How do we use all 8 functions?

[OnePiece]

I believe I'm talking to someone who has no way what he's talking (or does he?), and wanted to see what others thought of it:

I agree that MBTI does a poor job explaining itself. The only concepts from MBTI that I even use are the four-letter type abbreviations and the functional orders--which are NOT the only functional orders that exist in practice, but rather represent ideal personality balances which provide the most utility.

To me, the functions do not represent individual specific actions, but rather broader value systems which govern the most basic motivations for everything we believe. I am in the minority on this forum because I do not believe that shadow functions are really used at all, but only appear to be used when a similar function reaches a similar conclusion.

I believe that all four functions combine to produce one fluid value system with varying levels of influence from each function. Again it's crucial to recognize that the functions are not single actions but rather complete value systems based on the way in which the world is perceived and judged. In this context, a person cannot use Fi and Ti because these value system contradict each other regarding how internal judgments should be made. Whenever a person uses Ji for anything, if you pry enough you can always discover whether Fi values or Ti values were the root cause--regardless of whether they happen to agree on the surface.

Here is an example of my explanation of shadow functions:

I may "use Fi" sometimes, but not because I place any fundamental value in Fi itself, but rather because I recognize situations where Fi's values happen to align with my own (which are invariably the result of Ne+Ti+Fe+Si.) I have no shame in admitting that I find Ti a totally superior system for internal judgments, but then--of course I do, I'm a Ti user! Again you need to direct your focus toward the total reasoning process and its most basic underlying values, not just the surface behavior or end conclusion.

Uh yeah but you've ignored and completely glossed over my point about shadow functions by simply declaring, "Of course we use them!"

It's my contention that we don't use them because they heavily conflict with the value systems of our preferred functions. An Fi user's entire conception of ethics comes from the inside; the idea that one's ethics should bend according to external standards is antithetical to Fi's entire worldview. This is why I do not believe that Fi users ever use Fe (even when they do things that appear to promote Fe goals--they are only doing them because they serve more important and often unseen Fi goals, not because they see intrinsic value in Fe. That's the key concept here.)

When you see the functions as overarching value systems, it seems ridiculous to claim that people switch between glaringly contradictory value systems on a regular basis.

An Fi user might perform actions that appear Fe-motivated, but in reality you can explain the motivations for these actions using Fi and the person's other three natural functions. The explanation will always end up being reduced to "My internal sense of ethics said it was the right thing to do", not "My external surroundings said it was ethical so I went with it."

Fi users are, on principle, against bending ethics to the external environment because ethics are considered private and personal from the Fi perspective. It doesn't make sense that people would just randomly switch between these two directly conflicting values.

When an Fi user makes an external judgment, it comes out in the form of Te because Thinking is the process that naturally makes sense to that person for external judgments.

[Jarno]

If someone talks about MBTI functions then it's automatically bullshit.

Since those functions have bugs and are incompleet. But he'll discover that soon enough when studying socionics.

[OnePiece]

He believes the unvalued functions are not used AT ALL, how exactly do you go about to disprove that?

[Azeroffs]

if we assume that he was talking about not using valued functions rather than shadow functions, he's not alone. Some others have adopted this view.

I suppose it's possible. However, it is wrong according to classic socionics. Claiming that the unvalued functions aren't used would require new definitions of model-A or an entirely new model.

As far as MBTI, you can't prove that the shadow functions are used. The shadow functions have little to do with type.

[ArchonAlarion]

The person you're talking to is right.

[717495]

I typically use Ni, Te, Fi more than Ne, Ti, Fe. However I'm about 50/50 on Si and Se. The major conflictor for me is Fe and Ne, but I still use them minimally. It's just really hard to because one is like totally the opposite of my main function, and that literally creeps me out, and the other one is very unnecessary and exhausting.

[Azeroffs]

I typically use Ni, Te, Fi more than Ne, Ti, Fe. However I'm about 50/50 on Si and Se. The major conflictor for me is Fe and Ne, but I still use them minimally. It's just really hard to because one is like totally the opposite of my main function, and that literally creeps me out, and the other one is very unnecessary and exhausting.

ArchonAlarion and the guy in quotes would argue that you really aren't using your unvalued functions. It just seems like you are.

[ArchonAlarion]

Dear Polikujm,

I'm gonna use Fi to determine if I value killing you because I hate you.
I'm gonna use Te to prepare a plan to kill you.
I'm gonna use Si to take a refreshing bath before I kill you.
I'm gonna use Ti to engineer a weapon to kill you.
I'm gonna use Ne to consider all the possible ways my plan to kill you might go down.
I'm gonna use Fe to make it appear as if I have no intention of killing you.
I'm gonna use Se to make you scream like a bitch before I kill you.
I know I'm going to kill you because of Ni.

