1. Defining "Strong" Functions

I've been thinking about why people have so much trouble typing themselves and why socionics seems so ambiguous. I think part of the problem is that we don't have a clear definition of how to tell whether a function's in the ego block. So I wanna go back to the basics and get some perspectives on this. What does it mean for a function to be in the ego block?

The simplest answer is that it means we're good at using this function. But this way of looking at it won't necessarily work for unhealthy representatives of types -- the people who have the most to gain by discovering their socionics types!

The same goes for trying to define function order in reference to external behavior. Plus, the "outside-in" way of looking for type dismisses the fact that different people do the same things for wildly divergent reasons.

Some people say we should just pay attention to which functions people use most often. But again, this is a problem for unhealthy types -- different environments can repress or exaggerate certain functions.

I know there was an old test that defined ego functions as the ones you're most "attentive" too. But there's a lot of different ways you can be attentive to something. In the case of a function, maybe you revel in the use of that function, or maybe you're scared shitless by it and can't stop thinking about it. Either way, you're attentive to it.

I'd propose another way of looking at functions: which function energizes you the most when you use it? (And maybe, for weak but valued functions: which function energizes you the most when used by other people?)

Or maybe a more abstract definition like... in the context of which function do you evaluate the other functions? Hmm, I hope that makes sense - it probably wouldn't be an effective basis of determining type without some good concrete examples.

So - what's the best criteria for determining function placement? How d'you tell whether a function is "strong" -- and conversely, whether it's weak or just repressed by an individual's environment?

2. Originally Posted by nilv
I've been thinking about why people have so much trouble typing themselves and why socionics seems so ambiguous.
Because people try to use information elements to type themselves. Your solution involves again information elements and is therefor part of the problem instead of a solution.

If you want to look at strong functions, then you just have to use the 4 jungian dichotomies.

Because: an Intuitive person, has both Ne and Ni as his strong functions. (one is counscious and the other is uncounscious). But they are both strong, so you don't have to look seperately at them and you can simply look at Intuition vs Sensing.

3. Use the dichotomies to type yourself. Use IM elements to understand yourself.

4. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Use the dichotomies to type yourself. Use IM elements to understand yourself.
Yeah, this. For some people, it might be an iterative process, where you'll type yourself and then read further and adjust your understanding of yourself and maybe shift to a different type. In any case, I don't think the functions should be dealt with first; rather, a surface-level understanding through the dichotomies is probably a better place to start for those who are completely new to this stuff.

To answer the question of what it means for a function to be in the ego, I've heard it described as the primary lens through which we see the world--it's the set of glasses you wear. Thus, I think it colors any of your assumptions, biases, ideas, and behaviors.

5. Your ego functions are the ones you rely on to filter and interpret information directly, all the time. So yeah it's not really surprising that some people have a hard time typing themselves, especially extroverts; it's sort of like being in a room with no windows painted in a really bright color and trying to guess that it's any time but the middle of the day.

6. Originally Posted by Gilly
Your ego functions are the ones you rely on to filter and interpret information directly, all the time. So yeah it's not really surprising that some people have a hard time typing themselves, especially extroverts; it's sort of like being in a room with no windows painted in a really bright color and trying to guess that it's any time but the middle of the day.
Haha, good way of putting it.

7. Originally Posted by nilv
I'd propose another way of looking at functions: which function energizes you the most when you use it?
Yep I've heard that reasoning before, thinking in terms of what energizes you is the way people define introversion and extroversion commonly... but my problem with this is its still a bit ambiguous, honestly I don't know if typing is so much a precise science as it is an art in some ways.

At any rate I'd say doesn't really energize me, and does cause well using both of those functions feels good and natural.

Thinking for me is less about being energized or getting energized so much as it is a compulsive habit I do, I like to analyze everything that stirs up confusion, I like to have a mental portrait of the way everything works. I am always just analyzing stuff, I'll even explore topics that other people would consider not worthy of there time, to me analyzing stuff is like a sport and may not have to be done for a industrial productive reason.

I'd say its less about an immediate feedback of being energized, its more like the enneagram 5 motivation for me, it makes me feel empowered to be able to claim that I know the way something works, that I have a mental insight into the workings of things, without it I feel anxious and ill-equipped. Without it if something breaks or goes wrong you have no ability to mentally deal with the problem, your just powerless and baffled.

But I wouldn't call using or thinking really like a "passion" (something you desire heavily to do) or an activity which energizes and re-vitalizes me when I am exhausted. Usually for whatever reason when I am exhausted I fall back on stuff until I have the energy to think again, probably passionate about stuff. I think the role matches me, I like to think I am competent in and can be, but using it prevents me from access to and being blunt and saying what I naturally think.

Also...

Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Use the dichotomies to type yourself. Use IM elements to understand yourself.
+1 QFT

8. IME, using exclusively dichotomies isn't any more helpful than taking a purely functional approach -- functions and dichotomies need to inform each other. And I've seen enough people type themselves as INTj instead of INTp, INFp instead of ENFp, ENFp instead of ENFj, etc. to know that if you're new to socionics, typing yourself only with reference to dichotomies is often very misleading, maybe even more so than typing yourself using functions. Not necessarily because dichotomies are "wrong," but because there's lots of misconceptions floating around about them and if you don't understand functions, quadras, etc. it's easy to fall back on misleading stereotypes. (Of course, the same can be true for functions -- hence this thread.)

Originally Posted by greed
To answer the question of what it means for a function to be in the ego, I've heard it described as the primary lens through which we see the world--it's the set of glasses you wear. Thus, I think it colors any of your assumptions, biases, ideas, and behaviors.
Nice. This is a really clear definition. And I've never thought about socionics in relation to the assumptions we make -- can you think of any examples off the top of your head of how it colors our assumptions?

Originally Posted by Gilly
Your ego functions are the ones you rely on to filter and interpret information directly, all the time. So yeah it's not really surprising that some people have a hard time typing themselves, especially extroverts; it's sort of like being in a room with no windows painted in a really bright color and trying to guess that it's any time but the middle of the day.
Suddenly socionics seems very depressing. But this is a cool analogy. And I'm curious why you say extroverts have a harder time typing themselves?

This analogy is also related to what I was trying to get at when I said:

Originally Posted by me
Or maybe a more abstract definition like... in the context of which function do you evaluate the other functions?

I've been thinking about designing a functional test, which is one of the reasons I started this thread. A lot of people here are probably skeptical about the worth of functional tests, but what the hell.

So here's what I'm thinking: most of the functional tests in existence are ineffective becomes they try to describe the functions "objectively." As a result, either the descriptions are irreparably "colored" (borrowing from greed here:wink by author's function or they're so abstract and objective that no one can relate to them, since everyone sees the functions through the context of their own strong functions (ie. subjectively).

So what about a test that had descriptions of different functions from the viewpoint of other functions -- as opposed to the traditional functional tests that try to place each function in a vacuum and thus base typings off of falsely objectified, hyper-abstract descriptions that no one relates to, or ambiguous behavioral traits?

9. Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz
Yep I've heard that reasoning before, thinking in terms of what energizes you is the way people define introversion and extroversion commonly... but my problem with this is its still a bit ambiguous, honestly I don't know if typing is so much a precise science as it is an art in some ways.

At any rate I'd say doesn't really energize me, and does cause well using both of those functions feels good and natural.

Thinking for me is less about being energized or getting energized so much as it is a compulsive habit I do, I like to analyze everything that stirs up confusion, I like to have a mental portrait of the way everything works. I am always just analyzing stuff, I'll even explore topics that other people would consider not worthy of there time, to me analyzing stuff is like a sport and may not have to be done for a industrial productive reason.

I'd say its less about an immediate feedback of being energized, its more like the enneagram 5 motivation for me, it makes me feel empowered to be able to claim that I know the way something works, that I have a mental insight into the workings of things, without it I feel anxious and ill-equipped. Without it if something breaks or goes wrong you have no ability to mentally deal with the problem, your just powerless and baffled.

But I wouldn't call using or thinking really like a "passion" (something you desire heavily to do) or an activity which energizes and re-vitalizes me when I am exhausted. Usually for whatever reason when I am exhausted I fall back on stuff until I have the energy to think again, probably passionate about stuff. I think the role matches me, I like to think I am competent in and can be, but using it prevents me from access to and being blunt and saying what I naturally think.
Good point about art vs. science. This probably has to do with the fact that socionics is inherently subjective. It's basically impossible to separate our understanding of socionics from our individual perception. Some would argue that this is just because socionics is a young discipline with divergent interpretations and an ambiguous theoretical foundation, but I have to wonder if something as tied up to our perception as socionics is can ever be a 'science' or an 'objective' discipline...

Actually, I haven't heard the thing about being energized vis-a-vis extroversion / introversion. Where can I find out more about that?

In retrospect, the point about strong functions making you feel energized could be Fe-specific. (And right after the post where I talked about our socionics types skewing our perception of the functions) But I dig the idea that using your ego functions makes you feel "empowered," and I wonder if this could lead to a general way of looking at function usage. Any other types care to comment on whether / how using their ego functions makes them feel empowered?

I definitely relate to being "empowered" by ego functions. Conversely, if I'm in a situation where I can't use Fe, I feel worthless, naked, hollow, and vulnerable.

