Why is it that we must value Ne/Si or Se/Ni etc?

[Ezra]

I know at least one person will be thinking "because otherwise socionics wouldn't work" or "so that Model A works properly", but I want to know why we value Fe/Ti or Si/Ne and cannot possibly value Fe/Te or Si/Ni. One possibility is that we can't physically use two extraverted functions; for example, we can't use Fe and Te, because these two functions concentrate on the same external reality but in different ways, and it is impossible for a human being to do this i.e. they must concentrate on external reality in a single way. I might've answered my own question here, but please add your thoughts.

[Suomea]

That was Loki's answer.

[Elro]

I know at least one person will be thinking "because otherwise socionics wouldn't work" or "so that Model A works properly", but I want to know why we value Fe/Ti or Si/Ne and cannot possibly value Fe/Te or Si/Ni. One possibility is that we can't physically use two extraverted functions; for example, we can't use Fe and Te, because these two functions concentrate on the same external reality but in different ways, and it is impossible for a human being to do this i.e. they must concentrate on external reality in a single way. I might've answered my own question here, but please add your thoughts.

Yeah I think Loki addressed one way of looking at this: trying to look through both sides of a glass at the same time. I also remember reading something related to this (possibly in Wikisocion somewhere, although I can't find it again) about how for instance Se is related to protecting what one has and Ne is related to seeing what else is around, making one weaken the other. If you're thinking about how cool that toy over there is and someone takes the toy you're playing with, you're not going to make as big a deal about it. If you're protecting the toy you had, you're not going to care about that other toy over there, you want YOUR TOY. Or something like that - that was my mental summary.

I've also been thinking for a long time about exactly WHY Ti needs Fe and vice-versa, why Fi needs Te and vice-versa, Ne/Si, Ni/Se... Some of what I've come up with makes sense. (I think I understand Ni/Se best of the four.) Actually if anyone wants to comment on that aspect too I'd be much obliged. I've made some progress, but still am not quite satisfied.

[Suomea]

...

[Expat]

I've also been thinking for a long time about exactly WHY Ti needs Fe and vice-versa, why Fi needs Te and vice-versa, Ne/Si, Ni/Se... Some of what I've come up with makes sense. (I think I understand Ni/Se best of the four.) Actually if anyone wants to comment on that aspect too I'd be much obliged. I've made some progress, but still am not quite satisfied.

On Ti-Fe and Te-Fi, I have put together what I think is a rather elegant explanation -- I will post it here shortly.

[marooned]

Perhaps Ti and Fi help Fe and Te (respectively) discriminate. Ti and Fi have discriminatory powers. The one I understand the least of all is Ne/Si.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I've wondered that myself. I was given a description of Fi/Te and Fe/Ti, and I identified much better with Fe and Te in it.

[Slacker]

For Ne and Si, I think people with strong Ne can get anxious thinking about all the possibilities in the world, and they need the Si to help them relax. And people with strong Si can get stuck in a rut - like only do what's comfortable- and they can get bored and people with strong Ne can help them come up with ideas to break them out of a rut.

[Joy]

It's all about the axes. The axes are as follows:

external dynamics of objects/internal statics of fields
external statics of objects/internal dynamics of fields
internal dynamics of objects/external statics of fields
internal statics of objects/external dynamics of fields

They balance each other out. "External dynamics of fields" cannot balance out "external statics of fields" the way it can "internal statics of fields".

[Joy]

I've wondered that myself. I was given a description of Fi/Te and Fe/Ti, and I identified much better with Fe and Te in it.

Perhaps because they are conscious?

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Perhaps because they are conscious?

Can you explain?

[Elro]

It's all about the axes. The axes are as follows:

external dynamics of objects/internal statics of fields
external statics of objects/internal dynamics of fields
internal dynamics of objects/external statics of fields
internal statics of objects/external dynamics of fields

They balance each other out. "External dynamics of fields" cannot balance out "external statics of fields" the way it can "internal statics of fields".

