How do we use all 8 functions?

[ArchonAlarion]

And how are those categories meaningful in any way?

And on a situational level, what places information in one category over another?

[strrrng]

Well in that case, mon capitaine! Jung himself would tell you that we posesses all 8 functions in our psyches. Three of them operate consciously, while the rest operate sub/unconsciously. Then he would get into some real funky psychoanalytic shit and tell you that "unconscious" functions represent the repressed shadow that comes in dreams, or that haunt our secret desires. Don't believe me? Read Psychological Types again.

How about you read my post again.

[Enters Laughing]

And how are those categories meaningful in any way?

They are meaningful in the sense that together, they comprise the eight types of information that reflect reality.

And how are those categories meaningful in any way?

And on a situational level, what places information in one category over another?

Information isn't placed into one category over another...Information is reality as it is.

I think what you really should ask is "And on a situational level, what places one kind of information in one category over another?"

[strrrng]

In Socionics, there are eight information aspects that information can be categorised into.

Simply using the axiomatic term 'Socionics' to mark off what the core premises of functions are and are not, is hollow, because it assumes a specific context for definitions without examining patterns first. Unless you can provide some legitimate rationale for your claim, it has just as little – if not less – value than its counterpart.

The ideas about perceptual organization and sequence, have been laid out by both myself and Jake. I would appreciate it if you would defer to respond to the content of what was said.

[xerx]

How about you read my post again.

I was simply addressing the fact that Jung would believe we possess all eight functions. I quoted your post in particular because you said "Jung" and I was itching for some of that old time rivalry.

What do you want me to look for?

[Enters Laughing]

Simply using the axiomatic term 'Socionics' to mark off what the core premises of functions are and are not, is hollow, because it assumes a specific context for definitions without examining patterns first. Unless you can provide some legitimate rationale for your claim, it has just as little – if not less – value than its counterpart.

The ideas about perceptual organization and sequence, have been laid out by both myself and Jake. I would appreciate it if you would defer to respond to the content of what was said.

I think it's been made quite clear already that Reality is divided into eight theoretical groups that are called Information Aspects after the event. Also, we are even clever enough for Information about Fictional Events to be classified into these eight theoretical groups.

[strrrng]

I was simply addressing the fact that Jung would believe we possess all eight functions. I quoted your post in particular because you said "Jung" and I was itching for some of that old time rivalry.

I can appreciate sentimentality.

What do you want me to look for?

Use your Ni!

[strrrng]

Ok, I will address your claim – again – by quoting what I already stated, in regard to it.

I think it's been made quite clear already that Reality is divided into eight theoretical groups that are called Information Aspects after the event.

one's psyche processes information a certain way, they see the expressly manifest form of said thing, and assume that the information had a form before it entered their psyche; conversely, they observe information produced by a person using their unvalued functions, and after translating it through their own, assume that they were using the other functions.

Now, would you mind providing some sort of counter-argument to this?

[Enters Laughing]

Now, would you mind providing at least some sort of counter to this?

You use the eight functions approximately in the manner described by your Model A personality type description. There have been empirical studies which can be repeated and theoretically disproved which show that individuals have relationships of varying success dependant on their Model A personality type. I am not aware of any improved model.

.

[xerx]

@Jxrtes and friends: Is a financial analysis spreadsheet Te?

Please tell me what factors must be present for information to be Te and thus receptive to Te ego's.

Until you can elucidate how information carries elements within it, I don't see any reason to accept that theory. It's silly, and totally counter-intuitive when placed within the context of perceptual psychology. The elements as patterns of perception is far far far more understandable and likely.

Board Message <--- IME

This is pretty long. I'll read it tomorrow evening and formulate a more prescient response. I have to finish studying for an exam now.

As for the financial analysis spreadsheet, it sure as hell isn't Fe!

Use your Ni!

I know you were talking about the "essence" of the functions, but it was a chance to branch off on a segue and talk about Jung's meta-function theory instead.

[strrrng]

You use the eight functions approximately in the manner described by your Model A personality type description. There have been empirical studies which can be repeated and theoretically disproved which show that individuals have relationships of varying success dependant on their Model A personality type. I am not aware of any improved model.