[OnePiece]

Dear Polikujm,

I'm gonna use Fi to determine if I value killing you because I hate you.
I'm gonna use Te to prepare a plan to kill you.
I'm gonna use Si to take a refreshing bath before I kill you.
I'm gonna use Ti to engineer a weapon to kill you.
I'm gonna use Ne to consider all the possible ways my plan to kill you might go down.
I'm gonna use Fe to make it appear as if I have no intention of killing you.
I'm gonna use Se to make you scream like a bitch before I kill you.
I know I'm going to kill you because of Ni.

Can you expand on your standing about this by any chance?

[ArchonAlarion]

The IE's are not inherent in information. They are filters and formats that information is translated into.

If they were external, then you would need all 8, otherwise you'd be incompetent. if they are internal, then you would not.

The IE's are not some intangible essenses embedded arbitrarily in sensory inputs, but are instead metrics and formats of perception. The formal name for this is called perceptual habituation.

The ensuing communications of information would then (and only then) be "embedded" with IE's, but only because they have passed into a human psyche and thus formatted by that person's elements. Art, architecture, expressions, literature, cultures, etc can therefore have integral types/quadras, but fundamental phenomenon such as time, space, emotion (in a broad, non-specific sense), possibilities, etc cannot.

Ti/Fe is antithetical to Fi/Te at a perceptual level. If you are Ti/Fe you cannot accept Fi/Te in its original form. You'd try to format it automatically into Ti/Fe and it would not make sense or in the least seem dull and un-insightful.

[Slacker]

The Socionist: Blocks of Model A

[strrrng]

OP: Was the person you quoted, Steve?

*words*

Yep

[strrrng]

He believes the unvalued functions are not used AT ALL, how exactly do you go about to disprove that?

That's the thing – you can't indefinitely prove that we do or do not use all eight functions. Conclusions on the matter hinge not on some empirical set of patterns that can be directly linked to functional ontology, but rather, on conceptions of what the functions are and how they operate. The contention on this issue between various clusters of individuals in this community, always boils down to these fundamental ideas; the consensus is based around Model A, with the most frequent counter to the claim that we can't use all eight functions being, "That's wrong because it contradicts Classical Socionics, which says that we use all eight" – more or less refuting an argument with a burden of truth shift. Ultimately though, if we can't immediately prove that we do use all eight functions, I'd hope that people would be somewhat open to alternative ideas about them, instead of dogmatically adhering to some theoretical definition because it has a neat framework and was propounded by an Expert.


edit: despite the claims of strawman arguments made against this alternative viewpoint, the idea that we don't use all eight functions isn't meant to imply that we are blind to half of reality, or the psyche, or whatever. It revolves more around basic notions of information metabolism and psychological feedback loops, and purports functions as psychological filters that process information in specific ways, rather than things that become activated when a certain "type" of information is interacted with (i.e. drawing up a cost-benefit chart for an financial company implying Te usage). I personally find the latter notion foolish, and indicative of nothing more than post-hoc self-deception on the part of the observer, i.e. 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.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[crazedrat]

No the person who wrote that is archon, and this has been argued into the ground. nothing came of it back then, and nothing will come of it now.

[Azeroffs]

Can anyone give me a particular reason why they think this is true besides the fact that it is possible?

[Not A Communist Shill]

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.

[717495]

When it comes to socionics, I strongly believe in model A and some of wikisocion isn't all that bad. I like this page:

Functions - Wikisocion

Diana is right to a certain extent. Sure not all relations could be perfectly categorized, as we don't have the vocabulary to understand words that very generally describe ideas, yet have these ideas each mean very specifically one thing.

[jason_m]

Suppose that we cannot use our unvalued functions. Now, further suppose that some person is Ti/Fe valuing, and that they are being asked to perform some Te-based procedure. Would such a person not use some amount of Te in such a situation? Further, don't people tend to USE their vulnerable functions slightly less than their role functions? (I'm not saying that the this theory is necessarily wrong, I would just like to know how these two apparent contradictions could be resolved under the proposed assumptions...)

Jason

[xerx]

I'll play devil's advocate here...

The IE's are not some intangible essenses embedded arbitrarily in sensory inputs, but are instead metrics and formats of perception. The formal name for this is called perceptual habituation.

The ensuing communications of information would then (and only then) be "embedded" with IE's, but only because they have passed into a human psyche and thus formatted by that person's elements.

I'm pretty sure that's completely consistent with Model A.