See, that looks good on paper but just looking at it (and not being intimately familiar with that way of labeling the functions) it doesn't seem to explain much to me except that the names that were given to each function line up.

[Joy]

Can you explain?

Or valued, whatever.

(Never mind.)

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Or valued, whatever.

(Never mind.)

If I value Fe and Te, would that then make me Fe/Ti?

[Cuddly McFluffles]

_

I was replying to your message, but I cannot see it anymore.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I am a menace to the continuity of the internet.

My message is gone because I misread your message. If you value Fe, then yes [as I said in the original message] you will also value Ti. But specifically, you had asked -- what if you value Fe _and_ Te? (I missed the Te part.) It's not really possible to answer that question, because valuing Fe presupposes devaluing Te.

I see. Hm. Question. Is it possible to value both _i and _e, to an extent?

[aestrivex]

See, that looks good on paper but just looking at it (and not being intimately familiar with that way of labeling the functions) it doesn't seem to explain much to me except that the names that were given to each function line up.

it doesnt.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

In theory, the more one values Ti and Fe, the less one values Te and Fi. It's how the functions are constructed. It's how we get varying inter-type relationships, by constructing a model where some types are complementary and others are at odds with each other. Elro's post touches upon why Se and Ne are at odds. Expat may post something on the rational functions in this regard soon.

Now it might be possible that some people are more "polarized" towards one preference or another. That's arguably the principle at work behind subtypes - an ESTj-Si (the "creative subtype" because Si is the ESTj's creative function) cares a lot more about Si>Ni than Te>Fe. An ESTj-Si and an ESFj-Si are a lot more similar than an ESTj-Te and an ESFj-Fe, therefore. If you take this far enough, it's imaginable that some people don't have a strong Si/Ni preference either way.

I say imaginable, because whether or not you can have ESXj's or XXXx's -- or if instead, we must all fall into one of the 16 categories somehow -- is a touchy subject. Classical Socionists would probably say we are all one of the 16 types with no "in between" cases. Whether that is actually the case or not -- I don't know of any hard evidence on that. Probably something you'll have to decide for yourself, by your own anecdotal observation. It cuts into some pretty fundamental issues, such as the biological basis of the types. Whether or not the 8 functions correspond to clearly defined structures in the brain or if they are just very messy approximations, etc.

For example: the last 2 functions. Despite their being unconscious, they have a strong effect on us, no? Perhaps our definitions of "valuing" are different. I simply meant "occurrence of use".

[Cuddly McFluffles]

In ENFp --

strong: Ne, Fi, Fe, Ni
valued: Ne, Te, Fi, Si
homoverted: Ne, Fe, Te, Se
accepting (perceiving fcns in perceiving types): Ne, Ni, Si, Se

In general --

strong: 1, 2, 8, 7
valued:1, 6, 2, 5
homoverted: 1, 8, 6, 3
accepting (perceiving functions in perceiving types): 1, 7, 5, 3

Thank you. I understand now. I don't understand the rest of the first section, however. Could you possibly PM me an explanation? That is, unless it would better benefit the forum (and others in it) to keep it on here.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Something else perhaps worth adding – "conscious" functions are just the equivalent of functions which are "static" if you are "static". There's a treatment of the static/dynamic dichotomy in the wiki (http://wikisocion.org). But essentially, static is more to do with the unchanging nature of things - in Fi's case for example, the bonds/divisions and attractions/repulsions between friends and enemies that endure fluctuations in emotional atmosphere and mood. (The later Fe is more concerned with. Fe and other dynamic functions are more aware of what frequently changes.) Static = EP, IJ. Dynamic = EJ, IP. I suppose the rationale behind the conscious/unconscious dichotomy is that types in tune with the unchanging nature of things will be in tune with both the unchanging things they are confident ("strong") in manipulating and also those they are unconfident in having an effect on (the superego bloc.)