10. Originally Posted by nilv
IME, using exclusively dichotomies isn't any more helpful than taking a purely functional approach -- functions and dichotomies need to inform each other. And I've seen enough people type themselves as INTj instead of INTp, INFp instead of ENFp, ENFp instead of ENFj, etc. to know that if you're new to socionics, typing yourself only with reference to dichotomies is often very misleading, maybe even more so than typing yourself using functions. Not necessarily because dichotomies are "wrong," but because there's lots of misconceptions floating around about them and if you don't understand functions, quadras, etc. it's easy to fall back on misleading stereotypes. (Of course, the same can be true for functions -- hence this thread.)
Yeah.. I think dichotomies are a way to start, but to really know your type, you probably have to have a better understanding of the model (though probably not so deep as to get into subtypes and all--never found much practicality in those myself). I'd only say to start with the dichotomies because they're easier to comprehend, and work from there.

In short, I think I agree with you.

Nice. This is a really clear definition. And I've never thought about socionics in relation to the assumptions we make -- can you think of any examples off the top of your head of how it colors our assumptions?

I can speak to Ne, and maybe Fi.. and maybe maybe Te.. from experience and my understanding of the stuff.

I'd say that Ne can describe my instinct, my "always in the background" mindset. First, it tells me that there's many ways to look at a particular situation. Second, I innately generalize. Thus, many times, I cannot help but feel that details are often unimportant and that narrow-minded people are often arrogant in their worldview, that they "should" seek out new perspectives. This is part of the bias that my particular pair of "leading function-colored glasses" gives me.

Fi probably explains why I'm prone to being relatively sensitive. And since I'm sensitive, I also have deep empathy for others, but I also often treat other people as if they're made of cheap porcelain; I can't help but treat people as I myself would like to be treated.. with care, respect, and a sense of their unique individuality. As much as I "theoretically" recognize that not everyone cares about this, I still can't fully correct for it.

Though it's a weaker and more immature drive, and it's not in my ego per se, Te looks for practicality and "real-world" rationale. I don't often delve into theories past a level where they'd be useful (see my subtypes comment above), for example. But this takes a backseat to the more powerful forces that guide my worldview.

Originally Posted by nilv
So here's what I'm thinking: most of the functional tests in existence are ineffective becomes they try to describe the functions "objectively." As a result, either the descriptions are irreparably "colored" (borrowing from greed here:wink by author's function or they're so abstract and objective that no one can relate to them, since everyone sees the functions through the context of their own strong functions (ie. subjectively).

So what about a test that had descriptions of different functions from the viewpoint of other functions -- as opposed to the traditional functional tests that try to place each function in a vacuum and thus base typings off of falsely objectified, hyper-abstract descriptions that no one relates to, or ambiguous behavioral traits?
There's been some talk around here about how many of the descriptions are Ne-based, and there's definitely something to be said about that. I'd love to see an effort that tries to see functions through the perspectives of other functions.. people would likely resonate more with something that matches their perspective of what their functions (and other functions) are.

Of course.. this is coming from someone who's innately biased toward being interested in others' perspectives..

11. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Use the dichotomies to type yourself. Use IM elements to understand yourself.
Hmmmm... props + agreement. At least in general. I think one should use the dichotomies for initial typing, then use the IM elements for understanding + confirmation.

I'd propose another way of looking at functions: which function energizes you the most when you use it? (And maybe, for weak but valued functions: which function energizes you the most when used by other people?)

Or maybe a more abstract definition like... in the context of which function do you evaluate the other functions? Hmm, I hope that makes sense - it probably wouldn't be an effective basis of determining type without some good concrete examples.
Both of these seem like decent methods. To me, the leading function is like the water you swim in; it's what feels 100% natural no effort no motion no energy. Maybe efficiency of energy use is a good criteria for strength (remembering that both valued and unvalued functions can be strong): leading function has 1J of output for 1J of input, creative has .8J of output for 1J of input, role .5, polr .1, etc. It's about the efficiency of your engine. It's also about comfort, but as you said, comfort is problematic.

I tend to think about IMs based on feel: Te feels unpleasant, Se feels great. Using Fe feels fine, but not as natural as using Ni, so I get sick of it after a while. Using Fi is doable, but not at all enjoyable and not something I would do (consciously) for an extremely long period of time or make a big deal of in my life.

12. I don't think dichotomies can get you any farther than NT/NF/SF/ST. Understanding temperament requires a pretty thorough understanding of the system beyond simple dichotomies.

I think typing by how energized an element makes you seems like an interesting idea. I like it, but it would require a strong understanding of the way elements manifest so that you can put actions to elements. There is a lot of dispute over what that is for some elements. What are you doing when using X element, and when you do that is it always X element? How do you know for sure that you are doing what you think you're doing, or using the element you think you're using?

13. Originally Posted by nilv
Good point about art vs. science. This probably has to do with the fact that socionics is inherently subjective. It's basically impossible to separate our understanding of socionics from our individual perception. Some would argue that this is just because socionics is a young discipline with divergent interpretations and an ambiguous theoretical foundation, but I have to wonder if something as tied up to our perception as socionics is can ever be a 'science' or an 'objective' discipline...
Yes I think the reason science can only go so far is there is no clear objective label to actually define what "identity" is, its more or less intuitively understood, but its extremely hard to rigorously define in terms of basic mechanistic logic.

