Question about functions

[Jarno]

Do you use your functions all at the same time (but some having simply more influence than others)
Or do you use your functions only one at a time (for different occasions and events a different function)


I'm curious to your answers.

[krieger]

Do you use your functions all at the same time (but some having simply more influence than others)

Definitely this, in my opinion.

One of the reasons I consider the act of making statements like "OMG, you just used Te" to be flawed in principle.

[Logos]

Do you use your functions all at the same time (but some having simply more influence than others)

Yes. All the lights are turned on, but some are brighter and bolder than others.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Do you use your functions all at the same time (but some having simply more influence than others)
Or do you use your functions only one at a time (for different occasions and events a different function)

It can be both depending on what you're doing. I'm sure for some activities, they are so prominent obviously one dominant function, that the rest are so shadowed in a way as to be meaningless. Yet when doing varied, 'non-professional, non-institutionalized' activities, where you are just living life.....then I'd say it's the former.

[Logos]

labcoat and Logos: I doubt you use Ne all the time, but you know better .

You are being bombarded with a beam of visible white light. You may have a number of different filters which break down the light into reds, blues, and greens that you can look at. You may like to look at the blue light being filtered, but you are still constantly being hit by that white beam of light composed of all the colors of the visible light spectrum.

I personally find the idea of not using all the functions in conjunction together to be about as ridiculous as saying, "No, I am not using my heart right now, because I am focusing on breathing."

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

labcoat and Logos: I doubt you use Ne all the time, but you know better

From what I understand, an INTj's Ne is simply about apprehending the meaning of a concept. I do in fact use that skill all the time whenever I think. It's just something different from the explosive, chaotic ENTp version.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Jarno]

Definitely this, in my opinion.

One of the reasons I consider the act of making statements like "OMG, you just used Te" to be flawed in principle.

Yes that's my opinion too. And I also think the same about those kind of statements.

[Jarno]

Yes. All the lights are turned on, but some are brighter and bolder than others.

Yep. And while some people probably think it are the valued functions that are brighter and bolder, my opinion is that it are the strong functions. What do you think?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Jarno]

It's impossible to use Si and Se at the same time, for example. It's like being modest but arrogant at the same time. I don't know what you're looking for.
But you seem fixed on this idea ignoring real-life evidence, suit yourself. I'll delete it as you don't need it.

No I think you are right about this one.

I was more fixed on other things, but it's true that you ignore your 7th function in favor of your first. So that's indeed some evidence that my idea is wrong.

[Logos]

Yep. And while some people probably think it are the valued functions that are brighter and bolder, my opinion is that it are the strong functions. What do you think?

Yes. Green and yellow may both be bold, and red and blue being more sublime, but you may have a preference in looking at the green, and subconsciously wishing that you could see the blue better.

[Logos]

It's impossible to use Si and Se at the same time, for example. It's like being modest but arrogant at the same time. I don't know what you're looking for.
But you seem fixed on this idea ignoring real-life evidence, suit yourself. I'll delete it as you don't need it.

"The table is rough (), and it does not feel good on my skin ()."

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Logos]

@Jarno: Alright.

@Logos: "the table is rough" is Si, if something, it's a perception of possible discomfort.

It's a static physical property of the table.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Krig the Viking]

Information is processed one function at a time, but it moves through them very rapidly. The reason why Model A is numbered so strangely, with 3 below 2 and 4 below 1, is that it shows the cycle of how information flows through the psyche. Gulenko has a good article on this: The Structure and the Elements of the Socionics Model - Wikisocion

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[The Exception]

Krig, an observation: I read somewhere a block mnemonic which I agree most:

I find it true, but while it's similar to Gulenko's about the first three blocks, the Id is somehow opposite.

What would you suggest for the ID block?

How about I know I can, but I just don't care? (especially for the 7th function)

[Logos]

Krig, an observation: I read somewhere a block mnemonic which I agree most:

I find it true, but while it's similar to Gulenko's about the first three blocks, the Id is somehow opposite.

But through Model A, you are told what you can't do, so you in effect know what you can('t) do. There is no subconscious!

