1. Shared Energy Pools?

So I just had a thought, inspired by this article, which Gul linked to here. Rick was talking about how using a function for too long, even the base function, will deplete that function's energy resources, after which it needs to rest for a while in order to regenerate and restore it to full power. He also talks a lot about neurons and stuff, but that's not my primary interest.

I have been thinking for a while about another question. It's difficult to describe in general terms, so I'll use an example. Ti and Fi can be thought of as opposites (External Statics of Fields vs. Internal Statics of Fields); it's said in some places that they can't both be active at the same time. However, Ti and Te can also be thought of as opposites (External Statics of Fields vs. External Dynamics of Objects); they're also sometimes described as not being able to both be active at the same time. Both pairs of "opposites" are sometimes described as "two sides of the same coin". However, this can't be true in the same sense for both, so what's the distinction?

Also, DCNH subtype theory (which I know not everyone accepts, but bear with me) posits that if Ti is strengthened, Fi will also be strengthened. At first glance this doesn't seem to make sense: if Ti is being exercised, Fi should be dormant. So why would Fi become stronger? This is also somewhat backed up by the fact that the Base function is the strongest of the Ego functions, while the Role function is the strongest of the Super-Ego (and similarly with the Vital Ring). Both suggest that the two elements composing each temperament (IJ, EJ, IP, and EP) are somehow linked.

The possible explanation that just occurred to me (or part of an explanation, really): is it possible that the two elements composing each temperament (Ti and Fi being the example) share the same energy resources? That is, if you drain your Ti energy pool, do you simultaneously drain your Fi energy pool? Is it in fact the same pool? If only one at a time can draw from the same energy pool, it would explain why only one at a time can be active. If the energy pool grows bigger/stronger with exercise, it would also explain why strengthening one strengthens the other in DCNH.

I can offer one piece of anecdotal evidence, which I thought of just now: when I come home from work, with my Role Fi fried from a long day of constantly dealing with customers (trying to make sure they like -- or at least don't hate -- me, and by extension the store), I find it nearly impossible to sit down and do any kind of hard thinking or analytical work, which I normally enjoy. I have to sit back and relax for a while, possibly watch some T.V. and laugh at some silly comedies. In other words, I have to retreat into my Super-Id and indulge my Si and Fe while my Fi and Ti recharge. Since my job doesn't require a whole lot of Ti, this suggests that my Ti was drained along with my Fi.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I figured I would post them and see if they spark any further ideas from anyone else. Right now I'm trying to figure out the relationship between Ti and Te, and how exactly they're connected. If anyone has any thoughts, or anecdotal evidence, I'm interested in hearing them!

2. the distinction is dimensional. Ti & Fi are similar on a lower dimension and dissimilar on a higher one; opposite for Ti & Te. And yeah, I do think Ti & Fi for example share the same resources: it comes from Ji. But for Te & Ti, I don't think this is true. The lower dimension is where the sharing of resources happens. Te & Ti are more superficially similar. You might even consider their entire similarity a language game.

3. Originally Posted by crazedratXII
the distinction is dimensional. Ti & Fi are similar on a lower dimension and dissimilar on a higher one; opposite for Ti & Te. And yeah, I do think Ti & Fi for example share the same resources: it comes from Ji. But for Te & Ti, I don't think this is true. The lower dimension is where the sharing of resources happens. Te & Ti are more superficially similar. You might even consider their entire similarity a language game.
Cool, yes, this is along the lines of what I was thinking. But why is it that Ti and Te (both External elements) are opposed, while Ti and Se (also both External) can work in conjunction?

Hmm. When the question is phrased that way, the obvious answer seems to be the Static vs. Dynamic dichotomy (or, from a functional perspective, Mental Ring vs. Vital Ring). In his "Structure and Elements of the Socionics Model" article (lost in the Great Wikisocion Crash of '10), Gulenko talks about how the mind sort of switches gears when shifting focus from the Mental Ring functions to the Vital Ring functions, which might explain why both can't be active at once. But still, that doesn't explain why Ti is more linked with Te than with Si (also an External element).

