# Thread: Imagine a simple space with objects

1. ## Imagine a simple space with objects...

About a year ago I tried to understand the underlying principle behind all the functions. I got quite close but then things got muddy. I imagined a space with objects in it - a few of them alive, a few inanimate. All the objects have traits of all 4 extroverted functions and they are all linked with barely visible threads representing all 4 introverted functions.

When I started adding the functions, I realized I can add only S functions and there won't be any holes there. Everything will have their own traits and there will be a link between all the objects. It will be a very simple only physical world. To give it depth, you have to add N functions. Aside from Se traits the objects now also have potential and non-physical connections.

Then I added T and F. It doesn't matter which one is added first, both give a fully adequate addition to everything. They don't depend on each other. However, both T and F depend on the other traits of objects - objects must have both S and N traits already before they can be seen as useful (Te) or good (Fe).

Makes sense to me. The most important part is Se and Si because they give everything dimensions and form. Ne and Ni just add to the world, they aren't as required as Se and Si. However, T functions and F functions are equal fut give opposite kinds of impressions about the objects.

But this is how far I got.

I was unable to figure out why the functions are always paired. Why does my Fe need Ni by its side and if it really needs some S/N function, then why can't it be Ne or Se. Why do I benefit from other people having Ti? What does Ti give that no other function could. But still... if I can imagine this space with T and without F, then why is there sudden synergy between T and F types? And if I can imagine this space without any T or F then why do all people need either T or F.

2. I'm glad you made this post, Kristiina. It struck the crux of the questions about feedback loops—my favorite aspect of socionics

So, I see you're dealing with the S, N, T and F dichotomies. I don't think this is invalid, but I don't think it's the most pragmatic manner of modeling function pairs. Simply because the only reason, say, "F" functions exist, is not because of anything antecedent, but as a corollary of the combination of functions' constituent parts, in a way. That being said, F is a legitimate general realm, so we'll see how it works.

Originally Posted by Kristiina
When I started adding the functions, I realized I can add only S functions and there won't be any holes there. Everything will have their own traits and there will be a link between all the objects. It will be a very simple only physical world. To give it depth, you have to add N functions. Aside from Se traits the objects now also have potential and non-physical connections.
S functions will, in a sense, give the objects magnitude. Only, the S functions work in different realms; Se deals with forms and properties, while Si deals with contextual connections. So, the former will disperse these objects into an array of localized physical variables, while the latter will synthesize them into a continuum of interconnected physical interactions. The N functions are what will, generally, make up the latent aspects of the objects. Ne will divide all the objects up (which are already connected through the Si context) based on internal constituent parts, creating for a sort of conglomerate of potentials within said things; Ni will synthesize the objects (which are already explicitly 'positioned' by Se) into a central, abstract pattern. They work off of each other, but it can be hard to model when dealing with N and S, instead of say, Ne/Se and Ni/Si.

Then I added T and F. It doesn't matter which one is added first, both give a fully adequate addition to everything. They don't depend on each other. However, both T and F depend on the other traits of objects - objects must have both S and N traits already before they can be seen as useful (Te) or good (Fe).
I think the last part misses the mark, only because "useful" and "good" are subjective terms which depend on too many contextual factors to be attributed to one function. Where the S/N functions register data, the T/F functions can be said to assess it. We are essentially dealing with another axis, but I guess we could try to link it to the prior one. Te and Fe will basically organize the causal sequences of the objects. The former will look at logical causal reactions, while the latter will see latent ones. If you start from, say, an Si perspective, where the objects are connected throughout a developing context, then you add Te into the mix, it will serve as a winnower of sorts, giving gradients of the significant points of activity for said objects, while never detracting from their overall connections. As for Ti and Fi, they will essentially look at invariant relations between objects to find some underpinning structure, coherence, solidity, etc. Ti will establish parameters and explicit connections between the (already internally active) objects; there are certain rules for how they will behave. Whereas Fi will establish a more latent connection, somewhat like a polarity state, where the underlying unity between the (already ostensibly active) objects will be based on their internal 'reactions' to one another. You touch something, and there is an energy exchange; this creates a new balance of energy between the two things. Fi works similar to this, establishing internal states, which are not shifted too often.

