Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: On functions

  1. #1
    Creepy-

    Default On functions...

    It seems to me that the "strength" of functions isn't all that important, the role is much more important.

    i.e. an IEI isn't an IEI because their is stronger than their etc., rather it is because is their base function (and is their role function, etc.)

    So it follows that an IEI might have (or appear to have) weak /strong etc. etc., but because of their psyche's organisation they are still an IEI regardless.

    What do you think?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    40
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't know if it's right or not, but that's how I tend to see it.
    Possibly ethical-intuitive introvert.

  3. #3
    I'm back, assholes! Herzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    5,098
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, I agree with that.

    Also, this is a very good explanation as for the diffences between people of the same type.
    , Se-sub
    8w8-3w8-7w8 sx/sx

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've posted stuff like this on here before. I remember saying that sometimes I stress what will happen in terms of time than my ILI Dad does. I'm usually on time, but only becuase I worry about it. That's why the third function is called "neurosis", it makes you anxious. The difference is that your base is more like a "fall back" funciton. You feel more confident in it.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  5. #5
    schrödinger's cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    1,186
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is interesting. I used to think that stronger function = 1st function. If that isn't true, how is it possible to tell whether a function is or isn't someone's base function? Are there any other criteria?

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    703
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schrödinger's cat
    This is interesting. I used to think that stronger function = 1st function. If that isn't true, how is it possible to tell whether a function is or isn't someone's base function? Are there any other criteria?
    A base function will be a person's primary accepting function (following model A). The base function will provide the majority of the information that will be manipulated by producing functions. Because of the confidence placed in the function and it's extensive use, it's effects should be most apparent in the subject's behavior. Therefore it should normally test stronger, though a producing subtype subject could possibly test higher on the producing function.

    The thing about tests is they do not measure the "size" of a function, but rather, how much effect it has on the behaviour of the subject. A person's perceptions and socialization will affect test results. I'm not sure one could truly quantify functions anyway.
    That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche

  7. #7
    Creepy-

    Default

    Could an unusually aggressive person test as a type from their opposing quadra? I had a thought that in that instance, their ID functions might test stronger than usual.

  8. #8
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: On functions...

    Quote Originally Posted by ishysquishy
    It seems to me that the "strength" of functions isn't all that important, the role is much more important.

    i.e. an IEI isn't an IEI because their is stronger than their etc., rather it is because is their base function (and is their role function, etc.)

    So it follows that an IEI might have (or appear to have) weak /strong etc. etc., but because of their psyche's organisation they are still an IEI regardless.

    What do you think?
    I agree with this theory.

Posting Permissions

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