Art, architecture, expressions, literature, cultures, etc can therefore have integral types/quadras, but fundamental phenomenon such as time, space, emotion (in a broad, non-specific sense), possibilities, etc cannot.

How do you know that it's not the other way around?

What if...

Art, architecture and expression are such complex statistical entities that it's impossible to assign them IM elements.

OTOH: Time, space and possibilities are such simple concepts that they can be assigned elements. (Note: I'm not using time to denote linear "clock" time. I'm using it in the socionics sense.)

Physical phenomena are both more etheric and more fundamental than economics phenomena. Economics is closer to our level than physics, but physics is more accurately modeled using mathematics. Even if the physical models are theoretical, they've proven empirically reliable.

Ti/Fe is antithetical to Fi/Te at a perceptual level. If you are Ti/Fe you cannot accept Fi/Te in its original form. You'd try to format it automatically into Ti/Fe and it would not make sense or in the least seem dull and un-insightful.

That's a contradiction. If you're aware that someone is using Fi/Te, then it means that you are aware of it on some perceptual level.

You're also grouping all the unvalued functions together, which is an egregious generalization. The POLR is not the same as the 8th function. You don't have much room to interpret your POLR except through the valued HA. You have more flexibility with your 8th function since it is stronger.


If you want to convince me, you should generate a stronger proof!

[crazedrat]

it's the mistake on how archon is thinking about the word use; and especially what he thinks model A means by it. He is considering model A mixes together two forms of the word use: in the way a type uses its dominant functions creatively and expressively with how one uses the other functions like demonstrative or ignoring. In model A you use those sorts of functions when you look back on what you've created and you critique it. You can feel the flaws in what you've done through them. They aren't used creatively. In this way demonstrative Ti is something completely distinct from ignoring Ti or dominant Ti.
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.

[xerx]

it's the mistake on how archon is thinking about the word 'use'. Crossing use in the way a type uses its dominant functions with how one uses the other functions like demonstrative or ignoring. In model A you use these sorts of functions when you look back on what you've created and you critique it. You can feel the flaws in what you've done through them. They aren't used creatively.

My sentiment exactly. For some reason he believes that all perception has to be valued.

[xerx]

I wonder if the Model X crew has ever been diagnosed with depression? To come to Model X conclusions you'd have to be taking happy pills. (no offense I still love you archon )

[crazedrat]

For some reason he believes that all perception has to be valued.

Yes, well put. It's really baffling

To come to Model X conclusions you'd have to be taking happy pills. (no offense I still love you archon )

Yeah, I know asston is on some type of prescribed crack. So is Allie. It wouldn't surprise me if they're all on crack together staying up at night.

[Creepy-female]

Arch I would suggest stopping at step 3 and drowning yourself in the bath, it would save a lot of struggle. After all you are a deviating little shit and have basically slapped God in the face multiple times with your wicked doubleslap. You must now be born away on the winds of lovely puffy zephyrs OH WAIT you deserve nothing but death. But it's ok cause hitta said see you all in hell

[crazedrat]

well you do have one fan. I guess when everything is down and out you can always count on an ISFp to still be your fan

[munenori2]

So sayeth Hitta, so shall it be!

[xerx]

Yeah, I know asston is on some type of prescribed crack. So is Allie. It wouldn't surprise me if they're all on crack together staying up at night.

LMAO.

[Creepy-female]

I'll make his breakfast cereal and paint his ingrown toenail the most beautiful shade of turquoise, love. crazed now would you like cracked wheat or stone pummelled wheat or wheat trodden under the feet of elephants

[crazedrat]

lol

[Rubicon]

[ArchonAlarion]

I'll play devil's advocate here...



I'm pretty sure that's completely consistent with Model A.

How do you know that it's not the other way around?

What if...

Art, architecture and expression are such complex statistical entities that it's impossible to assign them IM elements.

OTOH: Time, space and possibilities are such simple concepts that they can be assigned elements. (Note: I'm not using time to denote linear "clock" time. I'm using it in the socionics sense.)

Physical phenomena are both more etheric and more fundamental than economics phenomena. Economics is closer to our level than physics, but physics is more accurately modeled using mathematics. Even if the physical models are theoretical, they've proven empirically reliable.

Space, time, possibilities, logic, sensation are basically things that exist to everyone. If you were to experience these things and then communicate your thoughts about them, the information you'd convey would be "colored" by your elements.

Either way, it can't yet be proven that we use 8 or 4, but I think the 8 idea isn't even understandable.

When, for instance, is information Te? Is a wheel rolling down a hill "external object dynamics"? Does a Te polr have trouble watching a wheel roll down a hill?