I said to provide an argument – that implies reasoning – not regurgitate some model's claims, hint at apparent studies which corroborate it, and then insulate yourself against responsibility for error by resigning to the working standard due to an absence of anything better.


Thanks for telling me what I needed to know, though.

[Enters Laughing]

I said to provide an argument – that implies reasoning – not regurgitate some model's claims, hint at apparent studies which corroborate it, and then insulate yourself against responsibility for error by resigning to the working standard due to an absence of anything better.


Thanks for telling me what I needed to know, though.

Do you know of studies where the success of relationships has been measured against the types of the people concerned as determined by the Model 4 personality system?

[strrrng]

Do you know of studies where the success of relationships has been measured against the types of the people concerned as determined by the Model 4 personality system?

Do you realize the contingencies that the veracity of those studies hinge on? I'll brief you: premises and structural integrity of the model, accurate typings by the examiners, the criteria for determining relationship success, the means of measurement, and obviously the correlations made.


How about you quit invoking official sources, and communicate your own reasoning.

[ArchonAlarion]

lol weak Ti.

[Enters Laughing]

Do you realize the contingencies that the veracity of those studies hinge on? I'll brief you: premises and structural integrity of the model, accurate typings by the examiners, the criteria for determining relationship success, the means of measurement, and obviously the correlations made.


How about you quit invoking official sources, and communicate your own reasoning.

I am using my own reasoning. And also your reasoning:

Unless you can provide some legitimate rationale for your claim, it has just as little – if not less – value than its counterpart.

Basically, if Socionics is successful in its present form, then it isn't difficult to see that there must at least be something to the model. And if an alternative model cannot provide better proof than that on the grounds that as far as I know it doesn't even have its own personality descriptions etc., then you shouldn't be surprised that I wouldn't have much time for it.

[Enters Laughing]

lol weak Ti.

On the part of who?

Of course when I ask strrrng if he knows of any studies, that includes any informal study carried out by himself.

[strrrng]

Basically, if Socionics is successful in its present form, then it isn't difficult to see that there must at least be something to the model. And if an alternative model cannot provide better proof than that on the grounds that as far as I know it doesn't even have its own personality descriptions etc., then you shouldn't be surprised that I wouldn't have much time for it.

Firstly, I neither stated nor implied that the entirety of "Classical Socionics" is flawed; I referenced the specific errors, and explained my reasoning behind the basic concepts I see as superior. Unless it can be objectively determined that the current model is infallible, there should always be room for alternative viewpoints; and simply dismissing one completely, because it doesn't meet some subjectively-imposed set of criteria, is foolish.

Also, ever consider the fact that you're more inclined to see proof for a model you conceive of prior to observation? Anyone can segregate reality into categories, give them relevancy, and then claim theoretical legitimacy; that doesn't mean it references anything significant.

[Enters Laughing]

Firstly, I neither stated nor implied that the entirety of "Classical Socionics" is flawed; I referenced the specific errors, and explained my reasoning behind the basic concepts I see as superior. Unless it can be objectively determined that the current model is infallible, there should always be room for alternative viewpoints; and simply dismissing one completely, because it doesn't meet some subjectively-imposed set of criteria, is foolish.

You may not have stated that the entirety of "Classical Socionics" is flawed, as you call it...my point is still valid that "Classical Socionics" has at least some proof, while I believe your modified version is still theoretical I believe. Also, unless your starting position is that "Classical Socionics" and your modified version have exactly the same types and functions, there is no reason to think that your modified version isn't significantly different.

Also, ever consider the fact that you're more inclined to see proof for a model you conceive of before directly observing it?

I don't believe that's necessarily true. I can prove it by contradicting you - and therefore, you are one to "see proof for a model you conceive of before directly observing it".

Anyone can segregate realities into categories, give them relevancy, and then claim theoretical legitimacy; that doesn't mean it references anything significant.

Yes it's amazing that humans can do that isn't it? And each of has the ability to determine that some theories are better than others.