I really view typing as a sort of art supplied by alot of science, I believe the science gives us tools to classify behaviors, compulsions, habits, motivations, and the like. These tools can help a person arrive at a more accurate typing but ultimately there is no "equation" for personality that you just plug in some stuff and out pops the answer after a correctly applied analysis.

Originally Posted by nilv
Actually, I haven't heard the thing about being energized vis-a-vis extroversion / introversion. Where can I find out more about that?
Introversion is when people become energized when they focus their energy inward, but become drained when focusing their energy outward.

Extroversion is when people become energized when focusing their energy outward, but become drained when focusing it inward. (Focusing energy outward with other people is a give and take process where you put energy out and get some back)

Originally Posted by nilv
In retrospect, the point about strong functions making you feel energized could be Fe-specific. (And right after the post where I talked about our socionics types skewing our perception of the functions) But I dig the idea that using your ego functions makes you feel "empowered," and I wonder if this could lead to a general way of looking at function usage. Any other types care to comment on whether / how using their ego functions makes them feel empowered?
Well to go back to freudian terms, (which I assume augusta was using more or less with the concept of id, super-id, super-ego, and ego), the ego should be a form of reconciliation between the desires of the id and the rules of the super-ego. The Ego should form a sort of glue, meditiator, or defense against the more delicate subconcious elements of ones psyche.

It makes sense that an ego could generate feelings of empowerment when using those functions as in a way the functions operating in the ego block help the ego accomplish their task at defending the subconcious... being effective with those functions makes a person's subconcious feel protected and thus they feel strong and empowered against possible threats, even internal ones, which is true as analyzing things can be a way to rationalize against internal conflicts and bad feelings.

Originally Posted by nilv
I definitely relate to being "empowered" by ego functions. Conversely, if I'm in a situation where I can't use Fe, I feel worthless, naked, hollow, and vulnerable.
What type are you? Fe in ego block?

14. Originally Posted by nilv
I've been thinking about why people have so much trouble typing themselves and why socionics seems so ambiguous. I think part of the problem is that we don't have a clear definition of how to tell whether a function's in the ego block.
We have a clear definition. Valued functions are in the ego, unvalued functions in the id. But people often find it difficult to determine if they value an information element or not...

Originally Posted by nilv
I'd propose another way of looking at functions: which function energizes you the most when you use it? (And maybe, for weak but valued functions: which function energizes you the most when used by other people?)
Correct. The question is: Do you like it or not? In other words: Do you value it or not.

I'm LII so I value and . Nevertheless, I use very often, probably more often than . But I don't like it when people use too much.

Originally Posted by nilv
So - what's the best criteria for determining function placement? How d'you tell whether a function is "strong" -- and conversely, whether it's weak or just repressed by an individual's environment?
function is strong (ego or id) <-> you are good at using it
function is valued (ego or super-id) <-> you like people who use it

15. Originally Posted by nilv

So - what's the best criteria for determining function placement? How d'you tell whether a function is "strong" -- and conversely, whether it's weak or just repressed by an individual's environment?
maybe I misunderstood, but this is a strange question. Model A already sais that 1,2,7,8 are the strong functions, and 3,4,5,6 are the weak functions...

16. Originally Posted by Jarno
maybe I misunderstood, but this is a strange question. Model A already sais that 1,2,7,8 are the strong functions, and 3,4,5,6 are the weak functions...
I think they are asking what in reality/observation entails a "strong" function, rather than simply saying a function is strong because model A says so. Model A defines which functions are strong but I believe they are asking what does it mean to have a strong function.

17. Originally Posted by nilv
Suddenly socionics seems very depressing. But this is a cool analogy. And I'm curious why you say extroverts have a harder time typing themselves?
Well, the easy way to answer this is to say that they are less in touch with their "feelings;" introverted/field functions are directly related to a person's natural sense or feeling of things. They are vaguer than Extroverted functions in reference to the "real world," because they naturally attempt to perceive or analyze more information with less clarity, but they also come closer to giving a complete picture of something because more information is accessible via "feelings" than raw perception; feelings are less precise and discrete, but more encompassing. This subjective edge makes it easier for introverts to narrow down the vague morass of traits to what is relevant to them as a person, thus making self-typing easier. Extroverts, by comparison, see the world as more disparate; they may more clearly perceive their own traits as an individual, and are usually more confident in their own traits, but have a less clear idea of how they fit together or which are really relevant to them as a person, which ones are integral and which are more superficial, so they have to sort of look at all the pieces and whittle them down, rather than beginning from a baseline of perceived relevance.

