What is it about the concept of functions?

[Hitta]

What is it about the functions that makes everyone think that they are supposed to work a certain way? Think about it. Introverted Feeling???? wtf does that supposed to mean? Doesn't introverted feeling supposed to mean exactly what it says.... internal emotions? How does one come to the conclusion that introverted feeling is supposed to have certain traits? How does one come to the conclusion that introverted feeling = love? Or that introverted feeling=hate? Does it make any sense for a type to have introverted feeling as a function without being able to associate traits to it? Its impossible to associate traits to functions like this because their are multiple dimensions that the functions could take. Introverted feeling could = love or hate for example.

Is one to say that the types that value introverted feeling are the only ones that feel internal emotions? I mean introverted feeling is the function of internal emotions. So if a type doesn't value introverted feeling, theoretically one would not feel internal emotions. . If one doesn't value extraverted feeling, then according to the functional idea one should not be able to exert emotion. This makes absolutely no sense. I do not see how people still abide by this concept.

[Logos]

What is it about the functions that makes everyone think that they are supposed to work a certain way? Think about it. Introverted Feeling???? wtf does that supposed to mean? Doesn't introverted feeling supposed to mean exactly what it says.... internal emotions? How does one come to the conclusion that introverted feeling is supposed to have certain traits? How does one come to the conclusion that introverted feeling = love? Or that introverted feeling=hate? Does it make any sense for a type to have introverted feeling as a function without being able to associate traits to it? Its impossible to associate traits to functions like this because their are multiple dimensions that the functions could take. Introverted feeling could = love or hate for example.

Is one to say that the types that value introverted feeling are the only ones that feel internal emotions? I mean introverted feeling is the function of internal emotions. So if a type doesn't value introverted feeling, theoretically one would not feel internal emotions. . If one doesn't value extraverted feeling, then according to the functional idea one should not be able to exert emotion. This makes absolutely no sense. I do not see how people still abide by this concept.

Who is everyone, as I have not encountered anyone on the forum who seems to believe this?

[Hitta]

Who is everyone, as I have not encountered anyone on the forum who seems to believe this?

Well, then I can be assured that everyone has came to the conclusion that model A has some problems.

[Logos]

Well, then I can be assured that everyone has came to the conclusion that model A has some problems.

Where does Model A say or even suggest your worry about Introverted Feeling?

[Jonathan]

Is one to say that the types that value introverted feeling are the only ones that feel internal emotions? I mean introverted feeling is the function of internal emotions. So if a type doesn't value introverted feeling, theoretically one would not feel internal emotions. . If one doesn't value extraverted feeling, then according to the functional idea one should not be able to exert emotion. This makes absolutely no sense. I do not see how people still abide by this concept.

The solution to this problem is that the "valued" functions are those functions where either one tends to be confident in taking a leadership role, or those where one specifically desires help in order to fulfill one's major goals.

Someone with ego-block X leads in that area...e.g., points out X-related issues to others, acts on that, etc. Someone with dual-block X has a particularly strong need for X in his/her life.

Everyone uses and needs all IM Elements.

Basically, it would be better to get rid of the terms "valued" and "devalued" and replace them with something else.

[Hitta]

Where does Model A say or even suggest your worry about Introverted Feeling?

lol... did you even read what I wrote?

[Logos]

lol... did you even read what I wrote?

Yes, but there was nothing in it which mentioned what it is about Model A or the function description of Fi which would given anyone the impression of what you are talking about.

[Hitta]

Yes, but there was nothing in it which mentioned what it is about Model A or the function description of Fi which would given anyone the impression of what you are talking about.

If the functions lack traits, then model A describes nothing

[Logos]

If the functions lack traits, then model A describes nothing

Then what do you mean by traits? How does a lack of traits necessarily make Model A valueless if its purpose is not necessarily to give functions traits? And how would the +/- system be any different?

[Hitta]

Then what do you mean by traits? How does a lack of traits necessarily make Model A valueless if its purpose is not necessarily to give functions traits? And how would the +/- system be any different?

If model A doesn't give you an idea of how a person acts or behaves... whats the point in it?

[Logos]

If model A doesn't give you an idea of how a person acts or behaves... whats the point in it?

It doesn't?

[Hitta]

It doesn't?

It has to have traits to predict behavior

[Logos]

It has to have traits to predict behavior

Why? And how does the +/- system address this if it just divides the trait-less functions further?

[Expat]

Basically, it would be better to get rid of the terms "valued" and "devalued" and replace them with something else.

Those terms are perfectly clear to those who take the trouble to understand what they really mean.

Why go to the trouble of looking for "something else" that will also remain misunderstood?

Let those who can't be bothered to understand them continue to sink in the mud of their own self-imposed ignorance.

Again, Jonathan, you go for "let's look for a different system" when it's not the issue at all.