[strrrng]

You may not have stated that the entirety of "Classical Socionics" is flawed, as you call it...my point is still valid that "Classical Socionics" has at least some proof, while I believe your modified version is still theoretical I believe. Also, unless your starting position is that "Classical Socionics" and your modified version have exactly the same types and functions, there is no reason to think that your modified version isn't significantly different.

Did I not just concede that the entire theory isn't a failure? That renders your statement redundant.

My "modified version" is not just theoretical, and it did not simply arise out of thin air. I had a solid understanding of myers briggs and socionics before even nearing crystallization of my general views on the matter. It is based simply on consistently observed patterns and refinements of my theoretical understanding to accommodate said things. This is contrasted to those who block out everything that doesn't fit within Model A's preordained parameters, and end up writing off alternative viewpoints as insubstantial.

Obviously one should assume that a modified version of a theory is different; that doesn't necessitate significant differences though, so your attempt to isolate them into mutually-exclusive and irrevocable categories, is faulty.

I don't believe that's necessarily true. I can prove it by contradicting you - and therefore, you are one to "see proof for a model you conceive of before directly observing it".

I think it's likely. And again, my "model" is based on "proof" – observed patterns – not the other way around.

Yes it's amazing that humans can do that isn't it? And each of has the ability to determine that some theories are better than others.

Except for when they sacrifice reason for ideological safety.

[Enters Laughing]

Did I not just concede that the entire theory isn't a failure? That renders your statement redundant.

No...I was pointing out that without evidence, your modified theory may be completely wrong.

My "modified version" is not just theoretical, and it did not simply arise out of thin air. I had a solid understanding of myers briggs and socionics before even nearing crystallization of my general views on the matter. It is based simply on consistently observed patterns and refinements of my theoretical understanding to accommodate said things. This is contrasted to those who block out everything that doesn't fit within Model A's preordained parameters, and end up writing off alternative viewpoints as insubstantial.

Obviously one should assume that a modified version of a theory is different; that doesn't necessitate significant differences though, so your attempt to isolate them into mutually-exclusive and irrevocable categories, is faulty.

I never attempted to isolate the two theories into "mutually-exclusive and irrevocable categories"...it is merely the case that Model A is the working and perhaps somewhat substantiated hypothesis.

I think it's likely. And again, my "model" is based on "proof" – observed patterns – not the other way around.

But I conceived of your model and knew from prior experience that your model could be proved false, and so I didn't accept it.

Except for when they sacrifice reason for ideological safety.

That doesn't make sense...an individual could determine that a theory is better than another and yet to choose to stick with a weaker theory. They could also be dogmatic and choose to adopt any theory which is weaker than the one they currently hold.

[strrrng]

No...I was pointing out that without evidence, your modified theory may be completely wrong.

Yes, it could; and the same goes for Model A. I haven't seen the evidence you purport, so I return the claim.

I never attempted to isolate the two theories into "mutually-exclusive and irrevocable categories"...it is merely the case that Model A is the working and perhaps somewhat substantiated hypothesis.

Yes, working being the key word; that implies potential improvements. I realize that they must be logically founded to be accepted, but as we cannot empirically verify socionics, the only recourse is pattern interpretation and debate.

I would also point out that there isn't sufficient evidence to corroborate the more specific aspects of Model A, and thus, preclude the validity of alternative views that haven't yet supplanted the conventional premises (touched on that in my first post here).

But I conceived of your model and knew from prior experience that your model could be proved false, and so I didn't accept it.

But did you conceive of my model in full accuracy? I doubt it, as it hasn't been expounded on much.

That doesn't make sense...an individual could determine that a theory is better than another and yet to choose to stick with a weaker theory. They could also be dogmatic and choose to adopt any theory which is weaker than the one they currently hold.

I was referring to dogmatically sticking to an idea in the face of superior ones, to preserve an internal sense of security.

[Enters Laughing]

Yes, it could; and the same goes for Model A. I haven't seen the evidence you purport, so I return the claim.

You could return the claim even if there wasn't any evidence and the claim would be true. But as it is, there is at least some evidence in support of Model A.

