Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: concise explanation of functions

  1. #1
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default concise explanation of functions

    yes I know this is an almost criminal oversimplification, but here's what I was thinking...

    Te: simplifies
    Ti: explores

    Se: does stuff
    Si: feels good

    Fe: displays emotions and manipulates other's emotions
    Fi: internalizes stuff and cares about ethics and whatnot

    Ne: sees endless possibilities
    Ni: time and mysticism and whatnot
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  2. #2

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

    Default

    I might suggest putting Ni as "sees patterns".
    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

  3. #3
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    but Ne sees patterns too
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  4. #4

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

    Default

    But I think the emphasis is on the patterns with Ni. Or rather, where the patterns lead.
    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

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    281
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think Ni is sees possibilities and Ne is sees patterns.

  6. #6

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wym123
    I think Ni is sees possibilities and Ne is sees patterns.
    And you would be mistaken.

    Well, that depends on what you mean by possibilities.
    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

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.
    ENTp

  8. #8
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    genius!!!
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  9. #9
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Especially this part:

    Ne = Alternatives
    Ni = Appropriateness
    There, the debate has been resolved.
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I really see no benefit whatsoever in condensing the functions into single word abstractions.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.
    ENTp

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    How do you know the functions can't do something for you? Do you really know that much about the human brain? We don't know what the functions actually are, other than that they are observation phenomena in human behavior. We don't know if they are connected in some way to processes, subconscious or whatever, that may actually alter our conscious thought without us realizing, or manipulate us for reasons we are not aware of.

    This seems to be venturing into pseudo-philosophy or something...

  13. #13

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

    Default

    It's just an approximation and terminology to explain observed behavior. The actual mechanics of it are still pretty mysterious. Personally, I see the functions as the "tools" we use to manipulate information.
    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

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.
    ENTp

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Transigent
    I just wanted to say that the functions were just created to describe things that happened. It was kinda directed at the folks who are constantly saying "oh wow, I Te'ed that" or "I Ni'ed this!" or "Ne sees patterns".

    I find that actually more pseudo-philosophical then just saying that functions are just descriptions of what people do.

    I mean, there may be certain things in the brain that correspond to each function, but until we find that out, I think that the whole "functions doing things for us" bit is kinda speculative and new-agey.

    Hell, I could be wrong, but right now I don't think that either position is really backed up by any concrete evidence yet.
    That's what I'm saying. We don't know either way, so holding an opinion at this point seems suspect.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.
    ENTp

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    180
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    More oversimplification:

    Te: Facts (actions, events)
    Ti: Analysis

    Fe: Emotion
    Fi: Ethic

    Se: Vitality
    Si: Aesthetics (comfort, health)

    Ne: Possibility
    Ni: Foresight

    I tried to define the functions in such a way so that the introverted components could be seen as a subjective interpretation of their extraverted counterparts. If the definitions were to become even more precise I suppose one might consider things such as functional inhibition and support.
    Lyricist

    "Supposing the entity of the poet to be represented by the number 10, it is certain that a chemist, on analyzing it, would find it to be composed of one part interest and nine parts vanity." (Victor Hugo)

  18. #18
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ooh, this is fun! Here's my crappy interpretation:

    Ti = subjective criticism
    Fi = affective criticism

    Si = self-preservation
    Ni = self-direction

    Se = societal force
    Ne = societal change

    Te = objective criticism
    Fe = societal criticism
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  19. #19
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,596
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Fun

    I enjoyed that. With a such clear understanding of functions we can move anywhere we want. Is it possible to consider not the separate functions but to describe the type? I haven't got time now but I am going to describe the functions using associations with the natural world.
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

  20. #20
    schrödinger's cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    1,186
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What about this?

    F = subjectivity // T = objectivity

    Fe = subjectivity in the outside world --> results of subjectivity (emotions, interactions)
    Fi = subjectivity as seen from the inside --> what the world looks and feels like if seen through my own or someone else's eyes*

    *this leads to conclusions about appropriate behaviour and ethics, but those conclusions are not what Fi is primarily about

  21. #21
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I always thought

    Ni - intuition of answers
    Ne – intuition of questions

    Don't know the rest

  22. #22
    Creepy-

    Default

    How about...

    - established logical constructs
    - established ethical constructs

    - tangible traits of the present
    - intangible traits of the present

    - personal logical constructs
    - personal ethical constructs

    - tangible traits in development
    - intangible traits in development

  23. #23
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schrödinger's cat
    What about this?

    F = subjectivity // T = objectivity

    Fe = subjectivity in the outside world --> results of subjectivity (emotions, interactions)
    Fi = subjectivity as seen from the inside --> what the world looks and feels like if seen through my own or someone else's eyes*

    *this leads to conclusions about appropriate behaviour and ethics, but those conclusions are not what Fi is primarily about
    Yes, exactly! This is exactly what I based my list off of.
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  24. #24
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No, extroversion is objectivity, and introversion subjectivity. sees emotions as a kind of cosmic whole with no real right or wrong; tries to define more clearly what is right and wrong. looks at the facts and balances them out to form a conclusion, uses facts as a means to a particular end. sees all possible conclusions, looks at how one develops over time. Still working on S in these terms, but I think it's that sees all of the qualities of a physical being and balances them out, while "analyzes" them to see what works best.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  25. #25
    schrödinger's cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    1,186
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    Quote Originally Posted by schrödinger's cat
    What about this?