I was unable to figure out why the functions are always paired. Why does my Fe need Ni by its side and if it really needs some S/N function, then why can't it be Ne or Se. Why do I benefit from other people having Ti? What does Ti give that no other function could. But still... if I can imagine this space with T and without F, then why is there sudden synergy between T and F types? And if I can imagine this space without any T or F then why do all people need either T or F.
The function blocks are basically corollaries of the feedback loop pairings. As far as "ego" functions go, you'll always have those two psychic lenses which are the closest to you. As I mentioned before, the Je functions give a sequential order to the Pi functions, which keeps the Pi functions from becoming too convoluted (as they are negative feedback and distill things down upon themselves). The Pi functions give the Je functions a more holistic sense of connections, making sure that the Je functions don't get over-exerted and lost in the ever-increasing number of causal sequences in the external world. Likewise with the Pe and Ji functions. The former can register discrete information endlessly; there is always a new object to gauge, a new way to rearrange this, etc. The Ji functions give a holistic sense of order to these impressions. Likewise, the Pe functions give an expansive quality to the Ji functions, to keep them from becoming insular.

That's all I have for now. May add more later.

3. I think your framework is a bit off. First, all four rational and all four irrational elements are interconnected. I think "adding" the rational elements to your model was wrong, as they do not function like the irrational elements.

Instead, imagine a second plane apart from your already preexisting one, which I will call the bodily plane. This second plane simply observes the first; it draws generalizations from how the objects on the bodily plane interact. All of its observations are just a cognitive construct. For simplicity, I will call it the cognitive plane. The rational elements occupy this cognitive plane: all they do is looks at what exists on the bodily plane and make judgments on it.

I think your construction of the irrational elements was good. The two sensing elements describe the traits of the objects and the world and how each object relates to the other objects and the world. The two intuitive elements add internal characteristics to the whole plane. is easiest to describe as internal potential, a characteristic not of what the object or set of objects are, but of what they could become. is what each object's potential relationship with the rest of the plane will become.

The four rational elements are removed from the bodily plane because, while their observations rely on the existance of the objects and their relationships to each other, they do not actually interact with the objects. The objects are free, but, being the conscious objects we are, we feel that we cannot ignore these cognitive observations.

The two introverted rational elements observe and decide on the characteristics of the relationships between the objects. focuses on objective relationships while focuses on subjective ones, the result being the construction of two opposing frameworks. focused more on groups, more on individuals; values a person for their attributes, how they compare to others in the group, and what they contribute to the group, while values an individual for being "good" or "bad", the status of their personal relationships with others, and what they contribute to society as a whole.

The two extraverted rational elements observe changing qualities in the objects, again with being subjective and objective. tends to link mood to the state of the environment or the individual. does not look at mood, so much as it looks on effort. Just like and , there are instances when these two elements will reach the same conclusion given the same scenario, but often they cannot work in tandem as each finds the other distracting.

From this, I think it is pretty obvious why each element has a certain other as its dual, but I also think that such a model would explain elements "pairing up" as input each individual needs input from both planes, the bodily plane for how he envisions interactions with the world and the cognitive plane for the traits he looks at in the world. I do think that, for example, can pair up with or , but this happens in a limited amount of cases as all three elements observe characteristics of functions and they differ in looking at static and dynamic characteristics. It provides more information and a better, wider worldview if an element that looks at a characteristic operates along with an element that looks at a relationship and if one belongs to one plane and the other to the other.

4. Finally an interesting topic again on this forum.

I've been drawing those things too. Never really got to something final.

Some things which may be interesting:

Jung's psychological types explain nice how and why some functions are able to cooperate and which are not. Whether his explanation is outdated by socionics, I don't know...

Rational functions are functions that compare to a (subjective) standard of the person. Maybe it's something like, if an object fits to a standard object. Just brainstorming a bit.

The extravert and introvert explanation by Jung needs another kind of drawing then the one you suggest. But then other things wouldn't fit. So I won't bother you with that.

All in all, I was of no help what so ever, and wish you luck with your drawing! '-)

5. Originally Posted by ZTCrawcrustle
I think your framework is a bit off. First, all four rational and all four irrational elements are interconnected. I think "adding" the rational elements to your model was wrong, as they do not function like the irrational elements.

Instead, imagine a second plane apart from your already preexisting one, which I will call the bodily plane. This second plane simply observes the first; it draws generalizations from how the objects on the bodily plane interact. All of its observations are just a cognitive construct. For simplicity, I will call it the cognitive plane. The rational elements occupy this cognitive plane: all they do is looks at what exists on the bodily plane and make judgments on it.