Yes, working being the key word; that implies potential improvements. I realize that they must be logically founded to be accepted, but as we cannot empirically verify socionics, the only recourse is pattern interpretation and debate.

I would also point out that there isn't sufficient evidence to corroborate the more specific aspects of Model A, and thus, preclude the validity of alternative views that haven't yet supplanted the conventional premises (touched on that in my first post here).

All hypotheses are potentially improvable, regardless of whether they are working hypotheses or not. Socionics is empirically verifiable in the sense that the potential successfulness of a relationship could be predicted using it, if indeed it is a genuine phenomenon. In what sense is Socionics potentially less empirically verifiable than your vision and reality?

But did you conceive of my model in full accuracy? I doubt it, as it hasn't been expounded on much.

By your model, I was referring to "Also, ever consider the fact that you're more inclined to see proof for a model you conceive of before directly observing it?". I have actually expounded on this hypothesis that you claim is fact for a fair amount of time before you even brought it to my intention that you had observed it as fact.

I was referring to dogmatically sticking to an idea in the face of superior ones, to preserve an internal sense of security.

But ultimately, only each individual determines which theories are superior to the rest, and they could of course dogmatically (in the eyes of someone else) stick to an idea which they consider superior precisely because it gives them an internal sense of security...or indeed, they may dogmatically follow an idea they consider superior which coincidentally preserves an internal sense of security.

[strrrng]

You could return the claim even if there wasn't any evidence and the claim would be true. But as it is, there is at least some evidence in support of Model A.

Firstly, my "model" is nothing more than a working mechanism – which happens to integrate a handful of basic ideas propounded by Model A. I have already explicitly stated that my deviation lies in very specific areas. Point being: I would suggest that there is undoubtedly some overlap in "evidence" in the two perspectives; along with specific observations and interpretations I have made, which I would additionally consider evidence for my "alternative view." Collating it at this point, is redundant.

All hypotheses are potentially improvable, regardless of whether they are working hypotheses or not. Socionics is empirically verifiable in the sense that the potential successfulness of a relationship could be predicted using it, if indeed it is a genuine phenomenon. In what sense is Socionics potentially less empirically verifiable than your vision and reality?

Yes, they are all improvable, but being a working one enhances said quality. I don't think the only – or even most important – method of verifying socionics is examining intertype relations; that would involve far too many variables for it to be reliable past a general degree IMO. I personally go by specific impressions of people and the associations that tie them together, which are of course based on more fundamental ideas about functions, etc. To me, the nuances evinced by dealing with things in a case-by-case manner, are more significant than a prescribed set of interactions that reality is supposed to adhere to.

By your model, I was referring to "Also, ever consider the fact that you're more inclined to see proof for a model you conceive of before directly observing it?". I have actually expounded on this hypothesis that you claim is fact for a fair amount of time before you even brought it to my intention that you had observed it as fact.

I'm aware, that's what you meant. What expounding are you referring to?

But ultimately, only each individual determines which theories are superior to the rest, and they could of course dogmatically (in the eyes of someone else) stick to an idea which they consider superior precisely because it gives them an internal sense of security...or indeed, they may dogmatically follow an idea they consider superior which coincidentally preserves an internal sense of security.

Sure, they could consider an idea superior; that doesn't make it so. Regardless, the initial statement referred to limiting perspective so as to preserve ideological security.

[Enters Laughing]

Firstly, my "model" is nothing more than a working mechanism – which happens to integrate a handful of basic ideas propounded by Model A. I have already explicitly stated that my deviation lies in very specific areas. Point being: I would suggest that there is undoubtedly some overlap in "evidence" in the two perspectives; along with specific observations and interpretations I have made, which I would additionally consider evidence for my "alternative view." Collating it at this point, is redundant.

What do you mean by a 'working' mechanism?

Yes, they are all improvable, but being a working one enhances said quality. I don't think the only – or even most important – method of verifying socionics is examining intertype relations; that would involve far too many variables for it to be reliable past a general degree IMO. I personally go by specific impressions of people and the associations that tie them together, which are of course based on more fundamental ideas about functions, etc. To me, the nuances evinced by dealing with things in a case-by-case manner, are more significant than a prescribed set of interactions that reality is supposed to adhere to.

