Ego block vs Id block

[UDP]

What are ways to tell or explain whether a function is in the id or ego block?

[tcaudilllg]

The id is alternatingly bitingly aggressive, and extremely conciliatory. The 7th function is the aggressive one, the 8th function the conciliatory one. The Ego block functions are social, but very... ordinary in comparison to the id block.

[munenori2]

By aggressive/conciliatory, how so? For example, the / of an INFj is aggressive/concilatory in what kind of sense (with regards to interacting with others, etc). Are you saying that these functions are linked in a sort of take/give sort of way that is more prounounced than the ego?

[tcaudilllg]

By aggressive/conciliatory, how so? For example, the / of an INFj is aggressive/concilatory in what kind of sense (with regards to interacting with others, etc). Are you saying that these functions are linked in a sort of take/give sort of way that is more prounounced than the ego?

The New Testament is a good comparative source, because either tendency is extreme in Jesus. Jesus used his Fe instincts to get in people's heads, and forecast their choices in the company of others. Ni 8th function is essentially a sense of destiny or absolute outcome, because it ties together all the different instinct observations of the 7th function into a highly predicative vision.

It uses instinct (+Fe and negative -Fi observations) as a base from which to calculate the relations of Se wills in Ni time. Although it cannot directly forecast the actual scene itself (as in, like, a window into the future), the INFj id block is a highly reliable behavioral predictor.

[munenori2]

Interesting. Very demonstative answer for me.

[ConcreteButterfly]

The ID block reacts before conscious thought, and is mostly non verbal.

Also the 7th function becomes aggressive only when there is pressure on the mobilizing function, otherwise it is quite compliant. The 8th function only becomes conciliatory when there is no pressure on the POLR, otherwise it dominates.

[Myst]

The ID block reacts before conscious thought, and is mostly non verbal.

Yes exactly, though this may be hard to determine in others right away before seeing trends over time.

Also the 7th function becomes aggressive only when there is pressure on the mobilizing function, otherwise it is quite compliant. The 8th function only becomes conciliatory when there is no pressure on the POLR, otherwise it dominates.

In what sense is it aggressive and conciliatory?...

[ConcreteButterfly]

Yes exactly, though this may be hard to determine in others right away before seeing trends over time.




In what sense is it aggressive and conciliatory?...

7th function is aggressive in the sense that it controls information which doesn't support the base function. It either filters it out completely, or resists it. It works together with the role function.

It becomes conciliatory when there is no pressure on the mobilizing function, which itself depends on the suggestive. Then it is unusually receptive and accommodating, even sacrificing itself (to an extent) for the sake of the other. Basically, the mobilizing function has to be continuously "charged" by the suggestive, otherwise it rapidly loses energy and becomes as brittle as ice, and this is revealed by the 7th function "locking down", becoming impenetrable to information that would drain the mobilizing further.

8th function is dominating in the sense that it subconsciously notes where other people are most vulnerable, and hits them at that exact point when their POLR is attacked.

It becomes conciliatory and accommodating to the extent the POLR is defended; it adapts to the other, becoming exactly what makes them feel safe. It responds spontaneously to unspoken wishes, unexpressed expectations. It continues to monitor people's weak spots though, so remains a dormant weapon.

[Myst]

7th function is aggressive in the sense that it controls information which doesn't support the base function. It either filters it out completely, or resists it. It works together with the role function.

It becomes conciliatory when there is no pressure on the mobilizing function, which itself depends on the suggestive. Then it is unusually receptive and accommodating, even sacrificing itself (to an extent) for the sake of the other. Basically, the mobilizing function has to be continuously "charged" by the suggestive, otherwise it rapidly loses energy and becomes as brittle as ice, and this is revealed by the 7th function "locking down", becoming impenetrable to information that would drain the mobilizing further.

8th function is dominating in the sense that it subconsciously notes where other people are most vulnerable, and hits them at that exact point when their POLR is attacked.

It becomes conciliatory and accommodating to the extent the POLR is defended; it adapts to the other, becoming exactly what makes them feel safe. It responds spontaneously to unspoken wishes, unexpressed expectations. It continues to monitor people's weak spots though, so remains a dormant weapon.