And no it would not be more plausible if the info was more complex! The more complex, the more likely other elements would have to be involved.

Also, why is Te complementary to Fi? Fluid algorithms are complementary to... relationships/value systems? Wtf? Are elephants complementary to trashbins?

How can you tell when information is of some elements or the others?

Oh I'm sure you can feel it, right? But is the info you're thinking of post human psyche? Like a piece of art? That WOULD have integral IE's.

That's a contradiction. If you're aware that someone is using Fi/Te, then it means that you are aware of it on some perceptual level.

You can be aware of something and still not use it. If you cannot escape the confines of your perception, then you could observe the behaviors of someone with Fi/Te, but still not understand the complex perceptual patterns behind them. And even if you were to use neuroscience to figure it out, then the information you got from your findings would of course be formatted via your Ti/Fe! So you would still not experience Fi/Te directly.

My sentiment exactly. For some reason he believes that all perception has to be valued.

No I only use the word "valued" because it is traditional. You have elements or you don't.

[Jarno]

The IE's are not inherent in information. They are filters and formats that information is translated into.

If they were external, then you would need all 8, otherwise you'd be incompetent. if they are internal, then you would not.

The IE's are not some intangible essenses embedded arbitrarily in sensory inputs, but are instead metrics and formats of perception. The formal name for this is called perceptual habituation.

The ensuing communications of information would then (and only then) be "embedded" with IE's, but only because they have passed into a human psyche and thus formatted by that person's elements. Art, architecture, expressions, literature, cultures, etc can therefore have integral types/quadras, but fundamental phenomenon such as time, space, emotion (in a broad, non-specific sense), possibilities, etc cannot.

Ti/Fe is antithetical to Fi/Te at a perceptual level. If you are Ti/Fe you cannot accept Fi/Te in its original form. You'd try to format it automatically into Ti/Fe and it would not make sense or in the least seem dull and un-insightful.

awesome. but where do you read this stuff?

[Jarno]

Also, why is Te complementary to Fi? Fluid algorithms are complementary to... relationships/value systems? Wtf? Are elephants complementary to trashbins?

you have some interesting thoughts. Have you read Jungs psychological types? You'll find a better perspective on those matters.

[strrrng]

Well, it can surely be said, without an ounce of doubt, that Jung's Psychological Types very clearly yields vast insight into the essences of functions, I am certain.

[Azeroffs]

Space, time, possibilities, logic, sensation are basically things that exist to everyone. If you were to experience these things and then communicate your thoughts about them, the information you'd convey would be "colored" by your elements.

I'm going to assume that all 8 elements exist objectively in the world in my response.

Either way, it can't yet be proven that we use 8 or 4, but I think the 8 idea isn't even understandable.

When, for instance, is information Te? Is a wheel rolling down a hill "external object dynamics"? Does a Te polr have trouble watching a wheel roll down a hill?

You make the assumption that we have no perception of unvalued functions. Besides, just because the light enters your eyes doesn't mean you took in all forms of information related to what you saw.

It's true that if elements didn't exist objectively that the only conclusion would be that we only use our valued functions. We would have no reason to use unvalued ones. I think this is where the main conflict of ideas is located. "Do the elements exist objectively?"

And no it would not be more plausible if the info was more complex! The more complex, the more likely other elements would have to be involved.

All elements are involved in all things to some degree.

Also, why is Te complementary to Fi? Fluid algorithms are complementary to... relationships/value systems? Wtf? Are elephants complementary to trashbins?

Fluid algorithms =/= Te in a one to one... but I'm sure this isn't exactly what you are arguing. You're asking why Te and Fi are complementary. It's not that dual functions are complementary. First, everyone draws in information. Human beings need information; it's a survival mechanism. The reason why they are complementary is because one suppresses the other. Being strong in Te necessarily means being weak in Fi. Te is external dynamic objects. That is the exact opposite of internal static fields (Fi). In focusing on a piece of data we completely miss the "complementary" information. We don't value our dualization function because it complements our main function. It's because we miss it completely. The reason why for a example we devalue Fe if we are Te is because Fe gets in the way of Te. The internal may contradict the external of the same dynamic/static and object/field(e.g. Te may contradict Fe and vice versa) so we put down the information that is opposite on the internal/external dichotomy. Our complementary functions don't contradict our ego and we value information which we have not considered, and that is why we value them.

note: this is largely speculated on my part.

How can you tell when information is of some elements or the others?

It's often not totally clear, and I don't think anyone would argue against that. I fail to see the relevance.