Examining intertype relations must necessarily be the key method of verifying socionics as socionics is about intertype relations - socionics must for example be compared with alternative theories of intertype relations. To get a better understanding of an artificial construct you constructed (for example "introverted intuition" etc.) will not tell you anything useful about reality, whereas optimising a theory through empirical data will.

I'm aware, that's what you meant. What expounding are you referring to?

I've been thinking about it for many years, and I know that I can conceive of ridiculous things without being prepositioned into believing them.

Sure, they could consider an idea superior; that doesn't make it so. Regardless, the initial statement referred to limiting perspective so as to preserve ideological security.

I would think it more dogmatic to have a wide eyed perspective based on little or no evidence whatsoever than to reasonably judge and accept the validity of something in light of the evidence available at a particular moment in time, while being open to reassessment when further 'evidence' has been presented.

[crazedrat]

TO THE CENTER OF THE CITY WHERE ALL ROADS MEET WAITING FOR YOU

[strrrng]

What do you mean by a 'working' mechanism?

I mean that, I don't have some immutable framework that everything is correlated back to; nor do I necessarily prioritize a specific category (i.e. intertype relations) over another, when it comes to assessing the relevancy of different aspects that constitute what socionics attempts to describe.

Examining intertype relations must necessarily be the key method of verifying socionics as socionics is about intertype relations - socionics must for example be compared with alternative theories of intertype relations. To get a better understanding of an artificial construct you constructed (for example "introverted intuition" etc.) will not tell you anything useful about reality, whereas optimising a theory through empirical data will.

I think it is one of the key methods, but by no means the sole one, or the one that takes absolute precedent over the rest. In order to truly understand the dynamics of intertype relations, one must already possess an accurate conception of the functions and types, which of course would have to have been verified through experience, ergo intertype becomes the most concrete manifestation of said things. Also, I would hope you have not overlooked the significant contingencies of observing intertype, insofar as making faulty correlations between the literal meaning of words in descriptions and concrete happenings.

A better understanding of an artificial construct, such as "introverted intuition" – when understood as it pertains to the psyche and types – very much will yield a more valuable understanding of intertype relations, because one will see with more clarity exactly how information is being processed and expressed, why someone is reacting to it a certain way, etc. Functions aren't standalone.

I've been thinking about it for many years, and I know that I can conceive of ridiculous things without being prepositioned into believing them.

Sure, one can conceive of anything they fancy. I was specifically referring to someone conceiving of an idea by virtue of reading the theory prior to observing the patterns, and thus being potentially inclined towards confirmation bias and such. It was intended as a contrast to the attitude of being open to patterns that may not initially fit within the established framework, but which manifest consistently and give greater insight into aspects either underdeveloped or unknown in the theory.

I would think it more dogmatic to have a wide eyed perspective based on little or no evidence whatsoever than to reasonably judge and accept the validity of something in light of the evidence available at a particular moment in time, while being open to reassessment when further 'evidence' has been presented.

Having such a wide-eyed perspective could only be dogmatic, if the person promoted themselves as more aware of things because of it; otherwise, it's just childish. And of course, the latter perspective you mention is reasonable – where did I say otherwise?

[xerx]

@Jxrtes and friends: Is a financial analysis spreadsheet Te?

Please tell me what factors must be present for information to be Te and thus receptive to Te ego's.

Until you can elucidate how information carries elements within it, I don't see any reason to accept that theory. It's silly, and totally counter-intuitive when placed within the context of perceptual psychology. The elements as patterns of perception is far far far more understandable and likely.

Board Message <--- IME

Doing a spreadsheet is like breathing or riding a bike. It's not function related.

Though I suppose that Te types would have an easier time doing it because the rest would roll their eyes at it from boredom. A spreadsheet would have a similar logic and order to the way Te types naturally think. At least, it would have more in common with Te than with Fe, Si or Ne.

