Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Gulenko function strength

  1. #1
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,484
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Gulenko function strength

    According to Gulenko 1,8,6,3 are strong functions. 2,7,5,4 are weak functions. Functions that match your vertness are strong. Those that don't are weak.

    erm, strong/weak isn't the best terminology.


    2 isn't really "weak," it's implicitly aware of a lot of information, but it requires tremendous energy (discipline ?) to use. This is one reason illusionary partners can get tired of seeing each other.

    7 thought process is entirely subdued, but it's aware of lots of information on a mostly verbal (syntactic rather than semantic) level, allowing the person to ape its use in certain circumstances.

    5 and 4 are obvious.



    8 is very strong. 1 thinks up something and transfers it to 8, which then tries to mold the output according to situational factors. It's unvalued because nobody values situational factors that glut up your thought process -- but you still have to be aware of them. Spending time with your dual is rewarding because you don't have to focus on situational crap that interferes with what 1'd rather do.
    Also you use this function privately to shield your dual from their mistakes, blah blah blah.

    3 is strong but not really. It often manifests itself, but in a puerile or childish format. For example, an IxE that engages in petty territorial games, over the top displays of confidence or crude sexuality . (It doesn't have to be that assholish, I'm illustrating a point). It manifests when 1 has been fully saturated and your fried brain automatically switches to another function.

    6 is sort of obvious. 1 is your weltanschauung; Nuff said.



    Thoughts?
    Last edited by xerx; 11-23-2009 at 02:31 AM.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    547
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    How can function 2 (the creative), be weak?

    Functions that match your vertness are strong.
    What does this mean?
    2 isn't really "weak," it's implicitly aware of a lot of information, but it requires tremendous energy (discipline ?) to use.
    Can you expound on this?
    This is one reason illusionary partners can get tired of seeing each other.
    Hmm.. I think illusionary partners get tired of each other because they aren't providing each other with the DS they seek (which is their Roles). In relationships, the judging axis seems to be very important (carries more weight in determining whether two persons get along or not). It's like a fake duality. The trick is that they start easily, unlike duality which takes a while.

    All the functions change their "strength" (which I think is an incorrect term to refer to IM's) depending on your subtype. Subtype is very important to determine which ones. One subtype gives prominence to certain functions; that are going to act "in a chain", while the others get "disjointed" and act independently. The same with the other subtype but with the other functions.

  3. #3
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,484
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xkj220 View Post
    How can function 2 (the creative), be weak?
    It's strong but energy intensive, so it's not very often used. Its manifestations are limited, even though it's aware of a lot, heavily weighs in on the thought process, and the person knows how to use it.

    What does this mean?
    extrovert, introvert, etc.

    Hmm.. I think illusionary partners get tired of each other because the only they aren't providing each other with the DS they seek (which is their Roles). In relationships, the judging axis seems to be very important (carries more weight in determining whether two persons get along or not). It's like a fake duality. The trick is that they start easily, unlike duality which takes a while.
    Yes that's the other reason.

    All the functions change their "strength" (which I think s an incorrect term to refer to IM's) depending on your subtype. Subtype is very important to determine which ones. One subtype gives prominence to certain functions; that are going to act "in a chain", while the other get "disjointed" and act independently. The same with the other subtype but with the other functions.
    Gulenko's DCNH Subtypes also affect strength.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    547
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    extrovert, introvert, etc.
    Ah, ok. So in this theory; if you an introvert type all your introverted IM's are strong, and the extroverted ones weak(?). I feel like I am walking backwards like a crab, because the normal two-subtype theory works wonders (the one that states that subtype one/accepting subtype has got stronger left column of model A, or alternatively all "accepting functions" (if you prefer to call it that), except base, and subtype two a stronger right column, or all "producing functions" (except the PoRL).


    Gulenko's DCNH Subtypes also affect strength.
    Some things from the DCNH theory don't make any sense to me. How could a LII have stronger Se and Ne at the same time, and for instance; IEE stronger Fi and Ti? It could very well be true, but I don't see how (dammit, one of them is the PoRL :/. PoRL is always weak.). It doesn't add up it the cases I've seen either. What works is the two subtype theory. The DCNH subtypes work when people interact together in order to achieve something, in which case the the "sub-intertypes" described in the DCNH theory take place.


    When did Gulenko say this? I mean -- what's the chronology; he came up with the two subtype theory, then he came up with DCNH. Where does this theory fit?

  5. #5
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,484
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xkj220 View Post
    Ah, ok. So in this theory; if you an introvert type all your introverted IM's are strong, and the extroverted ones weak(?). I feel like I am walking backwards like a crab, because the normal two-subtype theory works wonders (the one that states that subtype one/accepting subtype has got stronger left column of model A, or alternatively all "accepting functions" (if you prefer to call it that), except base, and subtype two a stronger right column, or all "producing functions" (except the PoRL).
    Strong is a bad term to use. I think strong == more manifested in behavior, weak == less manifested in behavior. All of Model A stipulations about function's level of articulation (3 is weak at understanding and fully appreciating its aspect of reality, etc.) still apply.