Hmm.

[Edit: This is actually a question that's been bothering me for a long time. Why are Statics of Fields and Dynamics of Objects both considered Rational, and Dynamics of Fields and Statics of Objects both considered Irrational? What is it that links them on such a fundamental level? Wouldn't it make more sense for... hmm...

Okay, how about this: in each Ring (Mental and Vital), information is passed from Objects element to Fields element to Objects element to Fields element, and so on. Information is always passed from Objects to Fields, and from Fields to Objects, but never from Objects to Objects or Fields to Fields. So when information is transferred from the Mental Ring to the Vital Ring (or vice versa), it still follows those same rules: Objects to Fields, and Fields to Objects. Therefore, when Base Ti sends information to the Vital Ring, it sends it to Ignoring Te (does the Base function ever send information directly to the Suggestive? I've never actually seen that question addressed). So this must be what makes Rational elements Rational, and Irrational Elements Irrational -- a direct line of information transfer from Mental to Vital Ring and back.]

[Edit 2: In case you hadn't noticed, I'm kind of "thinking out loud" on this one. ]

[Edit 3: So to sum up, Ti and Fi are the real "two sides of the same coin" functions -- Ti and Te are really only connected by their ability to communicate through the Mental/Vital barrier.]

4. Removed at User Request

5. I don't really know what to say about information elements, but, I know how your arm works a bit more so:

Your arm can only get so strong if you do one kind of exercise. Particularly working biceps and triceps, or more generally, the "pulling" and "pushing" muscles; you have to work both sides of the arm so that you actually get stronger overall. Focusing on just one only does so much.

Not sure how much that applies, but, it's what came to mind.

6. so....the phenomena you describe Krig suggests that when you're using Ti, you're also using Fi subconsciously. and vice versa.
and the question you ask is...why is that? how are the two related?

Well I don't know, but I think it has to do with the nature of consciousness...Ti creates a mental 'image', but in order for that mental picture to be personally meaningful, the mind pairs it with an experiential (Fi) affective state.

Have you heard of anosognosia? Patients with anosognosia are paralyzed on one side of their body (hemiplegic), but aren't actually aware of it - they'll deny that they're paralyzed, they'll try to live life as if they weren't paralyzed - get up to walk in the middle of the night, go back to work, etc. And those who can be made to at least acknowledge that they're paralyzed, can't be made to feel bad about it. Say to an anosognosic patient, 'You will be paralyzed on your left side for the rest of your life', and their typical reaction will be 'Oh, that's terrible' *stares curiously out the window*
In other words, they can understand the sentence, but b/c they've effectively lost all experience of their left side, the sentence holds no 'affective', no 'experiental' meaning to them. The abstract meaning has no experiential meaning to pair with, but in healthy people the two tend to occur together.

7. Samenesses can't conflict. Samenesses only conflict in the neutral sense if at all. Nothing happens. It's just 'whatever.'

Confliction is sort of duality turning on, but it's something that you don't want to be turned on. It's putting the batteries in the right way, but the entire game is something you don't want to play, or don't want to go off. You have to look at it that way, I think. Because there is just more to reality than the coming together of yin and yang and the complementary nature of opposites.

Even if your 'narrow road theory' was true and made sense, you're doing what all smart people do. You're focusing too much. There's more in the world then that one narrow road. The two conflicting energies could both equally go on another road, but going in a direction they both agree on (just on a different road) - and still get along great. It's like I'd get along with Diana if I was talking to her on a cell phone, but maybe not in the same car as her. lol. There's just not that one pathway where they disconnect, because real reality has more than that.

What you're saying is interesting to me, but also something I take issue with because your arguement in a nutshell, is the excuse people use to be against gay people. I know you don't think of that , but that's the exact same arguement they always use. 'They're too similiar, two dicks don't make a life! It's like two plus or minuses ends of batteries.' Even if that one thing is true in that sense, there is more to people than that aspect, and they find ways to get along despite that incompatibility. In other words, we are not our functions. Our functions are in us. We are greater than the sum of our Fe, Ti, Ni and Jey and whatever.

