According to Model A, which is supposedly stronger, one's ignoring or demonstrative function?
Which is more valued?
Jason
Ignoring & Demonstrative Functions (Which is stronger/more valued?)
According to Model A, which is supposedly stronger, one's ignoring or demonstrative function?
Which is more valued?
Jason
In Augustan socionics demonstrative is much stronger, since your base function completely cancels out the ignoring.
Your base function also works with the demonstrative or HA when applying its program in the real world. I don't know if this last thing is Augustan socionics, but Rick talks about it in some article on Ne.
I think that they are about equally undervalued. However, the demonstrative function is considered to be a major part of the psyche. Just as much as the base function is, and so whether valued or not it will have a lot of influence. I tend to think of this in similar regard to the role function. We don't value the role function, but it becomes necessary to consider if we want to balance our overwhelming base function so we can seem "normal."
The PoLR and Ignoring functions are unvalued and completely unnecessary a majority of the time, but the role and demonstrative play important parts that make them more "valued" in a sense.
Here's what Wikisocion has to say about the demonstrative function:
Demonstrative function
A person uses this element mainly as a kind of game, or to ridicule those who he thinks take it too seriously. They often intentionally go against its conventional usage simply to prove a point in favor of their creative function. However, this function is used quite often in private, to produce information of its element to support their creative function when focusing on making contact with the external world.
A person will often have just as sophisticated an understanding of this function as his or her leading function. Unlike the ignoring function it plays a major part in a person's worldview, since as the vulnerable function of one's dual it requires especially delicate attention. Thus, when a person is given information regarding the element in the demonstrative function by someone else, they will tend to take it as obvious information that is irrelevant to completely focus on. One will often use the demonstrative function to defend and further support their beliefs made in the vulnerable function.
The demonstrative function is easiest function to use (after the base function) yet often occurs sporadically. When one experiences a problem regarding this function, one must correct it as it does play a vital part in a person's wordview.
The bolded stuff suggests the demonstrative is stronger and more valued than the ignoring function.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Yes, definitely Demonstrative>Ignoring
I imagine most people would find their Ignoring Function obnoxious
EII INFj
Forum status: retired
The important thing is that the two are more like you Contrary's functions that they are like you Quasi-Identical's functions. The whole Stronger/Weaker beyond just Strong/Weak terminology is just confused and no one ever really knows the answer to the questions in regard to them because there are no ways to measure function strength.
Another thing...
When seen as value systems and/or decision biases, they don't exist. The opposite of these things is what is used. They only exist in as far as they signify very simple perceptive tools.
I never really know what you're talking about.Originally Posted by labcoat
--------------------------------------------
Anyway, my answer to the question: When people present information to you which is in a form of your demonstrative function, this typically makes you get defensive and look to defend and argue back on the basis of the views of your creative function. Sometimes the demonstrative function is used to show how pointless it is and that the information is therefore better portrayed through the creative function. See quasi-identical for instance the classic INTj-INTp arguments on the internet that go on for ever... INTj give some Ti, INTp gets annoyed and counters with some Te, eventually the INTp becomes vague with some extreme Ni, this annoys INTj how tries to counter, then the INTp Te comes out again etc etc..
When someone gives you information in the form of your ignoring function, you just want them to get the fuck away from you because it's not even worth mounting a defense.
So consequently, one will entertain the demonstrative function more. Strength in comparison to the ignoring function is sort of irrelevant, as they are both among the more developed functions, it is more relevant to say the demonstrative function is expressed more.
I never really know what you're talking about.You think anyone knows what you're talking about with this?Anyway, my answer to the question: When people present information to you which is in a form of your demonstrative function, this typically makes you get defensive and look to defend and argue back on the basis of the views of your creative function. Sometimes the demonstrative function is used to show how pointless it is and that the information is therefore better portrayed through the creative function. See quasi-identical for instance the classic INTj-INTp arguments on the internet that go on for ever... INTj give some Ti, INTp gets annoyed and counters with some Te, eventually the INTp becomes vague with some extreme Ni, this annoys INTj how tries to counter, then the INTp Te comes out again etc etc..