Ok, I'm curious, where are these ideas from?

[chemical]

The way I see it, to some extent a function is a function, and we cannot really separate the raw knowledge into I and E parts, i.e. to some extent logical knowledge is simply logical -- this is why both id and ego have to be strong to facilitate processing of the major info type.

However, the fact is that our ego and psychology are always perceiving the information we rawly process in a certain way, so while the id stuff happens easily, it isn't seen as the "point" of the processing, i.e. the ego is the part that drives and directs the processing according to its attitudinal focus.

I personally think though that the ego isn't ambiverted in all cases, so I don't think of the creative as necessarily "equally" egoic as the base, but I still think the basic premise is OK, in that it is true that any given J operation tends in practice to be related to some P, thus acquires a relative importance.
My preference is that in case this isn't always the case in one person, to say they don't wholly fit one type, but may fit one type best and another lesser.

This also means, by the way, that the demonstrative is only demonstrative in so much as the person is strong on rational-irrational!!! Consciousness and type, IMHO, are not static, they are dynamic just like Jung said, so the static models of Aushra work well mainly to conceptualize relatively stable phases of consciousness (and of course, some may remain in those almost all the time with no other pronounced ones).

[Myst]

The way I see it, to some extent a function is a function, and we cannot really separate the raw knowledge into I and E parts, i.e. to some extent logical knowledge is simply logical -- this is why both id and ego have to be strong to facilitate processing of the major info type.

Give me such examples where logical knowledge is just logical? Or do you mean it's logic where both attitudes are required at the same time to process it?

I personally think though that the ego isn't ambiverted in all cases, so I don't think of the creative as necessarily "equally" egoic as the base, but I still think the basic premise is OK, in that it is true that any given J operation tends in practice to be related to some P, thus acquires a relative importance.
My preference is that in case this isn't always the case in one person, to say they don't wholly fit one type, but may fit one type best and another lesser.

Model A actually says the creative is not as egoic as the leading function. It's a bit further from the centre of ego compared to the leading function.

There is individual variation about such distance of course. Subtype theories further emphasize this (inert/contact and accepting/producing subtype theories).

This also means, by the way, that the demonstrative is only demonstrative in so much as the person is strong on rational-irrational!!!

Why do you link that to clear rational/irrational preference? What happens if someone is not strong on that? What is it then if not demonstrative? I don't see how from that it follows that the demonstrative becomes conscious or gets extinguished or whatever you were thinking of.

I'm not strong on the rational/irrational divide myself but my demonstrative is an unconscious devalued demonstrative background alright.

Consciousness and type, IMHO, are not static, they are dynamic just like Jung said, so the static models of Aushra work well mainly to conceptualize relatively stable phases of consciousness (and of course, some may remain in those almost all the time with no other pronounced ones).

What is static in one given moment is the underlying structure on top of which dynamic mental processing happens. The brain does change over time of course. If there are constraints on how much change is possible and what kind of change is possible then that introduces some staticness into type. And we do know of such constraints.

[chemical]

I'm not strong on the rational/irrational divide myself but my demonstrative is an unconscious devalued demonstrative background alright.

Yeah, but in your case, I think the better way to explain your type is to go with 2 different Jungian type blueprints, due to the fact that you strongly ego-identify with 2 functions in opposite attitudes.
In fact, it's not at all surprising to me that you sorta think you can switch between 2 types/modes.

My point is basically the assumptions of the model (e.g. that the secondary function in same attitude is considered demonstrative) seem to make most sense if the top function-attitude/IE/whatever is held as quite absolute. Otherwise, I find someone who has both strong T and strong N might be better described using 2 separate models than by just saying they have a strong creative.

I generally don't think it makes sense to assume the second most strong+valued thing is in the opposite attitude unless the top/base/dominant is in the first place pretty strongly preferred over the secondary -- or technically one should not assume even then, but there's better reason to expect it perhaps. I think the reason it's in the opposite attitude in the first place is as compensation due to an overly prominent dominant -- not that it necessarily must be. And if the secondary isn't in the opposite attitude of the dominant, the purported "demonstrative" might end up being closer to an auxiliary.... but I tend to think in such cases it's more likely the person will sort of sprout off a new type which they sometimes enter.

