This is just a question I'm throwing out there, I am no pro to the socionics construct.
However, what I do know is that there are 8 slots and 8 functions. Each function occupies a slot. Some of these slots play a dominant role in defining the person's behavior and awarness of a particular function, other slots play a more passive role in defining the person's behavior and awarness of a particular function.
What I am wondering is, in certain extreme or unusual situations do the functions switch to occupy a more dominant slot.
For example a person with dominant intuition would become temporilarily more sensing (aware of there surroundings) when they perceived a loud noise or fast movement. There would be no difference in the function sensing plays to one with sensing as their dominant function for that small amount of time. The difference would be in the long run where the intuitor would prefer to "work with" intuition when "given a choice".
Another example would be a dominant thinking type that becomes temporilarily more feeling (heightened emotional awarness and expression) when they are in a certain situation. The most obvious situation I can think of is sexual, its just so biologically hardwired to be feeling in that situation.
Finally my last example is a one with the introverted dictomy. Now introverted I understand is different than the "pop psych" definition. Provided by Carl Jung it means to be internally focused vs externally focused. However, once again I think its concievable that someone focuses their energy outward in a comfortable situation, like a person who is around a group of close friends. In fact alot of MBTI or socionics websites will say introverts are categorized by a small group of "close friends". I think this is a direct result of this, that extroverts are more frequently "putting their energy" out there in social situations whereas introverts do so primarily amongst close friends. In fact if one were lead to believe an introvert absolutely never put their energy outward, it would be impossible to have "friendships" at least as they are commonly refered to. By definition friendships are abstractly speaking a bond between two peoples "energy" whether that is sharing thoughts, experiences, imaginative ideas, or feelings.
Furthermore the interest would come in determining the most propable switch when these situational types come out. An INTJ that becomes extroverted in a particular situation, would mimic an ENTP. This would be due to the two dominant functions they share. In fact if this was true, the dictomy xxxJ would change to xxxP, suggesting the usually stiff and rigid INTJ would be very impulsive like an ENTP. Whereas a INTP may become more like an ENTJ, suggesting that their more imaginative philosophical absent mindedness (xxxp) would transform to a more outward logical concise (xxxj) nature.
What do u think?
No I don't think the ordering of the function changes... but there are some finer points to this.
(Which I address below the line, and I get pretty in depth)
Especially how a type works in a very short and specific situation...
Almost every human being will react with certain biologically hardwired instincts; eating food is an example - no one is going to completely think through the reason why they need to eat food on an upper level intuitive thinking way, its as simple as you are hungry and you eat.
And in that instance of being hungry and instinctually deciding to eat without much thought put into it, you are being sensing/feeling dominant. Its almost ridiculous to believe that thinking/intuitive types would derive their motivation to eat food through analytical or intuitive means.
That is to say a typical person goes to a resteraunt and when the food comes they pick up their fork and begin to eat instincively without a second thought, their isn't alot of mental cognition going along the lines of "Ok so if I don't eat, I'll eventually lose energy and become weak and unhealthy, malnutritioned, and possibly die, so its important that I eat this food, ok so to accomplish this task I need to find a fork, or a complete set of silverware, in our western convention that set is the fork-knife-spoon system, ok time to utilize the fork on the pasta in a peircing motion followed by a counterclockwise rotation".
However a proper application of the model would go along the lines of: sensing/feeling types are likely to realize sooner when they are hungry than thinking/intuitive types because they have a great focus in that area. Or better yet that sensing/feeling types may place a greater focus in their life on enjoying and tasting various types of food, where as thinking/intuitive types perceive it as a nessicity for life.
The difference between the proper, reasonable application and the ridiculous, unreasonable application is where the secret of how this stuff works lies in.
In the ridiculous application I tried to apply the dominance of functions to a very specific situation and it failed. In the reasonable application it can be seen that I applied the dominance of functions in a general way. Thus the dominance of functions really exist from the amout of emphasis/focus people have in general utilizing those functions.
-- That is an important thing, because if the model doesn't work in specific/discrete situations but does in general situation then their is this big mystery as to how each of those specific/discrete situations add up to compose a general behavior pattern
My proposal to that problem is that the functions aren't rigid and solid but rather have a little wiggle-room, it's not completely loose and unreliable but a type just isn't some cosmic constant.
Last edited by male; 01-26-2009 at 09:16 PM.