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[silverchris9]

I'm still a bit of a novice, but here's my take on it:

I imagine that there's a limit on either end: there's a limit to how much one can narrow one's focus to only act/perceive/understand with one function, and a limit to how much one can broaden one's focus to act/perceive/understand with every function. So you can't "just" use your first function, nor can you use "all the functions at once." While you can move (with varying degrees of difficulty) anywhere between the poles, most people, I'd imagine, stick fairly close to a narrow field of view.

I would, however, somewhat defend the, "OMG, you're using Te" statements by saying that if one is working near the "narrowness limit", one is acting/perceiving/understanding in such a way that it provides a relatively unmixed example of a given function, although not perfectly unmixed.

But I could be completely wrong.

[Creepy-male]

It's impossible to use Si and Se at the same time, for example. It's like being modest but arrogant at the same time. I don't know what you're looking for.
But you seem fixed on this idea ignoring real-life evidence, suit yourself. I'll delete it as you don't need it.

Solution: you're still processing it, it's just falling on deaf ears, so to speak.

Model A is all your perceptions, the functions are what you do with those.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Logos]

@Logos and glamourama: it looks like you don't see the things how I do.

You said a lot of nothing.

I don't understand what you mean. Told by who?
Still, I did not and I have no intention to use the word "subconscious".

It's a rhetorical who.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Krig the Viking]

Krig, an observation: I read somewhere a block mnemonic which I agree most:

Ego: I know I can
Super-Ego: I know I can't
Super-Id: I don't know I can't
Id: I don't know I can

I find it true, but while it's similar to Gulenko's about the first three blocks, the Id is somehow opposite.

Ooh, that one is neat. The Ego and Id can, and the Super-Ego and Super-Id can't, while the Ego and Super-Ego know, and the Super-Id and Id don't know. "I can" and "I don't know I can" aren't really opposites, the one saying is just pointing out the subconscious nature of the Id and Super-Id.

Of course, the Vital Ring isn't really sub-conscious or unconscious, in the sense of not being aware of it, it's just wordless and instinctive rather than controlled and deliberate. We know, we just don't think about it.

My own (somewhat unwieldy) mnemonic for the blocks:

Ego: I know I can, and I enjoy doing it!
Super-Ego: I know I should, but I suck at it and I really don't want to.
Super-Id: Oh man, that's awesome, I wish I could do that!
Id: Yeah, I can, but it's so boring...



And while I'm here:

SeFi: That table is all rough and ugly and I don't like it!
SeTi: That table is all rough because it hasn't been sanded down.
SiFe: Ow! That table hurt me! Stupid table!
SiTe: Ow. That table hurt me. Where's my sandpaper?

[Trevor]

Pandora's box is open.

[electric sheep]

I think we use functions two at a time, actually. Using with makes no sense to me--I try to explain things as impersonally as possible, but I always run afoul of the because I always fail to account for it (I've gotten into some nasty arguments with LSIs by doing this). Then, when I try to use myself, some always finds its way in there--I start judging everything on an emotional level. Also, and seem inseparable to me, like peanut butter and jelly. Who would want with their ? That's like a peanut butter and fish sandwich!

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Logos]

@Logos: although you're ignorant, you're also self-important, therefore your chances to learn are closed to zero. Why don't you do something useful?

@ephemeros: bite me.

[Jarno]

Pandora's box is open.

hehehe, yes :-)

[Brilliand]

I think we use functions two at a time, actually. Using with makes no sense to me--I try to explain things as impersonally as possible, but I always run afoul of the because I always fail to account for it (I've gotten into some nasty arguments with LSIs by doing this). Then, when I try to use myself, some always finds its way in there--I start judging everything on an emotional level. Also, and seem inseparable to me, like peanut butter and jelly. Who would want with their ? That's like a peanut butter and fish sandwich!

I've been considering discarding the functions and considering all relationships interactions between E/I, S/N, T/F and Static/Dynamic for this very reason. As in: If Static/Dynamic is different, differences on those four dichotomies are appreciated; if Static/Dynamic matches, matches on those four dichotomies are appreciated. (Yes, I have Static/Dynamic appreciated no matter what. )

What does that view lose? Asymmetrical relationships...