Pot/kettle thing and all.
All I was saying is that INTjs are more like ENTjs than like INTps. This is not a difficult to understand assertion is it?
I disagree.
ENTjs ignore(truth and justice).
I don't like talking to them because they are robber barons.
INTps ignore(ideas and adventures).
I don't like talking to them because they are party poopers.
No offence meant!
I'm just using
Last edited by CheGuevara; 11-08-2009 at 06:59 PM.
Ni-INTj --- Harmonizing Analyst ----
DCNH rox
SoI disagree.
ENTjs ignore
I don't like talking to them because they are robber barons.
INTps ignore
I don't like talking to them because they are party poopers.
No offence meant!
I'm just using
-valuers because they don't value truth and justice. Whoever doesn't value truth and justice deserves to be murdered or something like that.
Imo the simplest conclusion from Model A is that the Demonstrative function is stronger and less valued than the Ignoring function. However, recently these divisions have struck me as more significant:
Contact-Bold-Unvalued (Role and Demonstrative)
Contact-Cautious-Valued (Creative and DS)
Inert-Bold-Valued (Base and HA)
Inert-Cautious-Unvalued (PoLR and Ignoring)
In this respect, the Demonstrative tends to show, whereas the Ignoring doesn't.
Accounting for all of these:
Valuedness=2*Valued+Accepting
Strength=2*Strong+Bold
From this, the Situational functions are more balanced in both strength and value, while the Evaluatory functions are more extreme in both strength and value.
So yeah, Demonstrative is stronger and less valued than Ignoring. I haven't changed my mind, just obfuscated my original statement.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
from what I've gathered and read, demonstrative is strongest. Whether more valued I'm not sure, but I think demonstrative too.
No, that's not what I meant.So
But I am of the opinion that capitalists should not be allowed to take part in any political decisions because they don't value truth and justice (
Ni-INTj --- Harmonizing Analyst ---
DCNH rox
Did Stalin valued justice? He was
I'm a German so I know very much about ******. I am sure that ****** was a dominant Fe-EIE =Did Stalin valued justice? He was
As I am a communist I also know quite a lot about Stalin. No, he didn't value justice and he didn't value truth. Some people think he was LSI. I am sure he was a dominant Te-LSE =.
So
Ni-INTj --- Harmonizing Analyst ---
DCNH rox
The conclusion is something impossible to get around in light of the fact that INTjs get along far, far better with ISFjs than with ESFps.I disagree.All I was saying is that INTjs are more like ENTjs than like INTps. This is not a difficult to understand assertion is it?
ur fucking asking for it.No, that's not what I meant.
But I am of the opinion that capitalists should not be allowed to take part in any political decisions because they don't value truth and justice (
The end is nigh
Whoa... wait... capitalists, as in including me?No, that's not what I meant.
But I am of the opinion that capitalists should not be allowed to take part in any political decisions because they don't value truth and justice (
Please, let's have none of this saying that someone's opinions are invalid because they disagree with you.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
I disagree. There's typically a huge difference between introverts and extraverts, granted in some cases it may not seem as apparent for various reasons but in typical day to day people the difference is pretty obvious.
Also, as already pointed out a few times, the demonstrative function is used more than the ignoring function, so from that point of view also, the INTj-INTp are more alike than INTj-ENTj.
Yawn, fwiw....You think anyone knows what you're talking about with this?
Pot/kettle thing and all.
I don't know, I was just saying I don't know what you are going on about - usually.... Anyway, I think I used the same terminology as the thread opener and stuck to the topic, so....
I hardly think this is a substantive proof that INTjs are more like ENTjs than INTps, even if I could agree that "INTjs get along far, far better with ISFjs than with ESFps."
There could be a counter argument that says "INTjs get along far, far better with INTps than with ENTjs...therefore INTjs are more like INTps than ENTjs" or "INTjs get along far, far better with ENTjs than with INTps...therefore INTjs are more like INTps than ENTjs".
ISFjs have
INTps have
It also depends on subtypes (DCNH). I have no problems with dominant and harmonizing INTps but with normalizing and creative ones it is difficult to talk. Normalizing INTps hardly ever talk and if they do they talk about boring things like earning money, the weather and so on. Creative INTps are very often conservative and criticize everything so I don't really enjoy talking to them.
Then you are probably a harmonizing ENTj. Does Gulenko's description of the intuitive subtype fit?
So you are probably the logical subtype.
Ni-INTj --- Harmonizing Analyst ---
DCNH rox
While an INTj's function values arre precisely opposite and INTps, but not quite precisely opposite an ENTj's... and INTj's function strengths precisely match an INTp's, and do not quite precisely match an ENTjs. Getting along is not the only measure; there's also, y'know, being similar.
So as a capitalist I'm the "truth and justice" subtype?
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Both Logical and Intuitive LIIs value truth and justice, of course.So as a capitalist I'm the "truth and justice" subtype?
Intuitive LIIs make more use of
So your
Azeroffs as a LIE is "mostly against capitalism" though
Last edited by CheGuevara; 11-09-2009 at 03:17 PM.
Ni-INTj --- Harmonizing Analyst ---
DCNH rox
Please leave this forum.
The end is nigh
Yeah, I agree with you on this. Azeroffs is LIE, mostly-against-capitalism-subtype.Azeroffs as a LIE is "mostly against capitalism" though
Eh... anyhow, in order to not make this a political dispute... let's not assume that the particular rationale you presented monopolizes the entire desire to help people; there can be reasons to prefer capitalism to help people, reasons to donate to Food for the Hungry out of pure spite... you prefer communism because you view it in a way that fits with your values, but I probably view it in a quite different way, that would be inconsistent with your values. So let's not tie ideology to type, except perhaps by relatingBoth Logical and Intuitive LIIs value truth and justice, of course.
Intuitive LIIs make more use of
So your
Azeroffs as a LIE is "mostly against capitalism" though
Incidentally, I consider myself the Harmonizing subtype (Intuitive under the two-subtype model), but I'd consider that the "peacemaking" subtype rather than the "helping people" subtype (not that I don't like to help people - I think I have
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
But I thought you said Ti is about truth and justice, so wouldn't the logical type be more communist according to you?Both Logical and Intuitive LIIs value truth and justice, of course.
Intuitive LIIs make more use of
You can't be serious...
This whole "Ti = truth and justice" thing is utter shit. Truth is way too big to be covered by any singular function. Maybe in the sense that Ti types are more inclined to look for truth, but it doesn't mean that valuing truth is specific to Ti or that Ti types know truth better than anyone else.
Ti could be justice in the sense that people should follow absolute rules. Even if that rule is to not follow absolute rules. However, one person's idea of justice is different than another. Another person, like myself, may think that rights and law are tools to keep happiness by way of order. There may be times when they must be overturned for the greater good, and that is just. Is it fair that for example many people must die in order to uphold the rights of a single man? This isn't to say that I don't think rights or certain laws aren't important, just that they aren't absolute. There are always exceptions. It is more just in the grander scheme to not uphold "justice" as I believe you are referring to. My point, again, is that people have different ideas of justice based on different reasons or feelings. Saying it is specific to Ti or any other function is limiting.
Of course I can. If you're a LIE, and if LIEs can be pro et contra capitalismus in various degrees, and if you're mostly against capitalism, that gives me all rights to type you as LIE mostly-against-capitalism-subtype.
I have been trying for so long to figure out how to make that symbol on the internet. Thank you.