Basically there are 3 cases:

1) classical: main function-attitude is very prominent, and the opposite attitude and the secondary function both repressed mostly
2) Myst -- where there's a balance of rational/irrational but the ego seems to have 2 attitudes of prominent strength (each carried by its own function of consciousness)
3) Cases Jung typed with 2 strong functions in the same attitude as the main ones of the ego

[ConcreteButterfly]

Ok, I'm curious, where are these ideas from?

Mostly Ausra's writings and my own observations, but they aren't conclusive, so take them with a grain of salt. What's your own opinion about distinguishing ego from id?

[chemical]

Or do you mean it's logic where both attitudes are required at the same time to process it?

Yeah roughly this, as Jung said, even Kant and so on were still only demonstrating a relative predominance of introverted > extraverted thinking.
I tend to see the 4 functions Jung started with as different domains with different types of validity recognized by the brain, whereas the attitudes as more relevant once we ask how it is the ego is actually driving the processing.

The subtlety is socionics doesn't just present Te as another attitude to T, it actually marks off the typical cognitive process underlying it.
Thus, in Jung, you could JUST say the ego goes with Ti, vs here you have to stipulate that in fact, the process undergone by Te still happens, but it doesn't correspond to the ego's perspective on what the true purpose of processing is -- thus it's called unconscious.

[Myst]

Mostly Ausra's writings and my own observations, but they aren't conclusive, so take them with a grain of salt. What's your own opinion about distinguishing ego from id?

Degree of willingness to verbalize the information. And yes, also, degree of conscious control overall, where ID does only show the results while you have the whole process under conscious control for Ego.

Do you know Russian well or what writings are those?

I think I got the idea overall but, curious, can you write some scenarios where you've seen it play out like that, preferably for Te ignoring and Fi role? Also, what sort of weak spots would Si demonstrative see in others?

[Myst]

Yeah, but in your case, I think the better way to explain your type is to go with 2 different Jungian type blueprints, due to the fact that you strongly ego-identify with 2 functions in opposite attitudes.
In fact, it's not at all surprising to me that you sorta think you can switch between 2 types/modes.

It's more like two modes, not two types in Socionics. I don't suddenly improve on my weaker points (Ne/Fe) in either mode, they remain still one-dimensional. Etc.

I'm not sure if in the Jungian framework it would be two types, I don't actually think so though because I never rejected/repressed Ni as much as Jung's Se-dom does.

So it's more like emphases change to a degree but it's change that's restricted still, within certain limits. In my case and in anyone else's case, though it remains to be seen if those limits manifested in a person are always compatible with typology frameworks.

My point is basically the assumptions of the model (e.g. that the secondary function in same attitude is considered demonstrative) seem to make most sense if the top function-attitude/IE/whatever is held as quite absolute. Otherwise, I find someone who has both strong T and strong N might be better described using 2 separate models than by just saying they have a strong creative.

I'm not convinced of this. In Socionics's framework it's still demonstrative function in my case as changes in focus between different moments during the day do not seem to go beyond the restrictions established in Model A

I generally don't think it makes sense to assume the second most strong+valued thing is in the opposite attitude unless the top/base/dominant is in the first place pretty strongly preferred over the secondary -- or technically one should not assume even then, but there's better reason to expect it perhaps. I think the reason it's in the opposite attitude in the first place is as compensation due to an overly prominent dominant -- not that it necessarily must be. And if the secondary isn't in the opposite attitude of the dominant, the purported "demonstrative" might end up being closer to an auxiliary.... but I tend to think in such cases it's more likely the person will sort of sprout off a new type which they sometimes enter.

What do you call an auxiliary? Because the demonstrative in a jungian sense is pretty much a standard auxiliary function. It's always subservient to the dominant function.

I actually view the socionics demonstrative as one of the jungian auxiliaries, the one that's never independent from the dominant function due to it being in the same attitude as the dominant. The other auxiliary has the opposite attitude so it can be more independent in that sense. Its development is optional, though.