    F = subjectivity // T = objectivity

    Fe = subjectivity in the outside world --> results of subjectivity (emotions, interactions)
    Fi = subjectivity as seen from the inside --> what the world looks and feels like if seen through my own or someone else's eyes*

    *this leads to conclusions about appropriate behaviour and ethics, but those conclusions are not what Fi is primarily about
    Yes, exactly! This is exactly what I based my list off of.
    Yay!

  26. #26
    schrödinger's cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    1,186
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gilligan87
    No, extroversion is objectivity, and introversion subjectivity. sees emotions as a kind of cosmic whole with no real right or wrong; tries to define more clearly what is right and wrong.
    I was basing this on my own explanation of T and F.

    T = taking a few steps back to see things from a distance, get an overview, see the objects or phenomena and how they interact. Detaching yourself in order to make decisions. Objectivity.
    F = taking a few steps closer, trying to get into (become part of) a situation in order to make decisions about it. Attaching yourself in order to make decisions. Subjectivity.

    I see what you mean, though.

  27. #27
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gilligan87
    No, extroversion is objectivity, and introversion subjectivity.
    It is both. The functions are a combination of three elements, so that you end up with obj/obj/J (Te), obj/obj/P (Se), obj/sub/J (Fe), obj/sub/P (Ne), sub/obj/J (Ti), sub/obj/P (Si), sub/sub/J (Fi), and sub/sub/P (Ni). But this is non-standard Socionics.
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  28. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    Quote Originally Posted by gilligan87
    No, extroversion is objectivity, and introversion subjectivity.
    It is both. The functions are a combination of three elements, so that you end up with obj/obj/J (Te), obj/obj/P (Se), obj/sub/J (Fe), obj/sub/P (Ne), sub/obj/J (Ti), sub/obj/P (Si), sub/sub/J (Fi), and sub/sub/P (Ni). But this is non-standard Socionics.
    Yeah, you're really going to revolutionize socionics.

    "To understand the functions, one must consider J/P scale [accepting]*E*Ti but remember to substitute (Te > Fi) * (obj/thi/Re/76c799[Ni-Ne production]) for the order of the function preferential data (Te>Te>Te<Ti<Ti<Fi<Fe<) which can be objectively measured when considering the irr/irr/sub/obj (Fe). This proves my theory about Plt/GWB/obj/obj/sub/intp/(Fe accepting*producing*Ni quadration)."

  29. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here is how the functions break down:

    Ne: Godmode
    Ni: Gothmode

    Te: Dr Phil's penis
    Ti: Comprehension

    Fe: ROFLCOPTER
    Fi: Homosexuality

    Se: Tripping toddlers
    Si: Tripping

  30. #30
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,596
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Details

    To Cone,

    I did not understand how did you come to this conclusions, why only three elements?

    No, extroversion is objectivity, and introversion subjectivity.


    It is both. The functions are a combination of three elements, so that you end up with obj/obj/J (Te), obj/obj/P (Se), obj/sub/J (Fe), obj/sub/P (Ne), sub/obj/J (Ti), sub/obj/P (Si), sub/sub/J (Fi), and sub/sub/P (Ni). But this is non-standard Socionics.
    _________________
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

  31. #31
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,596
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default I also think,

    It would be a good idea for people to summarise their topics at some stage and to put it on the article site. I think the concise explanations of functions should definetly be there!
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

  32. #32
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  33. #33
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Details

    Quote Originally Posted by Olga
    To Cone,

    I did not understand how did you come to this conclusions, why only three elements?
    There are 8 = 2 to 3rd power functions. For this reason it's impossible to have more than three deciding elements for functions. Any elements in addition to the three would either create more functions or themselves be aspects of the three first elements, derivatives if you will.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cone quoting gilligan
    No, extroversion is objectivity, and introversion subjectivity.

    It is both. The functions are a combination of three elements, so that you end up with obj/obj/J (Te), obj/obj/P (Se), obj/sub/J (Fe), obj/sub/P (Ne), sub/obj/J (Ti), sub/obj/P (Si), sub/sub/J (Fi), and sub/sub/P (Ni). But this is non-standard Socionics.
    _________________
    Very good, carry on.

  34. #34
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,596
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Question

    I have got a question. What functions do you think are involved in associative knowlege?
    I think I have come to understand why letters and numbers for me are associated with colours. To see letters and numbers in colours or associate music with the material world seems to be irrational phenomenon but it looks like it is not that rare as we may think.
    I assume it may be to do with some sort of "irrational" perception. I am not sure what is it about: sound of a letter or its' shape or both which defines the clolour. I would assume that and is involved and it is not something you are consciously aware until you put your attention to it. I don't know why I do not see other things in colours. Could it be that letters and numbers are the product of human rational mind, a concept. Abstarct logical thinking is hard for me and association abstract shapes with colours suppose to help me with logic. It would be interesting to know what parts of brain involved. I might be able to find out more about it soon as I have got a name for a contact.
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

Posting Permissions

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