All that is superseded if you could integrate the spreadsheet into some greater Ne vision, or Se objective, etc. Then it would "become" a part of Ne or Se, or any other function.


Kepniski's information metabolism has nothing to do with socionics. They're sperate concepts. Socionics borrowed a couple of expressions from him, but Kep's model is different from Augusta's. link.

Anyway: subjective correlations are fun...

1. Central Point - "I", or control center (CC on the figure). This structure corresponds to a universal experience of being the subject of one's own psychical activity. It controls one's own activity, similarly, to that of the nucleus, which governs the biological cell activity.

Could correspond to the ego.

2. Boundaries (the whole cylinder on the figure) are considered in the sense of representing self-identity as means of enabling the discrimination of one's own limits and the differentiation of one's self from other people and from the external world.

Knowing your limitations could correspond to the superego. Differentiating yourself from the herd could correspond to the base function.

3. Functional structures shaped earlier in life maintain order in space and time and the layers of systems of values. Creation of this structure may be compared to the centers of synthesis of biochemical compound in a biological cell. The amount, complexity and plasticity of functional structures increases along with the development. It is illustrated by the relatively small number of the strong and rigid structures (thick lines) on the biological level and the increasing number of thinner structures on the emotional and socio-cultural levels.

Seems like automatic processes you do without thinking about. Could be the id.

4. Energy centers necessary for preservation of metabolism of information,
i.e., proper stimuli reception, selection and integration; as well as deci-
sion making.

Sounds like the ego again.

5. Elimination centers of an where useless and unimportant information is
removed.

No socionics equivalent. I guess(?). Useless information could be plain unvalued or valued but no longer relevant.

[xerx]

Now you come up with the term 'shadow functions' to acknowledge some level of difference between a functions operation depending on its placement, but refuse to acknowledge this is actually a part of model A already. And then I see you're playing revolutionary and confusing everyone here. You need to cut the shit and shut up about this.

Gulenko integrates a concept like the "shadow" directly into his +/- model.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

A lot of people try to make functions mean what they want them to mean, instead of accepting what they really are: It's just another form of energy. We haven't quite yet figured out this energy works in a scientific process, because too many people I guess are 'left-brained' folks and care more about boring shit like sports and cars and geographical distances and raw mathematics, instead of sociological energy. Of course I believe socionics is a math/science as well, it's just nobody has really found the best way to objectively explain just what is going on.

It's basic social and psychology energy. Other people drain you and get on your nerves, likewise other people cure your neurosis, make you grounded, whole sane and have hot sex with. It's more complicated than this, but that is basically what is happening. We all experience in a social setting, those people who we can just be ourselves around.

We are still stunted socially as a nation, as a world- we have made great technological progress, but it's time to work on understanding ourselves as social beings too. Which requires introspection, which most people find 'emo' and 'gay' and they'd much rather waste their time with other shit. Oh well.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

So many people refuse to understand themselves and their relationship with others, and you don't really need to be a paid psychologist to develop some insight over this. But they will just go 'some people just don't get along' and won't analyze it any further than that. Now of course you will probably are thinking 'Good. They are being practical, realistic and grounded.' But the people I hear saying this, don't usually have good bodies or insight. They are usually just being fat and lazy, and would rather watch sports on tv or something, then actually learn about themselves or the world.

Again, it's their choice. It's just very unattractive.

[xerx]

Here's what I'm seeing as of late regarding non-quadra functional usage. You'll have to pardon my trip into wonderland:

In totality, we're all part of the same thing, and of course all functions are part of the same whole. Obviously as humans beings we come to identify as individuals, or unique spirits, or whatever you want to call it, experiencing reality through distinctly different filters and lenses, the root/cause of which I won't even dare to venture into.

All along I have pretty much supported the idea that opposite quadras have conflicting functions, which are "detrimental" or inefficient for information metabolism in comparison to one's own quadra functions.

However in thinking about this more lately, some ideas emerged.

If one were totally blind to something, wouldn't they not be able to process information from it at all? For example, humans cannot "see" microwaves, so wouldn't microwaves appear not to exist? But on the other hand, humans can see or even feel the effects of microwaves by using instruments that translate things into their own visible light spectrum, or by seeing the effect of a warmed-up microwave dinner. Maybe this is what happens with non-quadra functions.

