they do, and I intend to try to figure it out.
OK, based on the mechanics you are proposing Hitta, I believe I can make a phemonological connection between the "normal" forms ofand the transcendent forms.
Young INTjs (mostly) have an issue with thinking about how they are related to others, because they could potentially misuse this information in their own minds.
What you are saying, as I see it, is that the
Which makes A LOT of sense. It goes a very long way to explaining the phemenology of the transcendental function. I can use this.
Still, I need more details as to what this relationship is and how it works, from the mechanistic standpoint.
What I'm thinking now, is that the transcendental function allows conscious) to view the subconscious pool of manipulation opportunity data (-
This seems to mean that the transcendental function either allows one of two paths: +E to +I and -I to -E, or -I to -E and -E to -I. (whereas I and E mean "introverted" and "extroverted", respectively)
I think it's also quite possible that the understanding of what "values" means has been exaggerated in people's minds. Essentially, what people seem to be saying is that one can't both appreciate when someone is emotionally expressive (Fe) and when someone is focused on being objective and seeking the most effective course of action (Te).
In your system, you divide this further into + and -, but the same issue exists I think; basically, each IM element definition must recognize that it's inherently good and useful, or else the definition is probably biased. But if that's true, then each person should appreciate all IM elements.
What I suspect is that the de-valued functions are "de-valued" in a sense that is much less intense than many people think on the forum. Basically, these are functions that you don't see as playing as direct a role in your main activities as your valued functions. It's not that one hates these functions or fails to recognize that they're a good thing in others.
It's like, if you're focused on doing something, certain things will help you do it, and other things won't. And so if you're focused on that thing a lot of the time, then there's a sort of hierarchy regarding what you consider useful. But at various times a person probably finds all functions good and useful.
Is "valuing" another concept where the original meaning has been completely lost in abstraction?
By saying that functions are only used in a lesser assumption is like saying that lacks the ability to be repulsed by a certain type of functioning or to like a certain type of functioning. If this was the case socionics relationships wouldn't work.I think it's also quite possible that the understanding of what "values" means has been exaggerated in people's minds. Essentially, what people seem to be saying is that one can't both appreciate when someone is emotionally expressive (Fe) and when someone is focused on being objective and seeking the most effective course of action (Te).
In your system, you divide this further into + and -, but the same issue exists I think; basically, each IM element definition must recognize that it's inherently good and useful, or else the definition is probably biased. But if that's true, then each person should appreciate all IM elements.
What I suspect is that the de-valued functions are "de-valued" in a sense that is much less intense than many people think on the forum. Basically, these are functions that you don't see as playing as direct a role in your main activities as your valued functions. It's not that one hates these functions or fails to recognize that they're a good thing in others.
It's like, if you're focused on doing something, certain things will help you do it, and other things won't. And so if you're focused on that thing a lot of the time, then there's a sort of hierarchy regarding what you consider useful. But at various times a person probably finds all functions good and useful.
Why not? If you need certain things more than others, that can explain why certain relationships work better than others.
One thing by the way that people often leave out in Socionics is that people are probably more put off by others' weaknesses than others' strengths. I don't think people are really put off by the fact that someone is analytical, caring, realistic, objective, expressive, insightful, etc. People are put off because others are illogical, uncaring, unrealistic, misleading, lacking in expression, boring. In other words, it isn't the strong functions that create the biggest conflicts, but the weak ones.
Thats the thing though about how functions work, when one uses their base function all of the accepting functions manifest themselves. For instance, when -Ni/+Ne is being used it is seeking and has a -Se/+Si agenda. This would mean that when they are using that function they would have a weak or role +Se/-Si function, meaning that when they use -Ni/+Ne they kind of block off +Se/-Si. Think about an eclipse, when the eclipse happens, something is blocked off or unseeable. -Ni/+Ne eclipses +Se/-Si, seeks -Se/+Si. Instinctively +Ni/-Ne must see the problem or the thing that -Ni/+Ne will function on. Its like all the functions work together. A person is put off by the entire chain. If someone hated -Ni/+Ne they would hate each of the 1,3,5,7 functions in their respective positions. If someone had a -Ni/+Ne POLR, they would hate them all in each spot.Why not? If you need certain things more than others, that can explain why certain relationships work better than others.
One thing by the way that people often leave out in Socionics is that people are probably more put off by others' weaknesses than others' strengths. I don't think people are really put off by the fact that someone is analytical, caring, realistic, objective, expressive, insightful, etc. People are put off because others are illogical, uncaring, unrealistic, misleading, lacking in expression, boring. In other words, it isn't the strong functions that create the biggest conflicts, but the weak ones.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote