my new theory

[Hugo]

Let me take the example of an INTj. I beleive the functionsd are as follow:

Subconscious functions from strongest to weakest (left to right):

> > >


Conscious functions from strongest to weakest (left to right):

> > >


I believe for all j types, all rational function are subconscious, and irrational functions are conscious.

What do you think of this theory? Does it hold truth for you as it does for me from my personal experience?

I do believe my base function is subconsious, because I use it without realising it. However the creative function is consciously working.

[Rocky]

I agree.

[FDG]

First of all - I think that you should switch Ne and Ni places.

Second objection: you are equating automatic with unconscious. This is not the case. An unconscious function is a function that we cannot use at our own will, because it is not disposable to the conscious usage of the subject that has the function in the uncoscious. This fact does not hold true for the Base function and the Role function - indeed, we probably use the base on automatic most of the time, but it is still under the control of our will, thus, conscious.

The categorization you're trying to make is already present in socionics - it's the difference between accepting and producing functions.

[Topaz]

I think you might be on to something. I have been thinking about this and I could not articulate it. Whenever I see the descriptions of my type I see how it pans out but my first function is rather spontaneous and I dont concentrate on it. I never tell myself to intuit anything. I just do (or dont ) I do tell myself to control my feelings or that its ok to express them. I tell myself to think things through, figure it out, caculate the amount. The intuitions and the sensory input usually just come without my bidding.
When I get up in the morning I think "OK, what do I have to do today? If I hurry I can get to the gym before I have to go to work. What am I going to eat? Oatmeal. Nah, toast and eggs. Should I separate the yolk...?
" All my perceiving functions are just moving along the whole time adding to the decision making process silently in my head.
Does that make sense? I have difficulty separating the processes from each other sometimes. Everything blends together.
Maybe all percieving process are silent and all rational ones talk.

[Topaz]

First of all - I think that you should switch Ne and Ni places.

Second objection: you are equating automatic with unconscious. This is not the case. An unconscious function is a function that we cannot use at our own will, because it is not disposable to the conscious usage of the subject that has the function in the uncoscious. This fact does not hold true for the Base function and the Role function - indeed, we probably use the base on automatic most of the time, but it is still under the control of our will, thus, conscious.

The categorization you're trying to make is already present in socionics - it's the difference between accepting and producing functions.

Now I have a problem with this to a point. I have worked in accounting (I hated it) and had to do alot of adding, adjusting and figuring . This, according to socionics is an unconscious function. So how did I do it? I must have conscious control over the function or there is no way I could. Nor could I have gotten As and Bs in math in highschool. Maybe Im missing the point you were making.

[niveK]

Replace "conscious" with "producing" and "subconscious" with "accepting", and you have part of socionics theory as it stands now.

I can't quite agree that all of the producing functions are conscious, while the accepting functions are unconscious. The hidden agenda, a producing function, isn't something that a person is naturally aware of, and it's rather vague (even more so than functions in general) because it's not a consciously realized function, but rather it's unconscious. The PoLR is a producing function of which one is naturally aware, however, he is quite unconfident when trying to produce by it. A conflicting partner has such power to attack him because he can see the inherent weakness of information produced from the PoLR, and point it out through information that goes straight to the role function. The person is consciously aware of the attack on his psyche and may very likely return in kind.

Duals seem "boring" because what they bring to a relationship is not something you're consciously aware you need. They see the information that you long to see because of your dual-seeking function and produce the environment you strive for in your hidden agenda. Being unconscious functions, you aren't really aware of how elements related to the dual-seeking and hidden agenda functions affect you, so there's not an element of insecurity like there is when dealing with aspects of information related to the role and PoLR.

[FDG]

@Topaz

Attacching specific subjects and/or type of works to specific functions, in specific personal situation is never the correct procedure in determining a theoretical base.

You might very well have created a Ne-model of the accounting shit in your mind, for example.

Besides, you cannot correlate academic achievement in specific subject to functional patterns. Functional patterns show temselves when we make decisions and analyze data, not when we do pre-prepared school test.

[niveK]

First of all - I think that you should switch Ne and Ni places.

Second objection: you are equating automatic with unconscious. This is not the case. An unconscious function is a function that we cannot use at our own will, because it is not disposable to the conscious usage of the subject that has the function in the uncoscious. This fact does not hold true for the Base function and the Role function - indeed, we probably use the base on automatic most of the time, but it is still under the control of our will, thus, conscious.

The categorization you're trying to make is already present in socionics - it's the difference between accepting and producing functions.

Now I have a problem with this to a point. I have worked in accounting (I hated it) and had to do alot of adding, adjusting and figuring . This, according to socionics is an unconscious function. So how did I do it? I must have conscious control over the function or there is no way I could. Nor could I have gotten As and Bs in math in highschool. Maybe Im missing the point you were making.

Who says Math = ? I don't think you can link tasks to one function. I would say the ability to do general math (anything but the high-level stuff) is mostly unrelated to functions.

[Angel von Himmel]

First of all - I think that you should switch Ne and Ni places.

Second objection: you are equating automatic with unconscious. This is not the case. An unconscious function is a function that we cannot use at our own will, because it is not disposable to the conscious usage of the subject that has the function in the uncoscious. This fact does not hold true for the Base function and the Role function - indeed, we probably use the base on automatic most of the time, but it is still under the control of our will, thus, conscious.

The categorization you're trying to make is already present in socionics - it's the difference between accepting and producing functions.

Now I have a problem with this to a point. I have worked in accounting (I hated it) and had to do alot of adding, adjusting and figuring . This, according to socionics is an unconscious function. So how did I do it? I must have conscious control over the function or there is no way I could. Nor could I have gotten As and Bs in math in highschool. Maybe Im missing the point you were making.

Who says Math = ? I don't think you can link tasks to one function. I would say the ability to do general math (anything but the high-level stuff) is mostly unrelated to functions.

and are both math related, the diffrence has to do with how you derive solutions. Some people are just not good at making logical solutions, period ...

[ILENTp]

edit

[niveK]

The fact that most people can do math just goes to show that most people can use :Ti: and/or :Te: without too much effort.

I have trouble seeing intuition as a conscious function at all, since it by definition is unconscious.

I think you're thinking of intuition as in a sort of gut feeling that leads you to an answer, as opposed to the Jungian/socionics of "Where an object is coming from?/Where is it going?"

[niveK]

and are both math related, the diffrence has to do with how you derive solutions. Some people are just not good at making logical solutions, period ...

Still, is 1+1=2 a thought that can be related to a function? Or is it something that doesn't require a functional explanation because it's simple computation anyone is capable of?

Why do we limit logic (not specifically socionics Logic) to and ? Logic in its simplest is understanding and making good arguments. T looks at facts and F looks at values. Neither one is less "logical" than the other.

[Topaz]

@Topaz

Attacching specific subjects and/or type of works to specific functions, in specific personal situation is never the correct procedure in determining a theoretical base.

You might very well have created a Ne-model of the accounting shit in your mind, for example.

Besides, you cannot correlate academic achievement in specific subject to functional patterns. Functional patterns show temselves when we make decisions and analyze data, not when we do pre-prepared school test.

That was just and example to illustrate a point. Dont get side tracked about grades. The point I was trying to make is that a person can successfully draw on certain functions consciously even if that is not their strong function. I certainly wasnt unconsious of or in a math class nor in making other decisions. I was contrasting this with things I do well that dont require much thought. For example you may say "Someone was here while we were out" and immediatley in my mind faces and events will start running, if I know anything about the incident. Before you know it I'll say "It was Rocky. Look heres a Brain Types book" Then Rocky walks in and says "Hey guys, have you seen my book?" "Yep. Catch Rocky"
OK now I'll turn this over to you so you can have a party with it *covers POLR and hides*

[Topaz]

The fact that most people can do math just goes to show that most people can use and/or without too much effort.

I have trouble seeing intuition as a conscious function at all, since it by definition is unconscious.

thank you

[Hugo]

I have trouble seeing intuition as a conscious function at all, since it by definition is unconscious.

I have thought this since the beginning but then got brainwashed by socionics.

I still believe it.

I think with an INTj their makes an effort rather than happening without consious effort. An ENTp on the otherhand subconsiously uses .

[Hugo]

indeed, we probably use the base on automatic most of the time, but it is still under the control of our will, thus, conscious.

Haven't you contradicted yourself here?

You cannot control your base function. Therefore it is automatic.

[FDG]

indeed, we probably use the base on automatic most of the time, but it is still under the control of our will, thus, conscious.

Haven't you contradicted yourself here?

You cannot control your base function. Therefore it is automatic.

I NEVER SAID THAT I CANNOT CONTROL MY BASE FUNCTION, WHERE DO YOU SEE IT WRITTEN?I ACTUALLY SAID THAT IT IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF OUR WILL! Goddamn, how can you twist the meaning like this???

I said that we use our base function on AUTOMATIC MOST OF THE TIME, which does not imply that it's not under our control.

Think of it like a switch between automatic and manual gears.

[Hugo]

I’m the one who said “You cannot control your base function”. I never quoted you as saying this.

I’m saying you cannot control your base function, therefore it is automatic. You are claiming that it can be controlled. Please give me a real-life example to explain your point, because I disagree with you (unless you can convince me).

[niveK]

Automatic != Unconscious. All functions are automatic to a degree because it's how the brain's wired to handle information, not how we choose to handle information. When I read something, I don't think "hey, I'll organize this information in my head based on correlations between the facts". When I produce ideas from that information, I don't think "let me see how many possiblities I can create from this information". My brain is wired that way. I am still consciously aware that I do stuff like that, though.

[Hugo]

[FDG]

Then why you said I was contradicting myself?

Well, however, the burden of the proof is yours, not mine.

[Hugo]

You said you use the base function on automatic most of the time and is under our control.

According to you, on the one hand the base function is automatic (as I am suggesting) but is under our control. It seems contradictory. Perhaps you need to be clearer, as I said, by providing a real-life example.

How can the base function be automatic and still under our control? The burden of proof is on you because you made the statement, not me.

Please give a real life example, not something abstract like talking about manual and automatic gears.

[ILENTp]

edit

[snegledmaca]

I agree with Hugo. I came to the same conclusion a while ago after failing to realize my "strongest" function but being fully aware of my second function.
I believe a person is in facts unconscious of their strongest function which would them make typing even trickier and one would have to seek methods of indirectly exposing the workings of ones mind.

[Hugo]

I suppose this would help a person determine if they are either intj or entp since some people have problems knowing.

[Creepy-]

Automatic != Unconscious. All functions are automatic to a degree because it's how the brain's wired to handle information, not how we choose to handle information. When I read something, I don't think "hey, I'll organize this information in my head based on correlations between the facts". When I produce ideas from that information, I don't think "let me see how many possiblities I can create from this information". My brain is wired that way. I am still consciously aware that I do stuff like that, though.

That's what I was thinking while I was reading this thread and I'm glad you said it.

One doesn't think "I'm going to use now", it just happens that way and you might (conscious) or might not (subconscious) be completely aware of what's happening.

[Kirana]

i think it's quite clear how something can be automatic and under control.

when something is done repeatedly so that it becomes very familiar (i.e. skill), you need to pay less attention to it. your mind creates a system that simply iterates what you always do, without your conscious mind micro-managing it. but you are conscious that the thing is now being iterated automatically. and you can alter the system when it no longer works, or pause the thought process in the middle, backtrack, etc. therefore it is still conscious.

non-internal analogy: a guy putting corks on bottles. he does hundreds a day and it's always the same. he makes a machine to put corks on bottles so he doesn't have to do it himself or even supervise. he still has control over the machine. he can turn it on and off, take it apart, modify it, change it.

alternatively, you could say that doing something unconsciously is when you don't realise you're doing something, at least until after you've done it. and even then you don't quite have an accurate idea of what it was that you did (because during the doing of it you were not conscious).

consciously doing something is when you know what you are doing, whether you are paying attention at every moment or not. most of my driving is automated in my mind, and yet it is certainly a conscious action. i hardly have to think about the route i take to work, except when i have to change course. it's automated. but once, before it was automated, i learned where to go and where to turn off. once, when i was learning the route, i paid attention at every moment. automation is simply a means of conserving energy for doing a familiar thing.

when i make a system from chaos, i'm conscious of what i'm doing. i am conscious of all the things my mind is taking in and arranging to create a system. but once i have a good system in place, and all that's left is to flesh it out, by now i'm so good at sifting for pieces i need and rejecting pieces that are redundant that i don't need to pay full attention. it happens in the background, but i know that it is happening. if it so happens things start not to fit, then my automation will not work so well, i would notice, and so my conscious mind has to pay full attention again to figure out where the system fails, fix it, then turn on the automatic sifter again. all this is control.

therefore, i lean towards nivek and FDG. automated does not equal unconscious.

[Park]

*laughs at Hugo's avatar* ... that's just so0o0o funny... LOL... still laughing... wtf... hahahahaha...

[Rick]

Interesting topic. Under the definition of "conscious" that we're operating with, would a kid (say, 8-10 years old) be conscious of any of his functions?

Maybe each function involves a whole set of psychic mechanisms, some of which can potentially be made conscious through experience and introspection? While other mechanisms are hopelessly buried in the psyche?

(If something like this were the case, it would explain why our awareness of internal mechanisms grows with age and as we study things like socionics.)

[anndelise]

Interesting topic. Under the definition of "conscious" that we're operating with, would a kid (say, 8-10 years old) be conscious of any of his functions?

Maybe each function involves a whole set of psychic mechanisms, some of which can potentially be made conscious through experience and introspection? While other mechanisms are hopelessly buried in the psyche?

(If something like this were the case, it would explain why our awareness of internal mechanisms grows with age and as we study things like socionics.)

I believe that yes, aspects of our Functioning can be made conscious through experience and introspection.

[Rocky]

According to Jung, the judging functions are considered more "concious" functions, and the perceiving functions are more "subconcious".

He said for Extraverts, their extraverted functions are in the concious block, while the introverted functions are more subconcious. The opposite is true for Introverts.

He also said that perceivers were more aware of a person's subconcious, while judgers were more aware of their concious part.

[Creepy-]

We couldn't be aware of our functions without some education on the matter but you could still be aware of the manifestations of your functions, whether or not you take much notice. It depends how interested you are in the way you work, I guess.