18. Don't, if you want to be taken seriously by anyone who has half an idea about socionics, use the dichotomies to type yourself. I like to pretend that the four-letter type code never even existed in socionics, which makes the dichotomies completely irrelevant, because they don't refer to anything. However, unfortunately, temperaments are a part of classical socionics theory, as are the clubs, and each of the four temperaments and clubs can only realistically be referred to using elements of the four-letter type codes.

I'm more likely to listen to someone who says "type by temperament and club" than someone who says "type by dichotomies" but I still think that the only real way of typing yourself accurately is to read the functional descriptions, and decide on your quadra values and your own personal strengths and weaknesses in each of the four areas (sensing, intuition, ethics and logic). Temperament and club should really only be used as "type-checkers"; that is, to confirm certain facets of your personality e.g. "after having looked at the functions, I've decided I'm an ILE, and this is made clearer to me by the fact that my energy levels are most aptly described by the EP temperament description, and the club description which fits me most happens to be NT".

However, don't let these descriptions influence you too much. As an SLE, I find the ST club description to be rather shit, if you must know. "Interactions are likely to be based on sports activities or discussion of, or cooperation in, projects related to manual work, application of force, gaining power and engineering". I actually find sports relatively dull, and most of those who engage in sports conversations with me bore the shit out of me. Most manual workers I've met are not on the same intellectual wavelength as me (I'm not being arrogant, elitist or insulting, I'm merely stating a fact). Engineering is the least likely career option for me right now. Conversations involving application of force and gaining power - physically-speaking - is alien to me. In fact, the only thing remotely about the ST club description would be if you took this to mean any application of force or power gain, including in the realm of politics, a subject which interests me greatly. Moreover, I have an NF best friend who is most certainly not interested in church group community/helping the world shite; he and I prefer to discuss power and politics in our utopian state.

In short, don't take temperament, and, more specifically, club, too seriously.

Originally Posted by Gilly
Well, the easy way to answer this is to say that they are less in touch with their "feelings;" introverted/field functions are directly related to a person's natural sense or feeling of things. They are vaguer than Extroverted functions in reference to the "real world," because they naturally attempt to perceive or analyze more information with less clarity, but they also come closer to giving a complete picture of something because more information is accessible via "feelings" than raw perception; feelings are less precise and discrete, but more encompassing. This subjective edge makes it easier for introverts to narrow down the vague morass of traits to what is relevant to them as a person, thus making self-typing easier. Extroverts, by comparison, see the world as more disparate; they may more clearly perceive their own traits as an individual, and are usually more confident in their own traits, but have a less clear idea of how they fit together or which are really relevant to them as a person, which ones are integral and which are more superficial, so they have to sort of look at all the pieces and whittle them down, rather than beginning from a baseline of perceived relevance.
Yeah, good reason.

19. Originally Posted by Ezra
I like to pretend that the four-letter type code never even existed in socionics, which makes the dichotomies completely irrelevant, because they don't refer to anything.
??

Jung and Augusta both used dichotomies to type people. I heard Igor Weisband explain how they typed people 'in the old days'. They used 4 dichotomies first, and after that had some other methods to check.

It is people like you, who advocate the use of information elements, not Augusta or Jung...

20. Originally Posted by Jarno
??

Jung and Augusta both used dichotomies to type people. I heard Igor Weisband explain how they typed people 'in the old days'. They used 4 dichotomies first, and after that had some other methods to check.

It is people like you, who advocate the use of information elements, not Augusta or Jung...
I'm not at all interested in Jung or Weisband, but I am curious about Augusta.

I want to see some hard evidence of her use of the dichotomies before I advocate anything.

21. Originally Posted by Jarno
??

Jung and Augusta both used dichotomies to type people. I heard Igor Weisband explain how they typed people 'in the old days'. They used 4 dichotomies first, and after that had some other methods to check.

It is people like you, who advocate the use of information elements, not Augusta or Jung...
I'm not at all interested in Jung or Weisband, but I am curious about Augusta.

I want to see some hard evidence of her use of the dichotomies before I advocate anything.

22. Originally Posted by Ezra
I'm not at all interested in Jung or Weisband, but I am curious about Augusta.

I want to see some hard evidence of her use of the dichotomies before I advocate anything.
Igor Weisband has worked with her since the beginning, developing socionics. I have heared it from him. They both typed people using dichotomies. Also they used a method which he called accepting/instrumental, they seemed to have developed a way of noticing which information elements were used as accepting and which as producing. As confirmation they put a person in a separate room with another type, and afterwards check how they went along.

23. Originally Posted by Jarno
Igor Weisband has worked with her since the beginning, developing socionics. I have heared it from him. They both typed people using dichotomies. Also they used a method which he called accepting/instrumental, they seemed to have developed a way of noticing which information elements were used as accepting and which as producing. As confirmation they put a person in a separate room with another type, and afterwards check how they went along.
Yeah but I want to see it written down, on a page, by Augusta or Weisband.

Also, even if you're right, just because they did it then doesn't mean they didn't evolve in their ideas.

