Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Order of Functions

  1. #1
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,695
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Order of Functions

    Does our brain work in a methodical organized way allowing one area of the brain to have more dominance and strength than other?

    " " " " " " " in a chaotic fashion that is activated the by the environment with strength and dominance being skewed?

    " " " " " " " in a balanced fashion that attempts to organize, but allow plasticity of the environment and occurences to mold the dominance and strength?
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-4w5-9w1

  2. #2
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,695
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    The main point of this thread is to ask yourself these questions. Why are the functions ordered in the first place? How are these functions created? Are we born with functions that are ordered a certain way because of the way our brain developed? Why does a introverted perceiving function follow an extraverted judgement function and vice versa?

    Is it possible for these orders to occur:

    1. 2. 3. 4.
    1. 2. 3. 4.
    1. 2. 3. 4.

    Please explain why not, I want to dig deeper into socionics instead of scraping at the surface.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-4w5-9w1

  3. #3

    Default

    I think you're asking some pretty big questions that scientists and theologins are trying to figure out to this day.

    It's kind of like asking... "Soo... why is the Universe here?"

  4. #4
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Young_and_Confused
    The main point of this thread is to ask yourself these questions. Why are the functions ordered in the first place? How are these functions created? Are we born with functions that are ordered a certain way because of the way our brain developed? Why does a introverted perceiving function follow an extraverted judgement function and vice versa?

    Is it possible for these orders to occur:

    1. 2. 3. 4.
    1. 2. 3. 4.
    1. 2. 3. 4.

    Please explain why not, I want to dig deeper into socionics instead of scraping at the surface.
    it is important to ask yourself, do the functions actually exist? socionics as a taxonomy is strong, but theses functions cannot be empirically proven. they are arrived at through inference from the taxonomy. i am sure that your questions could be answered, but you run the risk of building conjecture upon conjecture.
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  5. #5
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,695
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
    Quote Originally Posted by Young_and_Confused
    The main point of this thread is to ask yourself these questions. Why are the functions ordered in the first place? How are these functions created? Are we born with functions that are ordered a certain way because of the way our brain developed? Why does a introverted perceiving function follow an extraverted judgement function and vice versa?

    Is it possible for these orders to occur:

    1. 2. 3. 4.
    1. 2. 3. 4.
    1. 2. 3. 4.

    Please explain why not, I want to dig deeper into socionics instead of scraping at the surface.
    it is important to ask yourself, do the functions actually exist? socionics as a taxonomy is strong, but theses functions cannot be empirically proven. they are arrived at through inference from the taxonomy. i am sure that your questions could be answered, but you run the risk of building conjecture upon conjecture.
    I ask myself that question too. I believe they exist in a form that is very different from what most people perceive in this forum. I believe they can be empirically proven when linked to biology, since it will provide the evidence that is required for it to make sense and be advanced to another level.

    I think you're asking some pretty big questions that scientists and theologins are trying to figure out to this day.

    It's kind of like asking... "Soo... why is the Universe here?"
    I don't really believe the questions I am asking are that big. In fact for this theory to even make sense, the questions must be asked. Everyone discusses the theory without empirical proof with so much confidence, it is a wonder why they are not answered yet.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-4w5-9w1

  6. #6
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I ask myself that question too. I believe they exist in a form that is very different from what most people perceive in this forum. I believe they can be empirically proven when linked to biology, since it will provide the evidence that is required for it to make sense and be advanced to another level.
    biology studies matter. it watches the blood flow or electrical impulse, or any other "biological" activity that can be observed while simultaneously observing behavior. it is very simple at this stage, so there is a possibility of "psychological functions" actually existing, but not probable. current research would indicate that "psychological functions" are a cumbersome and outdated model that lacks the sohpistication of current models. i am sure that the "psychological functions" could be pasted onto any model of neurobiology, but i don't forsee neurobiology actually coming to the same conclusion as freud.
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default This Is the Truth

    In my opinion the psychological functions, or something similar - whatever that may be... simply has to exist because the intertype relations seem to be reasonably real in many cases. The rest is rather mysterious... Maybe someone will figure it out later...

    Anyway, we need a strong extroverted function to relate to the external world and a strong introverted function to make sense of how things concern ourselves. I thought that much should be obvious to everyone.
    "Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
    martin_g_karlsson


  8. #8
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    if i am not completely correct about some of the details that follow please correct me.

    the questions at the beginning of the thread sought to explore the relationship between environment and the order of the psychological funcions. the age old nature vs. nurture debate.

    from a methodological materialism standpoint, the psychological functions cannot be proven to exist. only the behavior of individuals can be observed, and genetics/neurobiology/etc. are doing a much better job of explaining actual observed behavior than the psychological functions model.

    the fact that there are 16 types proves nothing, because a taxonomy of relationships could be developed with a different number of types. this hypothetical taxonomy could certainly be validated on this level of evidence. (that level of evidence not being one of materialism but of a more subjective nature. this is difficult for orthodox science to accept bacause this "level of evidence" is coincidentally the same viewpoint from which astrology is validated. and if you don't think that astrology has not been validated in the same manner by millions of people, you are wrong.) i would speculate that the hypothetical taxonomy could predict behavior just as well as the current model. the hypothetical taxonomy could have more or less types, but there are various reasons for the current model having the number 16. we know that augusta was familiar with Jung and later mbti. using 16 types allows each combination of the four "psychological types" to be represented. so everyone that is familiar with the system believes that the psychological functions must exist because the taxonomy predicted the development of relationships which were experienced directly. the "functions" were later applied to a taxonomy that was intentionally crafted with an end in mind. i am not comfortable with accepting something because it seems to be reasonably real.

    the entire field of psychology has always been considered a soft science because of this, and it would seem that it is gradually being swallowed by other fields of inquiry. the structure of the establishment of science reflects its attitude towards consciousness; there seems to be less and less room.

    so, if we wish to pursue the questions asked at the beginning of the thread, we have to keep this consideration in mind unless we fall victim in encouraging each other in building an edifice that has nothing to do with reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousSoul
    Anyway, we need a strong extroverted function to relate to the external world and a strong introverted function to make sense of how things concern ourselves. I thought that much should be obvious to everyone
    i will assume by "relate to the external world" and "make sense of how things concern themselves" you mean our conscious awareness. i am aware of no evidence that my conciousness and my ability to "relate" and "make sense" is due to "psychological functions".
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

Posting Permissions

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