True same energy is more like, just being lil batteries together but you're bored (not even bored, you just exist?) to tears cause you're both negative ends and so the game of life won't start, but then again- the game of life won't start. That's not confliction that's just..... something that's there. If you don't really like any game that's produced or made, or any system but the ones you create yourself, you probably wouldn't care as much. I wouldn't really call that a confliction tho, and I suppose Ti and Fi does interact that way.

(I don't dislike Fi but if I had to accurately describe what I feel about it, I think that would be the most accurate)

8. Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves

What you're saying is interesting to me, but also something I take issue with because your arguement in a nutshell, is the excuse people use to be against gay people
lmaoo

9. Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
Samenesses can't conflict. Samenesses only conflict in the neutral sense if at all. Nothing happens. It's just 'whatever.'
To have conflict, you must have both sameness and difference. Just one or the other won't do it.

10. Removed at User Request

11. Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
Also, DCNH subtype theory (which I know not everyone accepts, but bear with me) posits that if Ti is strengthened, Fi will also be strengthened. At first glance this doesn't seem to make sense:
It doesn't make sense. If we were to correctly assign all those things that Ti isn't to a single function, that function would prolly be Fi. And so on.

Originally Posted by crazedrat
the distinction is dimensional. Ti & Fi are similar on a lower dimension and dissimilar on a higher one; opposite for Ti & Te.
Which dimensions are we talking about? Hypothetically I can imagine a situation like this one. However when it comes to it's practical exploatation, it doesn't seem quite promising. One can put any two things into the same category. I spew dimensions on a whim. I use SVM.

12. Originally Posted by tuturututu
It doesn't make sense. If we were to correctly assign all those things that Ti isn't to a single function, that function would prolly be Fi. And so on.
and share all of the attributes of being Ji, which are fairly significant.

If we were to correctly assign all those things that Ti isn't to a single function, that function would be self-contradictory and definitely not exist. The Reinin method guarantees that...

13. I can relate to the need to sort of deflect the Super-Ego in order not to stagnate. I do find it rather soothing to dabble in TeSi priorities, like maybe tidy-up a room or go work on something useful; it helps to mellow out that FiNe state of over-analyzing everything and everyone, especially if its use has limited purpose at a particular moment, and I feel like I've accomplished something afterward which is a bonus

Though I wonder if Diana has a point about this being intensified by being a introvert. I mean, even I need to retreat from people even though I'm good at dealing with them (ethics), I think I'd lose my mind if I didn't have that solitude

14. Originally Posted by xixi
so....the phenomena you describe Krig suggests that when you're using Ti, you're also using Fi subconsciously. and vice versa.
and the question you ask is...why is that? how are the two related?
That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it works under Model A as I understand it. According to Model A, Ti and Fi, being in the same Ring, are always either both conscious or both subconscious.

My hypothesis is that the Ji elements, due to their similarity, compete to draw energy from the same source. So when you decide to send energy to Ti for an explicit analytical task, you've also by definition decided to not send energy to Fi for categorizing people according to implicit relationships. As a consequence, only one Ji element at a time can be active, but using one drains energy from the shared pool, resulting in both of them becoming "tired".

Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
Samenesses can't conflict. Samenesses only conflict in the neutral sense if at all. Nothing happens. It's just 'whatever.'
Actually, if there are limited resources, samenesses are more likely to compete and conflict than differences, because samenesses require the same types of resources. Differences don't compete for resources as much, because they require different resources.

Lions and hyenas, for example, are similar in that they're both large carnivores who eat the same prey. They often conflict, especially in times when prey is scarce. Lions and elephants, however, almost never conflict, because elephants have no use for antelope, and lions have no use for leaves. They don't compete over the same resources, because they're too different.

I'm suggesting something similar. If I'm right, Ti and Fi compete, because they consume the same "mental energy" resources, and giving those resources to one is the same as denying them to the other.