24. Originally Posted by Ezra
Yeah but I want to see it written down, on a page, by Augusta or Weisband.

Also, even if you're right, just because they did it then doesn't mean they didn't evolve in their ideas.
Igor weisband used dichotomies to type 'potatospirit' or what's his name, on the meeting in germany 2008. so that's how far he has evolved his ideas.

Also where did you get the idea that dichotomies aren't part of socionics? since even Rick admitted that most russian sites use dichotomies as their main typing method.

25. Originally Posted by Gilly
Well, the easy way to answer this is to say that they are less in touch with their "feelings;" introverted/field functions are directly related to a person's natural sense or feeling of things. They are vaguer than Extroverted functions in reference to the "real world," because they naturally attempt to perceive or analyze more information with less clarity, but they also come closer to giving a complete picture of something because more information is accessible via "feelings" than raw perception; feelings are less precise and discrete, but more encompassing. This subjective edge makes it easier for introverts to narrow down the vague morass of traits to what is relevant to them as a person, thus making self-typing easier. Extroverts, by comparison, see the world as more disparate; they may more clearly perceive their own traits as an individual, and are usually more confident in their own traits, but have a less clear idea of how they fit together or which are really relevant to them as a person, which ones are integral and which are more superficial, so they have to sort of look at all the pieces and whittle them down, rather than beginning from a baseline of perceived relevance.
In other words, extroverts naturally do less introspection than introverts because their main focus is on the external world, so getting to know themselves is inherently more difficult.

.. is that right?

26. Originally Posted by Ezra
I'm not at all interested in Jung or Weisband, but I am curious about Augusta.

I want to see some hard evidence of her use of the dichotomies before I advocate anything.

27. Originally Posted by Jarno
Igor weisband used dichotomies to type 'potatospirit' or what's his name, on the meeting in germany 2008. so that's how far he has evolved his ideas.
That was two years ago. Things may have changed. Also PotatoSpirit is an LSI regardless of the dichotomies.

Also where did you get the idea that dichotomies aren't part of socionics? since even Rick admitted that most russian sites use dichotomies as their main typing method.
Ahhh, so you do see the inherent inferiority of dichotomies. Otherwise you wouldn't say "even Rick". Also, just because Rick admits that Russian sites use dichotomies as their main typing method doesn't mean that they're using the most effective typing method.

28. Originally Posted by Ezra
That was two years ago. Things may have changed. Also PotatoSpirit is an LSI regardless of the dichotomies.

Ahhh, so you do see the inherent inferiority of dichotomies. Otherwise you wouldn't say "even Rick". Also, just because Rick admits that Russian sites use dichotomies as their main typing method doesn't mean that they're using the most effective typing method.
that was two years ago... but the 35 years before that, he used dichotomies.

no i said even rick because rick is the one most known for advocating the informational approach of socionics. I agree though that it doesn't say anything of it's effectivity.

why do you have such a hard time changing your assumptions of dichotomies?

29. Originally Posted by greed
In other words, extroverts naturally do less introspection than introverts because their main focus is on the external world, so getting to know themselves is inherently more difficult.

.. is that right?
...did you even read the post that you quoted?

30. Wait, no; I should have prefaced my post with "A much simpler and more practical explanation is..." rather than "In other words..." That would've been more accurate.

Carry on.

31. Originally Posted by Jarno
Also where did you get the idea that dichotomies aren't part of socionics? since even Rick admitted that most russian sites use dichotomies as their main typing method.
Where does he say that? Do you have a link?

32. Even if Augusta used dichotomies, that doesn't mean it's the best method for us to use, much less someone who's new to socionics and is trying to figure out his or her type. Yeah, a lot of people here know their shit, but Augusta invented her shit.

Originally Posted by greed
I can speak to Ne, and maybe Fi.. and maybe maybe Te.. from experience and my understanding of the stuff.

I'd say that Ne can describe my instinct, my "always in the background" mindset. First, it tells me that there's many ways to look at a particular situation. Second, I innately generalize. Thus, many times, I cannot help but feel that details are often unimportant and that narrow-minded people are often arrogant in their worldview, that they "should" seek out new perspectives. This is part of the bias that my particular pair of "leading function-colored glasses" gives me.

Fi probably explains why I'm prone to being relatively sensitive. And since I'm sensitive, I also have deep empathy for others, but I also often treat other people as if they're made of cheap porcelain; I can't help but treat people as I myself would like to be treated.. with care, respect, and a sense of their unique individuality. As much as I "theoretically" recognize that not everyone cares about this, I still can't fully correct for it.

Though it's a weaker and more immature drive, and it's not in my ego per se, Te looks for practicality and "real-world" rationale. I don't often delve into theories past a level where they'd be useful (see my subtypes comment above), for example. But this takes a backseat to the more powerful forces that guide my worldview.
This is interesting, thanks for explaining it.