[munenori2]

What is it about the functions that makes everyone think that they are supposed to work a certain way? Think about it. Introverted Feeling???? wtf does that supposed to mean? Doesn't introverted feeling supposed to mean exactly what it says.... internal emotions? How does one come to the conclusion that introverted feeling is supposed to have certain traits? How does one come to the conclusion that introverted feeling = love? Or that introverted feeling=hate? Does it make any sense for a type to have introverted feeling as a function without being able to associate traits to it? Its impossible to associate traits to functions like this because their are multiple dimensions that the functions could take. Introverted feeling could = love or hate for example.

Is one to say that the types that value introverted feeling are the only ones that feel internal emotions? I mean introverted feeling is the function of internal emotions. So if a type doesn't value introverted feeling, theoretically one would not feel internal emotions. . If one doesn't value extraverted feeling, then according to the functional idea one should not be able to exert emotion. This makes absolutely no sense. I do not see how people still abide by this concept.

WHAT?!!?!! How does it even logically follow that someone who does not value (i.e. makes it a significant part of their life) some function doesn't use it or find it necessary to use it at all? It's not like you only do what you value and everything else is a moot point. On this point, I think you're being far too simple.

[munenori2]

If model A doesn't give you an idea of how a person acts or behaves... whats the point in it?

Because humans are complex, have various beliefs, differing values and experiences, so some measure of variance (even in more extreme cases) in the functions in terms of expression or as qualia (how the individual experiences the world) should not only be expected, but that not-so-well-definedness is a part of understanding the system.

[tcaudilllg]

If model A doesn't give you an idea of how a person acts or behaves... whats the point in it?

Because it lets you walk right in someone's head all other things considered, and figure out how they are reacting internally to the world around them. That's more important than you might think, at least it was to Jung and also, to Augusta.

If you want a theory of activity, try dual-type theory.

[Hitta]

Because it lets you walk right in someone's head all other things considered, and figure out how they are reacting internally to the world around them. That's more important than you might think, at least it was to Jung and also, to Augusta.

If you want a theory of activity, try dual-type theory.

Ok, sorry for the confusion here, but when I said behaviors I meant all that is encompassed in personality. Traits is the word I used. How the mind works is a trait.

[Logos]

Ok, sorry for the confusion here, but when I said behaviors I meant all that is encompassed in personality. Traits is the word I used. How the mind works is a trait.

That still does not clarify anything. What do you mean exactly by trait?

[tcaudilllg]

Ok, sorry for the confusion here, but when I said behaviors I meant all that is encompassed in personality. Traits is the word I used. How the mind works is a trait.

Yes, but Model-A says very little about those. F people can tell you all kinds of stuff about these kinds of traits. T's understanding of F remains very poor, that's why I've been developing supersocion theory with labcoat, crazedrat, etc., to explain that "other" stuff which model-A simply doesn't encompass. But what I've found is, although Model-A is not very inclusive of psychic phenomena, extending it just a little bit in various directions can make for some startling revelations.

There is definite generational element to scientific research. You get a person who develops their theory intensely into their early years, their 20s and 30s, and then they begin to mellow out and cease coming up with new ideas, instead focusing on what it is they've already conjectured and how best to understand it. Einstein did this; Freud did this; Jung did this; and indeed, most scientific leaders around the world are following the same example. Jung once said that "that which is truely valuable is that which produces its like", by which he meant, "I'm not concerned with advancing my theory further; I want only to see it continued by the later generation on the basis of my research today. This is proof enough that my contribution to society will endure."

[tcaudilllg]

That still does not clarify anything. What do you mean exactly by trait?

He's looking for , but socionics describes more about Fi than about Fe.

[Logos]

He's looking for , but socionics describes more about Fi than about Fe.

Fe is (reading and using) body language, which should give him plenty to work with.

[tcaudilllg]

Fe is (reading and using) body language, which should give him plenty to work with.

Fe in model-a has everything to do with reading and nothing to do with using body language.

Model-A Fe takes emotional cues in; it doesn't put them back out. You are attributing something to model-a that doesn't belong to it.

But that's just accepting Fe. Producing Fe can bounce experiences off of Fi observations and create a completely original personality.

[Logos]

Fe in model-a has everything to do with reading and nothing to do with using body language.

Model-A Fe takes emotional cues in; it doesn't put them back out. You are attributing something to model-a that doesn't belong to it.

But that's just accepting Fe. Producing Fe can bounce experiences off of Fi observations and create a completely original personality.

Which is done partially through what? Anyone? Anyone? Body language. Good job. Be sure to claim your prize on the door to your right.

[tcaudilllg]

Which is done partially through what? Anyone? Anyone? Body language. Good job. Be sure to claim your prize on the door to your right.

If you'd get your head out of your ass for a moment, you might understand what I really meant by that. How many INFps do you think pay attention to body language, eh? Seems to me they are almost completely contained in THEIR OWN LITTLE WORLD where they consider people in the abstract.

