Demonstrative vs Creative

[thePirate]

Lets flesh this out:

Which function is "stronger"?

define "stronger" and if so, in what ways in comparison to the other?

what are the limits of each function in comparison to the other?

how do they work with or against each other?

[matilda]

Lets flesh this out:

Which function is "stronger"?

define "stronger" and if so, in what ways in comparison to the other?

what are the limits of each function in comparison to the other?

how do they work with or against each other?

how I understand it is

Fi-creative uses Fe to create bonds. once Fi is achieved, Fe is not used as much. this is why quasi-identical relations suck, I think.

Fe-creative maintains Fi to achieve Fe goal. Fe-user doesn't really value Fi, he just uses it as a means to achieve his Fe goal.

*strong w/ effort = demonstrative
*strong without effort = creative

[thePirate]

I think its the other way around, the demonstrative is unconcious. the creative is the one we conciously focus on and try to hone, so it would make sense that the effort would be there.

[JohnDo]

Demonstrative is stronger, creative is valued and conscious.

Strong means you are good at using it.
Valued means you like to use it and you like it when others use it.
Conscious means you decide to use it. Unconscious means you use it without thinking "I'm gonna use it now".

They never work together, can't be on at the same time.

Do we really need threads for topics like that?
Just read everything on wikisocion...

[thePirate]

Demonstrative is stronger, creative is valued and conscious.

Strong means you are good at using it.
Valued means you like to use it and you like it when others use it.
Conscious means you decide to use it. Unconscious means you use it without thinking "I'm gonna use it now".

They never work together, can't be on at the same time.

Do we really need threads for topics like that?
Just read everything on wikisocion...

not if you just regurgitate material.

I am already aware of all this. Simply saying its stronger as in your good at using it doesnt capture certain discrepencies or nuances of the elements in these positions.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[thePirate]

hmm...

[silverchris9]

I have thoughts I think. I'm going to post them eventually. But I've already wasted two and a half hours on socionics, which, tonight, is more intellectually stimulating than my homework, because I have an irritating delta teacher who is extremely intellectually rigorous, but in ways that I can't really use or process (and this after having a beta teacher last semester for the same class who was a god). But the homework has to get done nonetheless. Effing Boccaccio.

So yeah. All that to say, I'm going to edit this post into a real post... when I need to stay up all night tomorrow night. Probably.

[Brilliand]

The demonstrative function fully accounts for that element, while dismissing it as unimportant. I like to think of it as a support or verification for the creative function, that ensures that the creative function draws good conclusions but in the end is expressed in terms of the creative function, rather than in terms of itself.

[krieger]

Creative is as strong as Base. Demonstrative doesn't exist.

[Azeroffs]

I think of the demonstrative as a way of supporting the creative to give more accuracy. This comes at the cost of breadth. The relationship is similar to base and ignoring except that the base aims for quantity of information and so the ignoring function is limited so that less information is filtered away from the base function.

For example this might play out in Fe types like this. Fe-base types limit the use of Fi considerations so that Fe emotions can be expressed uninhibitedly. Fe-creative otw will limit themselves to more positive/less invasive expressions of emotion because they use Fi as a check/balance for Fe.

In this way the demonstrative is fully accounted for as brilliand said here:

The demonstrative function fully accounts for that element, while dismissing it as unimportant. I like to think of it as a support or verification for the creative function, that ensures that the creative function draws good conclusions but in the end is expressed in terms of the creative function, rather than in terms of itself.

Another way of putting it is that the creative is used with the demonstrative always in mind.

[xerx]

Sorry to go off topic.

The 7th function is something you do implicitly (without thinking about it) when using the 1st function, but not something you actively develop. Either way:

A Ti-dominant uses Te to gauge the need for a particular system, as it would be a waste of time to systematize all minutiae.

Te-dominants are known to produce long chains of cause-effect reasoning - if A, then B, which means C; but C means D, which means E, which means F...and so on. But how often are those chains of reasoning internally inconsistent and poorly correlate with existing bodies of knowledge? Almost never.

Te-PoLRs can easily become bogged down on irrelevancies to the point being made.
Ti-PoLRs can easily make inconsistency and correlation errors.

You're not likely to use the 7th function in an active way, but not likely to make very many mistakes in this area either (unless you want to).


Furthermore, whereas a Ti dominant might explicitly develop and refine a system of right and wrong, a Te dominant would just implicitly assume that something is right or wrong.