As for what else was mentioned earlier -- I'm going to hold off until the other users who've said they might post something on Fe/Ti vs. Fi/Te get a chance to do that. Maybe that will clarrify valued/unvalued and more of what else I mentioned will fall into place.

K.

[mm]

Yeah, I think this is a question that a bunch of people have been thinking over and asking of recent..... any answer you have Elro I'd be more than willing to hear. Feel free to PM me if you want if they are really vague and not worked out yet. I always like hearing preliminary ones.....hehe.

Ooh, preliminary is my kind of thing! I think it is related to what kind of bias each type has, i.e. what kind of assumptions they make about the world. The Ti/Fe assumption could be that in order to spread an idea you have to express it entirely and then add some makeup to it, choose extra sexy words and make some dance around it to draw aalll the attention so that people would take a look at your idea and think about it on their own. The Fi/Te assumption could be that you have to approach people individually and then fiddle with their thinking.

[Logos]

I know at least one person will be thinking "because otherwise socionics wouldn't work" or "so that Model A works properly", but I want to know why we value Fe/Ti or Si/Ne and cannot possibly value Fe/Te or Si/Ni. One possibility is that we can't physically use two extraverted functions; for example, we can't use Fe and Te, because these two functions concentrate on the same external reality but in different ways, and it is impossible for a human being to do this i.e. they must concentrate on external reality in a single way. I might've answered my own question here, but please add your thoughts.

It may be best to think of it not so much in line of value, but one of focus and attention.

[Joy]

It may be best to think of it not so much in line of value, but one of focus and attention.

I'd say it's more about importance relative to other information elements. After all, people can be overly focused on their super ego functions.

[Logos]

I'd say it's more about importance relative to other information elements. After all, people can be overly focused on their super ego functions.

True enough, but that still gives the impression of valued and unvalued functions. I am still inclined to see it more in lines with focus though.

[Joy]

How do conscious/unconscious functions come into play?

[hellothere]

It's all about the axes. The axes are as follows:

external dynamics of objects/internal statics of fields
external statics of objects/internal dynamics of fields
internal dynamics of objects/external statics of fields
internal statics of objects/external dynamics of fields

They balance each other out. "External dynamics of fields" cannot balance out "external statics of fields" the way it can "internal statics of fields".

I agree with Elro... this doesn't really explain anything. Sure the words being used seem to balance each other out, but beyond this there is nothing

[Joy]

Fi and Ti provide Te and Fe with structure, a system of beliefs, essentially. That's why you can't value both Te and Fe... you wouldn't have any sort of belief system.

[Expat]

I don't see any reason or evidence why we can't extend this to a point where a belief system is constructed using equal amounts of both Ti and Fi.

Can you give an example of how such a system would look like?

[Minde]

On Ti-Fe and Te-Fi, I have put together what I think is a rather elegant explanation -- I will post it here shortly.

We shall now see what an ENTj means by "shortly." (I hope I haven't ruined the natural play of events by saying something.)

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Ni helps Se to know about the internal affair of things so they won't push away potential allies by being too harsh, Se helps Ni to stop being whiney, overly passive and 'just do it.' Ni has excellent ideals but no way to execute them.

I see both Se and Ni as naturally understanding one another, and also where to direct each other. Se knows how to direct Ni in ways that will be beneficial, as obviously you can't just do anything and have it turn out okay. (that's why a true Se person won't tell an INFp to simply 'stop being lazy' and 'exercise more' but will be a lot more specific on what it needs to do to be successful. A more specific gameplan because they actually care.)

Ni will not stop Se from using force where it is necessary (as I intuitively know who needs their ass kicked and who doesn't), it will just direct it away from the kind of force that would hurt itself and others. It works together and is more like a duality thing and not 'opposites attract.' (to me anyway)

I view it as yin-yang somewhat, as in Se has a little bit of Ni naturally already, and Ni has a bit of Se naturally already.