I think your construction of the irrational elements was good. The two sensing elements describe the traits of the objects and the world and how each object relates to the other objects and the world. The two intuitive elements add internal characteristics to the whole plane. is easiest to describe as internal potential, a characteristic not of what the object or set of objects are, but of what they could become. is what each object's potential relationship with the rest of the plane will become.

The four rational elements are removed from the bodily plane because, while their observations rely on the existance of the objects and their relationships to each other, they do not actually interact with the objects. The objects are free, but, being the conscious objects we are, we feel that we cannot ignore these cognitive observations.

The two introverted rational elements observe and decide on the characteristics of the relationships between the objects. focuses on objective relationships while focuses on subjective ones, the result being the construction of two opposing frameworks. focused more on groups, more on individuals; values a person for their attributes, how they compare to others in the group, and what they contribute to the group, while values an individual for being "good" or "bad", the status of their personal relationships with others, and what they contribute to society as a whole.

The two extraverted rational elements observe changing qualities in the objects, again with being subjective and objective. tends to link mood to the state of the environment or the individual. does not look at mood, so much as it looks on effort. Just like and , there are instances when these two elements will reach the same conclusion given the same scenario, but often they cannot work in tandem as each finds the other distracting.

From this, I think it is pretty obvious why each element has a certain other as its dual, but I also think that such a model would explain elements "pairing up" as input each individual needs input from both planes, the bodily plane for how he envisions interactions with the world and the cognitive plane for the traits he looks at in the world. I do think that, for example, can pair up with or , but this happens in a limited amount of cases as all three elements observe characteristics of functions and they differ in looking at static and dynamic characteristics. It provides more information and a better, wider worldview if an element that looks at a characteristic operates along with an element that looks at a relationship and if one belongs to one plane and the other to the other.
Oh wow, that actually seems to work. Adding another plane is ingenious. Judging plane draws information from the percieving plane - giving both objective and subjective value to things on the percieving plane - but does the percieving plane really need the judging plane to exist? Or to put it simply - Do S and N functions need any T and F information to exist?

T/F is dependant on N/S. Opinion (F) can't exist without an object (S) or without an imagined object (N). However, an object has shape and form (S) even when no one knows much about it (T) or has an opinion about it (F). It seems out of balance.

btw, your thoughts and explenations seem very Ni. How come?

6. Originally Posted by Kristiina
Oh wow, that actually seems to work. Adding another plane is ingenious. Judging plane draws information from the percieving plane - giving both objective and subjective value to things on the percieving plane - but does the percieving plane really need the judging plane to exist? Or to put it simply - Do S and N functions need any T and F information to exist?

T/F is dependant on N/S. Opinion (F) can't exist without an object (S) or without an imagined object (N). However, an object has shape and form (S) even when no one knows much about it (T) or has an opinion about it (F). It seems out of balance.

btw, your thoughts and explenations seem very Ni. How come?
Most people on this board say that I'm ILI (one says LSI).

To answer your main question, while the irrational functions alone would define the world, society could not exist without the rational functions, T and F. While I was writing my first post, I thought in terms of lions, but have now come up with a clearer example.

Take two male dinosaurs (or bears, now that I think of them), animals that usually do not form groups. When two male bears meet, their interactions can be determined just with the irrational elements (one is stronger, one does not feel good today, one is likely to grow in time and become stronger, etc.). Their meeting will likely end in a fight or one will back down, run away. Since they are likely not to meet again under the same circumstances, they have no need for the rational functions.

Now, two male wolves also confront each other. However, unlikely the solitary bears, the wolves still need to maintain a relationship after their fight. The same scenario as the above happens, except this one ends with a second set of considerations: how they now relate to each other. In the case of wolves, they tend to form, I think, relationships with the Alpha male leader above the rest of the pack due to being the strongest (not to say that this is the only possible attribute in deciding the leader of a -valuing group). For group and societal functioning the rational elements are needed, the ones that determine the relationship between members and the changing state of the environment or another object, so as to determine the best action to take in a given scenario.

7. I was unable to figure out why the functions are always paired.
Here's as far as I've considered it:

Judging = relation between entities
Perceiving = entities themselves

Put two entities together and the relation between the two simply emerges. It exists apart from an act on our part to name it.

What you say: tiger, cat
What you don't say but emerges from simply putting the above together: tiger is bigger than cat

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•