Also lol at this thread. I love it when actual socionics topics descend into... capitalism subtypes.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
I have never said that mostly-against-capitalism-subtype = intuitive subtype. I don't think that mostly-against-capitalism-subtype = intuitive subtype. I have never thought so.
My impression is that you think that I thought that mostly-against-capitalism-subtype = intuitive subtype. I don't know is my impression correct, but anyway, now you know exactly what I thought and what I think. ;p
I'm not denying there is a large and easy to notice difference between INTjs and ENTjs. This difference is simply more superficial than the difference in Rational/Irrational between INTjs and INTps, because it affects the intertype relations to a less great extent.
But this view is very poorly substantiated. People in this thread talk about "demonstrative functions" and "ignoring functions" as if they are things of which the properties can be measured experimentally. They aren't. Intertype-relations are, so those are a better thing to orient by.
It's one of the most unequivocal claims socionics makes that the conflictor is the type one gets along worse with than with any other type including the super-ego (with which one is said to have a relation of mutual respect). You can't get around this without rejecting socionics in it's entirety.
There is another indication that Rational/Irrational has a greater effect on intertype relations than Introvert/Extrovert: Duals clearly get along better with eachother than Activity partners do.
The two aren't really sepparate. The extent to which two people are fundamentally similar is best inferred from the extent to which they get along due to a convergence of internal values. Also you are using the poorly substantiatable notions of "function strength" and "function valuedness" to support your argument. When you reframe the argument in terms of types and intertype relations, nothing remains of it.
You should read up on the things that are being said about Ti types in the Russian descriptions. One of them is that INTjs typically ignore rules and directives that don't suit them. You may find that we don't think much different than you about this:
In any case I don't identify with what you said about these supposed Ti types and find most of the described attitudes to be repugnant to my values in life.Another person, like myself, may think that rights and law are tools to keep happiness by way of order.
Ti-base typically come up with their own rules. They only follow given rules if they accept them. They still however use their rule set as a guideline. LSI will tend to be more accepting of existing rules since they see that it is functioning and are less inclined to consider something different.
Ti-role is more likely to follow given rules in order to stay normal. They need someone else to show them that certain rules are pointless.
I wasn't trying to say that Ti types blindly follow rules. They just focus on rules as a guideline more than other types. Rules of logic or science are some examples.
When I want a math symbol, I usually Google "math symbols" and get this:
Table of mathematical symbols - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then I copy-paste the symbol (the HTML version) like so:
≠
It doesn't take long, and it gets some fancy results.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
If you read type relations, contrary relations(INTj/ENTj) are theoretically better than quasi-identical(INTj/INTp). Contraries can get along quite well since they are very similar, but they will have problems around others when they show off their base functions more. Quasi-identicals constantly have problems since they speak of the same topics in completely different ways.
It seems that contraries would be more alike than quasi-identicals. Even though quasi-identicals have the same functional strength, the way in which the functions are used are more closely related among contrary types. Producing functions like the demonstrative are typically used in service to accepting functions like the ignoring.
Capitalism turned into a ideology is pretty retarded, but then again so is religion and other things.
Capitalism as material reality, the formation of organizations to convert the natural resources into usable product is merely functional. So is socialism as material reality which is the distribution of material resources across the organization.
Nothing works without resources and typically when wealth concentration is consolidated in a small area and other areas are starved, the system starts having some operational issue.
Even looking at Adam Smith who is supposedly some capitalism founder, he was much more reasonable in practice.
Tax the rich more, what a reasonable suggestion. I have found many Gamma that are more pragmatic and reasonable then otherwise suggested, upbringing has a lot to do with these ideas as well as a commitment to some level of decency.
Last edited by mu4; 11-10-2009 at 04:40 PM.
This is one of the worst topics I've ever seen on this forum. Mostly thanks to Che Guevara. It's as if in a forum about basketball a guy comes and starts judging basketball players on the basis of football rules.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