I see where you're coming from about Ne and generalizations, but I suspect that all types make generalizations -- it's just that different functional groupings make different kinds of generalizations. For instance, you talk about generalizations that transcend details and help you move beyond your world view, but I bet you would consider other functions' generalizations to be narrow-minded arrogance.:wink: Likewise, I suspect that Se PoLRs would see your generalizations as watering down ideas, making them too abstract, etc. Oh, but to get back to my point, I don't think we should make generalizations about generalizations.

Originally Posted by greed
There's been some talk around here about how many of the descriptions are Ne-based, and there's definitely something to be said about that. I'd love to see an effort that tries to see functions through the perspectives of other functions.. people would likely resonate more with something that matches their perspective of what their functions (and other functions) are.
Yeah, I would find it fascinating to see other types do this sort of thing -- without even attempting to make the descriptions objective. I think I'm going to do this from my perspective.

Originally Posted by silverchris9
Both of these seem like decent methods. To me, the leading function is like the water you swim in; it's what feels 100% natural no effort no motion no energy. Maybe efficiency of energy use is a good criteria for strength (remembering that both valued and unvalued functions can be strong): leading function has 1J of output for 1J of input, creative has .8J of output for 1J of input, role .5, polr .1, etc. It's about the efficiency of your engine. It's also about comfort, but as you said, comfort is problematic.
Cool idea! I bet the output is greater than the input for some functions.

Originally Posted by Azeroffs
I like it, but it would require a strong understanding of the way elements manifest so that you can put actions to elements. There is a lot of dispute over what that is for some elements. What are you doing when using X element, and when you do that is it always X element? How do you know for sure that you are doing what you think you're doing, or using the element you think you're using?
You're right, this is a problem -- it gets back to the issue of typing through behavior. The trick would be to find a way to capture the subjective aspect of function usage. So instead of describing the behavior "objectively," we'd have to purposely describe it in a biased way, playing to the fact that people of different types will view identical external circumstances in different ways.

Actually, another idea I just had while I was typing this involves testing based on the context of functions. I read the other day (I think it was on socionics.us) that using functions out of their "appropriate" context brings type differences to the surface, so maybe a test that places the functions out of context could help solve this problem. Another way of thinking about it -- some contexts are ambiguous, and identical behavior can stem from divergent function orderings, but functions used in unusual contexts leave less room for such vagueness.

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz
Yes I think the reason science can only go so far is there is no clear objective label to actually define what "identity" is, its more or less intuitively understood, but its extremely hard to rigorously define in terms of basic mechanistic logic.

I really view typing as a sort of art supplied by alot of science, I believe the science gives us tools to classify behaviors, compulsions, habits, motivations, and the like. These tools can help a person arrive at a more accurate typing but ultimately there is no "equation" for personality that you just plug in some stuff and out pops the answer after a correctly applied analysis.
I really like this way of looking at socionics. And I think the fact that socionics isn't purely scientific is a good thing in a lot of ways. After all, scientific systems that reduce human activity to formulas only go so far (eg. economics). In the end, there's so much that can't be reduced to generic laws, that hiding subjectivity beneath a false veneer of scientific rationalism can be very damaging.

That said, every art has a concrete foundation, and we still need to have a good idea of what the functions are (and not just a self-referential, theoretical definition).

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz
Introversion is when people become energized when they focus their energy inward, but become drained when focusing their energy outward.

Extroversion is when people become energized when focusing their energy outward, but become drained when focusing it inward. (Focusing energy outward with other people is a give and take process where you put energy out and get some back)
This makes sense. I relate to it, but I bet a lot of people wouldn't -- you mentioned that Ti doesn't "energize" you per se. And a lot of people would probably mistype themselves using this prompt -- which goes back to the vagueness of typing by dichotomies.

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz
It makes sense that an ego could generate feelings of empowerment when using those functions as in a way the functions operating in the ego block help the ego accomplish their task at defending the subconcious... being effective with those functions makes a person's subconcious feel protected and thus they feel strong and empowered against possible threats, even internal ones, which is true as analyzing things can be a way to rationalize against internal conflicts and bad feelings.
Hey, this makes a lot of sense, and I never looked at it that way before. Thanks for this.

Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz
What type are you? Fe in ego block?
EIE-Ni (afaik)

Originally Posted by JohnDo
Correct. The question is: Do you like it or not? In other words: Do you value it or not.
But this definition is so vague! I like my first two functions -- then again, I like functions 5 and 6, too. And I can appreciate the others in some circumstances. I agree that knowing what functions you "like" is a good start, but a deeper understanding of one's type involves moving beyond like/dislike, good/bad, etc.

Originally Posted by JohnDo
function is strong (ego or id) <-> you are good at using it
function is valued (ego or super-id) <-> you like people who use it
Like I said in my first post, this approach doesn't necessarily work for typing unhealthy representatives of socionics types. And those are the people who stand to gain the most from socionics. We need a perspective that accounts for the reality that people have different opportunities to develop (or repress) their strong functions. Even for healthy representatives of types, typing yourself based on what you're "good" at can be misleading because the term is so vague.