Forget it, your socionics is not Augusta's. It's something else.

[Jonathan]

Those terms are perfectly clear to those who take the trouble to understand what they really mean.

Why go to the trouble of looking for "something else" that will also remain misunderstood?

Let those who can't be bothered to understand them continue to sink in the mud of their own self-imposed ignorance.

Again, Jonathan, you go for "let's look for a different system" when it's not the issue at all.

It's interesting that you would see my clarification of these terms as having anything to do with looking for a different system. In other threads, I propose experimental models; I don't see what's wrong with that. But here we're just talking about clarifying the existing system.

The words "valued" and "unvalued" (or "devalued") are English translations of Russian words. I don't know what connotations those Russian words have, but it's clear from other examples that the connotations in Russian are often different from in English.

The plain meaning in English of "unvalued" is unappreciated...In other words, the person does not believe the object in question has value. And clearly, a number of things that have been said...not just by hitta...have reflected this meaning of the word.

But I take it that you and I agree that a person may and probably does believe that his/her non-quadra elements have some value, both in the abstract, and in certain areas in his/her life.

There are other terms that have been used. I've seen the word "subdued" instead.

At any rate, I see no reason why people shouldn't try to clarify or improve confusing terminology.

[Logos]

If you'd get your head out of your ass for a moment, you might understand what I really meant by that.

Head in my ass? Where did you get that from?

How many INFps do you think pay attention to body language, eh? Seems to me they are almost completely contained in THEIR OWN LITTLE WORLD where they consider people in the abstract.

How would that necessarily be any different really from an ENFp and their relation to what is generally ascribed to Fi?

Forget it, your socionics is not Augusta's. It's something else.

Great way to dismiss what I have to say, but if you want to play that juvenile game, you are welcome to do so.

[Expat]

But I take it that you and I agree that a person may and probably does believe that his/her non-quadra elements have some value, both in the abstract, and in certain areas in his/her life.

That is obvious.

There are other terms that have been used. I've seen the word "subdued" instead.

That would be a good alternative, if you must.

At any rate, I see no reason why people shouldn't try to clarify or improve confusing terminology.

Because it's a futile exercise. I see it as analogous to situations here when people tried to "abolish" the use of the four-letter names for the types to avoid confusion with MBTT. Recently, the forum has spontaneously reached a point where regular posters seem equally comfortable with both the 4-and 3-letter names, but there will always be those who find the 4-letter ones easier (or, like thehotelambush, simply better). But was it possible to intentionally "improve confusing terminology"? No.

Moreover -- what is "confusing" about it? Only to those who can't be bothered to actually understand what is meant with "unvalued". If someone spends some time reading about, and discussing socionics, and still thinks that "unvalued" means "not use it at all" or "hate it" or whatever, despite attempts by others to clarify it, then that someone would be confused by other terminologies, too, but in different ways.

So why go to so much trouble for the sake of people who can't be bothered to understand what is meant with "unvalued"?

[mikemex]

Hitta: You've just noticed the absurdity of cyclical logic.

The best example is religion. People invent a god and later they try to describe and analyze it, but they will inevitable fail because they check the idea for consistency from the logical point of view, but they ignore the factual value of the statements. So it eventually becomes an unsolvable problem, because there is not a god in the first place.

Another example is colors. While it is true that light comes in several frequencies, what we understand as colors does not exist outside our mind. We tend to believe that colors exist outside because when we point to an object and say "this is red", other people will likely call the same perception "red" too. But the internal perception of the color is likely to be different in each individual, which makes colors ultimately impossible to describe on themselves like the religion example above.

The same happens with socionics: it's metaphorical value is excellent in my opinion, but it is very unlikely that anything like the functions exist inside the brain. So discussing the properties of a function is cyclical thinking.

[tcaudilllg]

Mikemex, schizotypes everywhere are eating you up. Move to China, they will love you there. +Ti-Ne forever!

[Hitta]

Hitta: You've just noticed the absurdity of cyclical logic.

The best example is religion. People invent a god and later they try to describe and analyze it, but they will inevitable fail because they check the idea for consistency from the logical point of view, but they ignore the factual value of the statements. So it eventually becomes an unsolvable problem, because there is not a god in the first place.

Another example is colors. While it is true that light comes in several frequencies, what we understand as colors does not exist outside our mind. We tend to believe that colors exist outside because when we point to an object and say "this is red", other people will likely call the same perception "red" too. But the internal perception of the color is likely to be different in each individual, which makes colors ultimately impossible to describe on themselves like the religion example above.

The same happens with socionics: it's metaphorical value is excellent in my opinion, but it is very unlikely that anything like the functions exist inside the brain. So discussing the properties of a function is cyclical thinking.

Yes, exactly.... Ive actually debated the color thing with people before.