Originally Posted by Diana
Another explanation is that as an introvert the stress and energy expended to deal with people all day just wears you out. If someone clanged a cymbol (sp?) in your ear every time you tried to think, it'd probably have much the same effect, so that at the end of the day, escape from that into mindlessness and non-interaction is what you'd most prefer. Sometimes after a long day of people interaction, I'll find myself just staring at something, not really thinking at all, needing to recuperate. But, too much noise and disruption to my thoughts throughout the day from other sources than people has much the same effect - it's easier to tune out and tolerate though.
This is a good objection, and I've given it some thought. I think it's important to distinguish between physical exhaustion and mental exhaustion. If I've been doing heavy manual labour all day at work, then obviously when I get home I don't want to go anywhere or do anything. However, if I've just been standing around, dealing with customers for a few hours, I may still be physically full of energy, but my Fi will be burned out. However, if some close friends came by after work and invited me to come hang out, I would find that just as relaxing and re-energizing as watching T.V., so long as I didn't have to do any analysis (Ti), or deal with people I don't know well, and have to figure out whether they like me or not (Fi).

This morning I actually saw an example of the reverse situation. I had a meeting with some people I know and trust (no need to worry about Fi), regarding a fairly serious matter that affects all of us. Things got pretty emotional (Fe). Afterward, I was invited out for lunch, which ordinarily I would enjoy (Si+Fe!). However, all that Fe had tired out my Suggestive function, so I declined and went home and did a lot of Ti analysis of the situation. The difference is that, after work when I've been using a lot of Fi, even if I'm not physically tired, I still don't feel like doing any Ti analysis.

The evidence seems pretty consistent with my own experiences, anyway. I will definitely keep observing things, though, to see if you're right, Diana.

If anyone has any relevant specific examples of their own, I would be interested to hear them.

15. Removed at User Request

16. Originally Posted by Brilliand
and share all of the attributes of being Ji, which are fairly significant.

If we were to correctly assign all those things that Ti isn't to a single function, that function would be self-contradictory and definitely not exist. The Reinin method guarantees that...
Yeah, yeah,yeah..in other words; yes. The point was: stronger the Ti, weaker the Fi and viceversa. Ti-Fi is a continuum. So is Ji-Pe. However the Ti-Fi continuum is, generally speaking, much more meaningful than Ji-Pe one due to information gain. Of course, the meaningfulness depends upon the task at hand.

17. Originally Posted by Pinocchio
As long as the incompatible functions fundamentally clash instantly - and as their corresponding information elements contradict, that's more likely to be the reason for the exhaustion in types/people. Interacting with incompatible people simply forces one to take more decisions and changes, because the first - and natural - try never works. This exhaustion is the exhaustion of the processing energy allocated to the brain.

I think the explanation involving this mysterious "energy" is artificial and pretty lazy. For me at least, it doesn't make sense.
So, to be clear, your contention is that Rick's article is wrong, and that strenuous use of any function will tire out the whole brain, not just that individual function? From what I can tell, it seems like that's what you're saying. If that's the case, then how do you explain the recuperative effects of the "compensatory activities" Rick describes, i.e., activities designed to stimulate the Super-Id when the Ego is exhausted? If the whole brain is exhausted, shouldn't those activities be just as fruitless as continued use of the Ego?

18. Removed at User Request

19. Originally Posted by Pinocchio
And don't forget, functions clash on the spot. Even if they had shared energy pools with others, that's no explanation for this.
It makes sense as a reaction to a known problem that previously took time to manifest.