Oh I'm sure you can feel it, right? But is the info you're thinking of post human psyche? Like a piece of art? That WOULD have integral IE's.

Your argument that the elements only exist after our psyche has processed observations seems to contradict the whole idea of what perceiving functions are. It seems that if what you are saying is true, perceiving functions aren't perceiving functions at all. I wouldn't even know how to describe them.

Percieving functions are defined traditionally as raw, unfiltered information. It is the part of the mental process before we start to construct/organize our observations, that is, the observations themselves.

It seems that your definition of how we use the functions could only apply to judging functions.

"If you were to experience these things and then communicate your thoughts about them, the information you'd convey would be "colored" by your elements."

By definition, perceiving elements are part of the pre-psyche, so how would you define them if no elements exist pre-psyche?

You can be aware of something and still not use it. If you cannot escape the confines of your perception, then you could observe the behaviors of someone with Fi/Te, but still not understand the complex perceptual patterns behind them. And even if you were to use neuroscience to figure it out, then the information you got from your findings would of course be formatted via your Ti/Fe! So you would still not experience Fi/Te directly.

I just need to point out again that your arguments are all based on the idea that the elements don't exist objectively.

[xerx]

Space, time, possibilities, logic, sensation are basically things that exist to everyone. If you were to experience these things and then communicate your thoughts about them, the information you'd convey would be "colored" by your elements.

Either way, it can't yet be proven that we use 8 or 4, but I think the 8 idea isn't even understandable.

When, for instance, is information Te? Is a wheel rolling down a hill "external object dynamics"? Does a Te polr have trouble watching a wheel roll down a hill?

And no it would not be more plausible if the info was more complex! The more complex, the more likely other elements would have to be involved.

Also, why is Te complementary to Fi? Fluid algorithms are complementary to... relationships/value systems? Wtf? Are elephants complementary to trashbins?

How can you tell when information is of some elements or the others?

Oh I'm sure you can feel it, right? But is the info you're thinking of post human psyche? Like a piece of art? That WOULD have integral IE's.

First of all, space, time, logic etc. in socionics are not the same as space, time, logic in common sense.

For starters:
Augusta's original description of Ni: All processes take place in time; they have their roots in the past and their continuation in the future. Time is the correlation between events that follow each other.

...means that when an event happens at one point in time, it has an affect on the rest of the events that follow. A single event can alter the time line permanently and irrevocably. Ni types are attuned to trends that either change or maintain the correct sequence of events. They can't necessarily project themselves into the future (no one can), but they focus on not making mistakes that could disrupt potentially favourable turns of events.

Of course, if your Ni is strong enough, you can probably push the boundaries of what's considered a mistake, and still get away with it -- you'd have better resolution of the time line or see multiple time lines. And if you're a teenager, or unhealthy, or some reprobate, you might even channel the "process of linear development" towards destructive ends. But that's another topic altogether.

Ni is not time in and of itself. Time, in the colloquial sense, is a physics or metaphysics problem, not a classical socionics problem. Ni's job is simply to prioritize an awareness of linear development, which Augusta simply and elegantly described as "time," if you'll allow her to use that unfortunate euphemism.

There's more to Ni, but that's not relevant right now and I've posted my thoughts on that elsewhere.

^ I believe all of the above is within the bounds of classical socionics. The logic also carries over to all the other functions. That the functions represent time, logic, space etc. as fundamental properties of the universe is NOT classical socionics.

You can be aware of something and still not use it.

Perfectly consistent with Model A. In fact, that's how I use my 7th function (Ni).

If you cannot escape the confines of your perception, then you could observe the behaviors of someone with Fi/Te, but still not understand the complex perceptual patterns behind them. And even if you were to use neuroscience to figure it out, then the information you got from your findings would of course be formatted via your Ti/Fe! So you would still not experience Fi/Te directly.

An ILE would experience Te directly since it's his 8th function. He wouldn't experience it as fully as an LIE, but would understand it well enough. He would have no way to experience the full range of Fi because it's his POLR. The point I'm still making is that you're unfairly grouping together all unvalued functions.

Valued/unvalued is a useless dichotomy for designating function strength. At least, I haven't seen anything to contradict Model A on this point. Yet.

No I only use the word "valued" because it is traditional. You have elements or you don't.

I don't think you got my meaning.

Well, it can surely be said, without an ounce of doubt, that Jung's Psychological Types very clearly yields vast insight into the essences of functions, I am certain.

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.

[Steve]

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.

[ArchonAlarion]

@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.

http://forum.socionix.com/index.php?...&attach_id=190 <--- IME

[Not A Communist Shill]

@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

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

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