Basically there are 3 cases:

1) classical: main function-attitude is very prominent, and the opposite attitude and the secondary function both repressed mostly
2) Myst -- where there's a balance of rational/irrational but the ego seems to have 2 attitudes of prominent strength (each carried by its own function of consciousness)
3) Cases Jung typed with 2 strong functions in the same attitude as the main ones of the ego

Classical one sounds like the inert subtype in Socionics.

Second one, well hahaha.. it's the contact subtype, I guess.

The third one seems like it is incompatible with Model A if we assume both functions are valued in the Socionics sense. If that's what you meant then I'm curious to see how that plays out in real life. Do you know anyone on this forum who you think fits this case?

[chemical]

Blegh this was long and I didn't want that. Edited post --

I just think the key is to remember that the issue of the secondary function and its consciousness is the sticky part here. I know you don't require demonstrative to ever leave that position, but really that's because you are sufficiently identified with 2 attitudes of 2 functions. There is no way to differentiate Si, because an aspect of you is strongly identified with Se.

Whereas, in classical Jungian theory, the reason the secondary retains energy in the opposite attitude at all in the first place is that it is unable to be wholly subsumed into the ego's agenda... thus some portion remains aloof, and relatively unconscious.
It wouldn't make any sense to say the ego is actually identified with the secondary in the opposite attitude....it would be safer to describe this saying each is a separate mode, to which one can apply the rules, or if more rigid, that anything allowable by the ego always is in the same attitude (which the more orthodox crowd follow).

Interestingly one of Jung's associates did write of a feeling dominant lady who eventually grew more identified with intuition in a phase of life, but still traces of the "natural type" existed -- they simply weren't the current/living/functional type at all times. The idea that the ego is a static construct can be a problem. I tend to agree with Jung and Jungians that the ego is not a static construct, but that you can use static constructs to model relatively uniform and unchanging phases of consciousness -- the ones most important at least.

All this is very natural once we realize that generally speaking it was very common in Jungian speak to treat 2 highly differentiated functions in the same attitude. Whether or not it's compatible with model A, I certainly use the idea myself.

[chemical]

I do apologize if this is convoluted to follow, because I do seem to have really been hung up on this point in Jung's theory since he was sparse in detail on it, and it somehow really interested me.

The gist of it is this dual nature of the secondary... it is both, at times, referred to as one of the 2 conscious functions, in tandem with the dominant, since it complements the agenda so naturally.... yet he also makes a point of saying only 1 function can be conscious.

This makes the nature of the unconscious portion of the secondary kind of confusing --- on the one hand we could say the part which is subservient is unconscious, because it isn't attaining consciousness of its own principle at all! And that, AFAIK, is what you're arguing is true of the demonstrative, and I have agreed with this. However, the other perspective going on here is that from Jung's point of view, the consciousness of the secondary is actually due to its being subservient to the dominant, and the opposite attitude is always unconscious --- to the extent we identify consciousness just with the dominant attitude+function.

Contradictory? Well, not in meaning, but yes in terminology lol; he is clearly having it both ways, in that he's both referring to 2 conscious functions and saying only 1 can be conscious -- which we can only resolve if we assume, reasonably, that he's meaning something being conscious in slightly different points of view.

The only reason I don't stick Jungian purist nowadays and insist that the top 2 (in a non-balanced, pronounced inert-like introvert) are always in the same attitude is that I can reasonably entertain two points of view on the secondary, because I do think the opposite attitude creeps in to allow the function to act for its own principle (creatively, rather than subserviently), and that this is necessary for any differentiation, and frankly some differentiation of the secondary does seem natural, simply because it's hard to do away with perceiving or judging in any sane individual lol.


More to the point, my purist view of Jung is that he really didn't specify any attitude to the auxiliary, and thus to describe the attitude, one has to deal separately with the two (e.g. Ni, Ne in LII). I do think socionics is a plausible take on that. They're saying that, since the ego is ultimately influenced by 2, yet there's this complication that the secondary has 2 directions, both of which are necessary to take into account, we let the base be the case of conscious=strong=valued, vs split up these 3 in the case of the secondary.