[mm]

With Ni/Se life can take many different routes. You often find yourself at crosspoints where you see different paths that could lead to some outcome you want to achieve. Ni tries to figure out what would happen along each path and if they do actually lead to what you want. Se keeps an eye on where you are now, what you want to achieve and what is still missing. Se is going to want to make a choice eventually, because right now nothing is happening, you're standing still at the crosspoint. Without Se, Ni would keep contemplating forever and never get moving. With Ni, Se can make better choices, avoid obstacles and reach a goal faster and smoother. They're two pals on a hiking trip.

With Si/Ne life is a walk along one long path. Si keeps an eye on how life is treating you, what is already good and what is still problematic. Ne takes a look at all the things you come across along this path and tries to find what could perhaps alleviate the problem. Without Si, Ne would want to look at everything without any specific goal. With Ne, Si gets offered solutions to problems and sees things improve and life becomes more pleasant.

[Joy]

With Ni/Se life can take many different routes. You often find yourself at crosspoints where you see different paths that could lead to some outcome you want to achieve. Ni tries to figure out what would happen along each path and if they do actually lead to what you want. Se keeps an eye on where you are now, what you want to achieve and what is still missing. Se is going to want to make a choice eventually, because right now nothing is happening, you're standing still at the crosspoint. Without Se, Ni would keep contemplating forever and never get moving. With Ni, Se can make better choices, avoid obstacles and reach a goal faster and smoother. They're two pals on a hiking trip.

With Si/Ne life is a walk along one long path. Si keeps an eye on how life is treating you, what is already good and what is still problematic. Ne takes a look at all the things you come across along this path and tries to find what could perhaps alleviate the problem. Without Si, Ne would want to look at everything without any specific goal. With Ne, Si gets offered solutions to problems and sees things improve and life becomes more pleasant.

That almost sounds like more of a rationality vs. irrationality distinction to me?

[Joy]

And I tend to think that the strategist in the dual pair picks the destination and the tactician makes sure you stay on course and move forward.

[mm]

With Te/Fi ideas are something you embody, something you value (Fi). If you want someone else to value some idea you need to come with a good case supporting it. What is its validity, usefulness, advantage,... (Te).

With Ti/Fe ideas are something in and of themself, something you can understand the structure of (Ti) and write down in its entirety. While writing it down you keep an eye on your target audience (Fe), choosing the right words to get maximum appeal and acceptance.

[mm]

That almost sounds like more of a rationality vs. irrationality distinction to me?

Hmm, can you elaborate? I think you can read both from an irrational point of view. You can read both from the point of view that life is something that comes at you and you need to walk the path. The rational point of view would rather be that life is what you make of it I think.

[mm]

And I tend to think that the strategist in the dual pair picks the destination and the tactician makes sure you stay on course and move forward.

Hmm, yes, the roles might be somewhat different in each dual pair, but what I mainly wanted to express is that Se and Ne have a static feel, Si and Ni a dynamic, flowing feel; that Se/Si have a grounding role, Ne/Ni a dreaming, floating role; and that Se/Ni and Si/Ne each go hand in hand, such that it makes sense to state that if you value one, you necessarily value the other.

[Joy]

Hmm, yes, the roles might be somewhat different in each dual pair, but what I mainly wanted to express is that Se and Ne have a static feel, Si and Ni a dynamic, flowing feel; that Se/Si have a grounding role, Ne/Ni a dreaming, floating role; and that Se/Ni and Si/Ne each go hand in hand, such that it makes sense to state that if you value one, you necessarily value the other.

I agree.

[Joy]

If I'm looking at the front of a house and you're looking at the back, we're seeing different things. What what each of us is seeing doesn't contradict what the other is seeing though, we're just seeing different perspectives of the same thing.

btw (going back to this post), this is why each axis contains the information elements it does. If I'm looking at the front of the house, I'll be able to see a little bit of the top and sides. It's the part I can't see any of that I'll need more information in order to know anything about.

raeghr