20. Removed at User Request

21. Originally Posted by tuturututu
Which dimensions are we talking about? Hypothetically I can imagine a situation like this one. However when it comes to it's practical exploatation, it doesn't seem quite promising. One can put any two things into the same category. I spew dimensions on a whim. I use SVM.
For 8 functions, you can say there are 8 dimensions. The 8 functions are the universal way of interpreting 8 dimensions. We can tie the functions together so they bundle into common lower dimensions. With 4 dimensions, there is Ji, Je, Pi, & Pe. These are universal descriptors for 4 dimensions. Now, I can look at the 4 J functions, & say Te / Ti / Fe / Fi are 4 dimensionally related to eachother; but in doing this I have assigned each of them the role of Je, Ji, Pe, or Pi in relation to the others, even if I'm not aware of it; because Je, Ji, Pe, & Pi are universal.

22. Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
My hypothesis is that the Ji elements, due to their similarity, compete to draw energy from the same source. So when you decide to send energy to Ti for an explicit analytical task, you've also by definition decided to not send energy to Fi for categorizing people according to implicit relationships. As a consequence, only one Ji element at a time can be active, but using one drains energy from the shared pool, resulting in both of them becoming "tired".
ah ok, cool, makes sense.
would switching between Ti and Fi also be energy expensive? would a person save energy by sticking to the one function (the one they're more comfortable with)?

23. Originally Posted by Pinocchio
What in the quote makes sense as a delayed reaction and how they connect?
My remark was referring to previous examples where is was showed that type are predictably reacting negatively to the incompatible type of information. That happens instantly.
Consider if functions do not themselves clash instantly, but result in an unmaintainable energy drain over time: the person may associate that energy drain with the function-related behavior of the other person, and the next time that behavior appears (in another person), react badly immediately in anticipation of the coming harm. That would result in the phenomenon that you describe, without contradicting Krig's proposal.

In fact I don't think that conflicting functions necessarily react badly to each other instantly; it isn't hard to interact briefly with a conflictor with no problems occurring. Socionic effects occur over time - instantaneous reactions are the results of past interactions (not necessarily with the same person).

24. Removed at User Request

25. Originally Posted by Pinocchio
I think the confusion you make is related to how someone, a person, would react. You probably consider a clash only a conscious refusal of one type to do/learn something of the opposite values. Then you consider drain when the subject doesn't refuse to be expose to hostile information, but gets tired in time. Well I think it is the same thing, the negative reaction may be subconscious, and therefore the person doesn't take protective measures. Only later, when he/she thinks "what's actually the problem" he/she may realize what it is and refuse doing that thing again.
You have guessed my viewpoint correctly; still, I think that this is not contrary to Krig's proposal. Is it not possible that the harmful effect of an unvalued function, that causes this immediate negative reaction, is precisely a redirection of energy away from the valued functions?

26. Removed at User Request

27. Originally Posted by Pinocchio
- Ti classifies specifically on objective reasons, while Fi for the relation to them;
- Te acts specifically for a purpose, Fe for feeling good only, for the action itself;
- Se specifically deals with obvious information, while Ne with speculative, possible one;
- Si specifically deals with real interactions and results, while Ni with imaginary possibilities.
I find these descriptions quite beautiful.

Originally Posted by Pinocchio
Taking them as functions, how they interact with each other, you can see that the external ones ask for external information of that kind, while the others are the opposite, specifically ignore/hide it, but in the same field, so one hides exactly what the other wants, the reason why they don't conflict so much with the other functions.
So you would consider it more likely that conflicting functions use the same part of the brain, focused on opposite kinds of information?

28. Removed at User Request

29. Originally Posted by xixi
ah ok, cool, makes sense.
would switching between Ti and Fi also be energy expensive? would a person save energy by sticking to the one function (the one they're more comfortable with)?
I have no data on whether switching from one to the other costs energy, but using the weaker one, which is more difficult to use, will drain energy faster.

Originally Posted by Brilliand
So you would consider it more likely that conflicting functions use the same part of the brain, focused on opposite kinds of information?
I haven't been following this discussion closely until now, but this is right along the lines I've been thinking, as well. Hypothetically, we could consider "Ji" to be a single mental "organ", which can be focused in two directions: externally (Ti), or internally (Fi). This is a more straightforward way of explaining it than my "shared energy pool" metaphor. Using Ji in either direction tires it, and to rest you need to stop using both Ji functions.