I don't know how to back this up, but I feel like maybe there's some unifying unconscious in all our psyches, that on the deepest level, we can understand and have the opposing functions do something, though on that level functions sort of cease to exist anyway. I guess for our differentiated egos, we distinctly came to identify with a certain mode of perception, and constructed our essence to appear to filter things through that differentiated mode of consciousness, so that information coming from opposite functions is seen as weakening to the psychic structure identified as the ego. But in the bigger picture what is "out there" is really a reflection of what's within, so what's to say that "opposing" functions aren't just shadow/unacknowledged/unconscious parts of the psyche?

I do notice some weird similarity with Gamma NTs and myself. It really does feel like we dabble in similar domains, and when discussing a mutual area of interest, it really does feel like we're noticing similar things, but just break it down differently with different rules and structures. One time I was talking with an INTp and I thought inside "They're...almost like me - actually sensed common NT-ness" and even noticed more of a "commonality" in that regard than with ISFps. When listening to one INTp friend of mine, it feels like I don't know where their words come from, but they hit the point perfectly. It has a distinct feeling to me, unlike any other quadra group. It's like the information/knowledge/point they're making just "appears" in my psyche, and then to actually do something with it I feel like I have to turn my own functions on to mold and consciously work with it. It really does feel like there could be some unconscious part they touch on in me.

So to summarize, as of now I still do see each type "using" only the valued functions, but in the bigger sense, it depends on how much you identify the person's essence with their type, and "who" is really "using" a function. Types to me seem a corollary of egoic mind structures, but also seem to be expressions of universal archetypes, particularly with the NT, NF, ST and SF divisions. Obviously the ego preserves itself by favoring receiving information through its own quadra filters. However, a person's essence is much more than the ego, and the closer to essence you get, the more undifferentiated everyone else's gets, and maybe that's where our unconscious can register things from other functions.

I can't seem to put this in a neat Ti box, because I feel like trying to explain this brings up internal paradoxes. Actually even trying to remove myself from it and talk about "it" is a fallacy.

So I will just stop short of fondly quoting hitta in his saying "Everything is Everything", and leave it at that.

No empirical proof obviously, just my Ne ramblings. Take it for what you will.

Steve, this is the best thing I've ever seen you write. Everything is absolutely spot on. Congrats!

Humans evolved in tribal societies, where groups of humans would share in the same adversity and face difficult challenges for years and years. The challenges in the wild would probably have been extreme: war, death, famine, pestilence, predation, etc.

A small tribe of some dozen humans would have members from every quadra who would learn to understand each other in spite of their differences. In fact, humans have a developed faculty for mimesis. The transmission of information is the basis of our society. If an opposing quadra member came up with the only successful strategy, you better believe that you're wired to understand it or risk being killed. Cultural memes are a similar byproduct.

Humans are some of the most social animals in existence. If an SEI was in frequent emotional distress, a close LIE would become more attuned to their type of Fe communication (to whatever extent their role allowed). Human groups have a strong social stigma against people that neglect others in the community. Group members that defy this responsibility usually become pariahs.

Or take an EII with Se PoLR, when a lion is coming to eat the tribe and some SLE takes charge, the EII willingly complies with this communication style (to the best of his ability) or he's left alone to get eaten.

You're absolutely right Steve, there is some deeper level of awareness that all humans share. It's only when things relax, and a society becomes more decadent, when no challenge is presented, that people have the liberty to evade their unvalued functions.

^ In spite of all that, types, clubs and quadras, with their specializations, mutual misunderstandings and enmities are there to add creative vitality to the species.



Also, on the issue of translation:
It makes no difference to say that "information is 'translated' into your valued functions" vs. "that you have strong valued functions." It's saying the exact same thing.

Here's a question: surely someone can develop his ability to translate information from opposite quadras. How is that not different from developing one's id functions? Isn't it just a matter of semantics?

[Creepy-Diana]

.