Probably what's going on is the strong, valued, and egoic are kind of all smashed together in the original simple typology.

[Myst]

Blegh this was long and I didn't want that. Edited post --

I just think the key is to remember that the issue of the secondary function and its consciousness is the sticky part here. I know you don't require demonstrative to ever leave that position, but really that's because you are sufficiently identified with 2 attitudes of 2 functions. There is no way to differentiate Si, because an aspect of you is strongly identified with Se.

Whereas, in classical Jungian theory, the reason the secondary retains energy in the opposite attitude at all in the first place is that it is unable to be wholly subsumed into the ego's agenda... thus some portion remains aloof, and relatively unconscious.
It wouldn't make any sense to say the ego is actually identified with the secondary in the opposite attitude....it would be safer to describe this saying each is a separate mode, to which one can apply the rules, or if more rigid, that anything allowable by the ego always is in the same attitude (which the more orthodox crowd follow).

Interestingly one of Jung's associates did write of a feeling dominant lady who eventually grew more identified with intuition in a phase of life, but still traces of the "natural type" existed -- they simply weren't the current/living/functional type at all times. The idea that the ego is a static construct can be a problem. I tend to agree with Jung and Jungians that the ego is not a static construct, but that you can use static constructs to model relatively uniform and unchanging phases of consciousness -- the ones most important at least.

All this is very natural once we realize that generally speaking it was very common in Jungian speak to treat 2 highly differentiated functions in the same attitude. Whether or not it's compatible with model A, I certainly use the idea myself.

Well I still think brain plasticity is not unlimited after the early years so the ego doesn't really change that much beyond certain limits unless something drastic happens.

I don't see though why the ego can't identify with the auxiliary in the opposite attitude? Explain that thought of yours further

I do apologize if this is convoluted to follow, because I do seem to have really been hung up on this point in Jung's theory since he was sparse in detail on it, and it somehow really interested me.

The gist of it is this dual nature of the secondary... it is both, at times, referred to as one of the 2 conscious functions, in tandem with the dominant, since it complements the agenda so naturally.... yet he also makes a point of saying only 1 function can be conscious.

This makes the nature of the unconscious portion of the secondary kind of confusing --- on the one hand we could say the part which is subservient is unconscious, because it isn't attaining consciousness of its own principle at all! And that, AFAIK, is what you're arguing is true of the demonstrative, and I have agreed with this. However, the other perspective going on here is that from Jung's point of view, the consciousness of the secondary is actually due to its being subservient to the dominant, and the opposite attitude is always unconscious --- to the extent we identify consciousness just with the dominant attitude+function.

Contradictory? Well, not in meaning, but yes in terminology lol; he is clearly having it both ways, in that he's both referring to 2 conscious functions and saying only 1 can be conscious -- which we can only resolve if we assume, reasonably, that he's meaning something being conscious in slightly different points of view.

The only reason I don't stick Jungian purist nowadays and insist that the top 2 (in a non-balanced, pronounced inert-like introvert) are always in the same attitude is that I can reasonably entertain two points of view on the secondary, because I do think the opposite attitude creeps in to allow the function to act for its own principle (creatively, rather than subserviently), and that this is necessary for any differentiation, and frankly some differentiation of the secondary does seem natural, simply because it's hard to do away with perceiving or judging in any sane individual lol.


More to the point, my purist view of Jung is that he really didn't specify any attitude to the auxiliary, and thus to describe the attitude, one has to deal separately with the two (e.g. Ni, Ne in LII). I do think socionics is a plausible take on that. They're saying that, since the ego is ultimately influenced by 2, yet there's this complication that the secondary has 2 directions, both of which are necessary to take into account, we let the base be the case of conscious=strong=valued, vs split up these 3 in the case of the secondary.

Probably what's going on is the strong, valued, and egoic are kind of all smashed together in the original simple typology.

So what do you think these two different ways of something being conscious are like?

Yeah having the opposite attitude is what allows for more differentiation of a 2nd function.

I agree Jung didn't determine anything mandatory for the auxiliaries.