It would also explain what Pinocchio's talking about with the instantaneous clashes -- interacting with someone whose Ji is focused in the opposite direction as yours means that, if you want to communicate and understand each other, one of of you has to switch your Ji to the other, unvalued, direction. This is annoying to begin with, because that's not what you want to focus on, and it results in a struggle for dominance in the conversation -- one of you wants to focus in the Ti direction, the other in the Fi direction. Frustration results.

30. Originally Posted by Pinocchio
No idea, but it sounds very possible. Eg. if we think about Se and Ne which both mean something like "what is that (capable of)?" they seem very close-related.
I like that, that's a good way to put it.

31. Removed at User Request

32. The external/internal terminology is ambiguous. Static information (~Pe) tends to refer to things outside of oneself, but the representation of these things is internal. The mind is like a mirror of reality in this way, linking an outer world with an inner reflection of it. It was initially my inclination to call the Dynamic (~Pi) information the "internal" kind, but these days I just think of Dynamic as flat and of Static as voluminous. To the latter, there is an interplay between internal and external, to the former these things are inconsequential. The Dynamic stuff is the surface of the mirror rather than something in either of the two worlds.

edit: to add to the problem, the people that make up the names for the function dichotomies introduced internal/external to label these. I'm not talking about that dichotomy in this post. This latter dichotomy relates to internalcy and externalcy of reference (whether to name a thing by it's identity or by it's properties), not the location of objects/entities/whatever.

33. Yes, but note the effect when one person wants a type of info (Creative) and the other provides it's corrosion (Base), which disorientates.
It's more like the Creating info is in the claim that one understands some set of occasions in a catagorical way, while the Accepting info is another observation that the Creating function claims to be able to predict the specifics of. Whenever Accepting information is provided, it is a test of whether the Creating info is as good as the person claims it to be.

Creating can sort of be interchanged with Static here and Accepting with Dynamic because it's only ever the Limiting combos that matter.

34. Originally Posted by labcoat
Creating can sort of be interchanged with Static here and Accepting with Dynamic because it's only ever the Limiting combos that matter.
Wait, I thought you were describing something relevant to Supervision, but there's no Static type that supervises a Dynamic type.

35. Meh, benefit tends to be pretty supervisory too. The terminology is a little fuzzy in that regard. A supervisor is someone who tells you "no, not like that, like THIS". A benefit partner says "uhm wtf r u doing...?" in response to what you do.

36. Originally Posted by labcoat
Meh, benefit tends to be pretty supervisory too. The terminology is a little fuzzy in that regard. A supervisor is someone who tells you "no, not like that, like THIS". A benefit partner says "uhm wtf r u doing...?" in response to what you do.
Nonetheless, is what you said relevant to all Supervision relationships? Surely you weren't indicating that only Static benefactor/Dynamic beneficiary have a true supervision relationship?

37. Removed at User Request

38. Originally Posted by Brilliand
Nonetheless, is what you said relevant to all Supervision relationships? Surely you weren't indicating that only Static benefactor/Dynamic beneficiary have a true supervision relationship?
Yes to the first question; it's not like Dynamic functions are completely out of the picture where the behavior of Statics is concerned. In INTjs for example the Accepting function is an interplay between Acccepting/Limiting/Dynamic Fe and Accepting/Empowering/Static Ti. Only the former of these is really pinned down (Limiting), so this is where all the certainty comes from despite that the person is Static.

@labcoat: Dynamicality has nothing to do with this conflict we talk about, it observed so assumed that they have the same Dynamicality or Extroversion.
Why not Extroversion and Rationality? Lmao @ how you are still stuck with these primitive notions.

So these first two dichotomies (Extroversion and Dynamicality, in black), which together define Rationality are what would define that common ground (Krig's energy pools) of four types:
I think it is a sensible and intuitive idea in that it gives a justification for the existance of the types. If time/energy spent Ti-ing means less time/energy spent Fi-ing, it follows that one has to choose between either within any timeframe.

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
•