Originally Posted by Jarno
maybe I misunderstood, but this is a strange question. Model A already sais that 1,2,7,8 are the strong functions, and 3,4,5,6 are the weak functions...
Yeah, like HaveLucidDreamz pointed out, I was asking more about how strong functions play out in practice. Socionics theory is well-defined (as you point out), but things can get pretty dicy in practice.

Originally Posted by Gilly
Well, the easy way to answer this is to say that they are less in touch with their "feelings;" introverted/field functions are directly related to a person's natural sense or feeling of things. They are vaguer than Extroverted functions in reference to the "real world," because they naturally attempt to perceive or analyze more information with less clarity, but they also come closer to giving a complete picture of something because more information is accessible via "feelings" than raw perception; feelings are less precise and discrete, but more encompassing. This subjective edge makes it easier for introverts to narrow down the vague morass of traits to what is relevant to them as a person, thus making self-typing easier. Extroverts, by comparison, see the world as more disparate; they may more clearly perceive their own traits as an individual, and are usually more confident in their own traits, but have a less clear idea of how they fit together or which are really relevant to them as a person, which ones are integral and which are more superficial, so they have to sort of look at all the pieces and whittle them down, rather than beginning from a baseline of perceived relevance.
Ok, this makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. Linking this to what I was saying about functions and generalizations earlier in this post, I wonder if this means introverted functions are a lot more likely to see the external world in terms of generalizations...

Originally Posted by Ezra
However, don't let these descriptions influence you too much. As an SLE, I find the ST club description to be rather shit, if you must know. "Interactions are likely to be based on sports activities or discussion of, or cooperation in, projects related to manual work, application of force, gaining power and engineering". I actually find sports relatively dull, and most of those who engage in sports conversations with me bore the shit out of me. Most manual workers I've met are not on the same intellectual wavelength as me (I'm not being arrogant, elitist or insulting, I'm merely stating a fact). Engineering is the least likely career option for me right now. Conversations involving application of force and gaining power - physically-speaking - is alien to me. In fact, the only thing remotely about the ST club description would be if you took this to mean any application of force or power gain, including in the realm of politics, a subject which interests me greatly. Moreover, I have an NF best friend who is most certainly not interested in church group community/helping the world shite; he and I prefer to discuss power and politics in our utopian state.
Yeah, TBH some of the temperaments descriptions seem like a silly attempt to group socionics types in terms of nerds, jocks, emo kids, and cheerleaders. BTW, your sig made me literally LOL.

OK, this post is officially too long.

33. Originally Posted by nilv
Even if Augusta used dichotomies, that doesn't mean it's the best method for us to use, much less someone who's new to socionics and is trying to figure out his or her type. Yeah, a lot of people here know their shit, but Augusta invented her shit.

This is interesting, thanks for explaining it.

I see where you're coming from about Ne and generalizations, but I suspect that all types make generalizations -- it's just that different functional groupings make different kinds of generalizations. For instance, you talk about generalizations that transcend details and help you move beyond your world view, but I bet you would consider other functions' generalizations to be narrow-mind arrogance.:wink: Likewise, I suspect that Se PoLRs would see your generalizations as watering down ideas, making them too abstract, etc. Oh, but to get back to my point, I don't think we should make generalizations about generalizations.
Agreed, for the sake of accuracy and to hinder confusion Im going to say that I dont believe greed's description is a good indicator of NeFi, as I can relate to everything you said and apparently dont have said elements in my ego.

34. Originally Posted by JohnDo
Where does he say that? Do you have a link?
He has said that as a reply on a post that I made on this forum.

35. Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
Naw, given the nature of the claim, it's a sensible response. maybe, but a response to a ego, so it's no evidence of valuing (though maybe evidence against PoLR, but I've never heard Ezra accused of that).

36. Removed at User Request

37. Originally Posted by Pinocchio
Using the four dichotomies you have MBTI. Using the four dichotomies you'd be unable to tell apart an ILI from a socially introverted ILE, or even a more "messy" LII (eg. activating in arts).
yes this is true, especially if you would ONLY rely on dichotomies. But since you know this you can take it into account in the back of your mind.

I doubt that Aushra typed by these, what I read from her works was based exclusively on the model and blocks, it is funny that some people even bother with this "problem".

I'm confident that I tell this beyond any imprudence or hubris.
Just ask Igor Weisband. They did use dichotomies. They also used some other unorthodox methods next to that, which are very interesting, I could tell you guys about it, but it seems I'm not believed in the first place of telling the truth...

38. There is no one correct or incorrect way to type. The best typings are based on multiple methods that are cross-checked.

39. Removed at User Request

Posting Permissions

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