    Some things from the DCNH theory don't make any sense to me. How could a LII have stronger Se and Ne at the same time, and for instance; IEE stronger Fi and Ti? It could very well be true, but I don't see how (dammit, one of them is the PoRL :/. PoRL is always weak.). It doesn't add up it the cases I've seen either. What works is the two subtype theory. The DCNH subtypes work when people interact together in order to achieve something, in which case the the "sub-intertypes" described in the DCNH theory take place.
    I don't know what Victor officially thinks, but I read some Russian hypothesis a long while back that differentiated the DCNH subtypes according to the NT, SF, ST, NF clubs.

    A C LII will have stronger Ne than Se for example.
    A C LSI will have stronger Se than Ne.

    (C IJ is a very energy intensive subtype to be.)

    D ILE will have strong Te. D IEE will have strong Fe. And so on.

    H ILE will have stronger Ni, nerfing his main function and making him somewhat neurotic. Yeah they actually made that claim. Most energy intensive subtype.

    When did Gulenko say this?
    I pieced it together from some articles I read over time. I'll try to track down the sources.
    Last edited by xerx; 11-23-2009 at 03:39 AM.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  6. #6
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,484
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    An example of the 2nd function's low energy..

    According to Rick

    Fi dominants are willing to tolerate relationships that aren't great to see if there is still anything to them. Fi creatives concern themselves with relationships that are positive; they aren't as interested in experimenting.

    LIIs are willing to study really obscure logical systems, as a game or hobby or to sharpen their skills. ILEs are more concerned with systems they actually need.

    SLIs are interested in ways to do the least amount of work, unlike their EJ brethren. But this doesn't reduce the quality of their Te, which is still strong in Model A.


    Subtype will still affect these of course.


    That's all I can think of.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    547
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hmm. this makes me think. I'll output my ramblings in case there's something of value in them:

    "Creative function". Even its name implies certain "shiftiness" in its usage. Leaping of bounds. Example; if you are creative with Fi (xEE's), you will mostly concern yourself with establishing bonds with people. This "creativity with bonds" often gives the impression that the person in question is "flighty" (which is one of the things xEE's are sometimes described as"). The base function however is "sitting there" so to speak. It's always on; it "filters" everything you do. It's not "shifty" in any way, and it can be imposing sometimes.

    That "shiftiness" can be give the paradoxical appearance that the person is "weak " in said element (for instance, Fi, in the cases above), but it will give the opposite impression with other IM elements (Ni for instance). Some IM elements work "better"/show off more/are more affective in certain positions. Although I don't like much where this is headed because perhaps it would imply that some types are "better" than others.

  8. #8
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,484
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The creative can be imposing. It can be rigid, demanding and not very easily swayed. Energy might work both ways. On the one hand, you're smarter about how it's directed because there isn't enough fuel. On the other hand, there isn't enough fuel to backup and redo your steps. It's a huge, blunt instrument, that has to be aimed carefully, and has a lot of inertia when it is swung.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    547
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's an interesting concept. Do you feel that way with your Ti? Say, as in; you feel like you have to employ it more in a more conscious manner, and be more careful about it than you are with the base, because it can sort of cause "damage" and stuff that cannot be retracted (and also because it requires more "energy expenditure")?

    I believe it would be a very interesting exercise to do the same with every function; try to liken it to an object, or some other sort of analogy. If came out right, it would greatly enhance the understanding of all the functions. Imagery speaks louder than words (at least in my case). I also wonder if all the types would come up with similar analogies, or they would be different depending on their types.

    When I think about my own creative function, I tend to view it more as a "sword".

    EDIT:

    Okay; I'm going to try and do it. From the top of my head:

    Base: A shield
    Creative: A sword
    Role: Secondary weapon of sorts. A small stiletto.
    PoRL: If I were Achilles, this would be my Heel.
    Suggestive: My heart.
    Mobilizing: My muscles.
    Ignoring: The strap of the shield.
    Demonstrative: Armor

  10. #10
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,484
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xkj220 View Post
    That's an interesting concept. Do you feel that way with your Ti? Say, as in; you feel like you have to employ it more in a more concious manner, and be more careful about it, than you do the base, and that it can sort of cause "damage" and stuff that cannot be retracted?

    I believe it would be a very interesting exercise to do the same with every function; try to liken it to an object or some other sort of analogy. If came out right, it would greatly enhance the understanding of all the functions. Imagery speaks louder than words (at least in my case). I also wonder if all the types would come up with similar analogies, or they would be different depending on their types.

    When I think about my own creative function, I tend to view it more as a "sword".
    I have to work hard at my Ti, so yes. I try to be surreptitious about it and only bring it up when I'm sure I have a solid case.

    I would think that since LIIs are more confident about it, they freely bring it up spontaneously. They're more confident in a casual, hands off use of it.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  11. #11
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,216
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've always considered 4,5, and 7 least apparent in type, and perhaps least focused on by type. The creative function, I think, should be left out of that categorization though.
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  12. #12
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree that the role function is kind of strong and valued, but not close to the amount as the dominant is.

  13. #13
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't have a Gulenko function.

  14. #14
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Seeing as how I'm suspicious of both Object/Field and the common way of numbering functions, I'm also suspicious of this. I'm glad this thread was posted, though.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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