Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Your second function

  1. #1
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Your second function

    Any ideas of how the second function differs when it is a second function from when it is a first function? People seem to think that in ENTps would appear the same way as in INTJs. However it would appear as part of the and the would appear to be part of the to some extent. In other words you cant take the functions apart when dealing with real human beings like you can in some hypothetical model. So I dont agree that you can tell someone is ENTp by deciding they think like an INTj. As far as I can see, an ENTps thought patterns would have some parallels with that of ENTjs, INTjs, and INTps.

    Note: ENTp is just an example. I could have chosen any type. The point is that I think that a said function would appear differently in a type with the said function as a 1st function, then it would in a type with the said function as a first function.

    Do you agree or do you disagree with my thoughts?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,246
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes! The strength/intensity of the function would be different depending on the position.
    Entp
    ILE

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,158
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The second one is the one that people are all excited about when they make some discovery with it... until someone with it as the first goes... yeah you didn't know that before? (usually in a mirror relation)

  4. #4
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is how it is starting to look for me:
    The first function(strong accepting +) seems to accumulate information. Extraverts do so by directing the ego outward, on the outerworld, whereas introverts do the opposite. that is, it 'charges' the ego, the information is processed, and then it reaches a sort of balance or finality in the second function(strong producing) where the egos charge becomes -, and idea is reached at the expense of "charge". This seems to be a good explanation and i think it is the correct one. it seems to work with the unconscious as well.

    If this is true than it is different depending upon the type. That is, mirrors, as is put on the Socionics.com page, do indeed mutually correct. this is done not only in the prioritative sense, but also in terms of positive and negative charges.

    I'll play with this a bit, thought i really should probably keep it to myself for now:

    (-) charge expends energy through a creative process, yet produces charge in the "informational space" by creating a tangible unconscious by-product.

    (+) gains energy through gathering information from the "informational space", yet leaves "holes" for new information to be placed.

    there are many angles to such a process, such as with introverts and extraverts and so forth. be best to look at the world as being made up of four types of information, existing in introverted and extraverted phases as well as being charged(+) and expended(-). so individuals are not individuals, but parts of this informational space.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Your second function

    Edited for gayness.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Tallinn
    Posts
    595
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Olen nõus! That means I am with waddles on hes theory by its logicalness.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is not a difference in strength etc (as there are very stupid INTJs and ENTPs) but a HUGE difference in perspective or reference point. It seems like Ps in general use themselves as the reference point while Js use some other thing. I think if you were have a debate about which perspective is the most true an INTJ and an ISTJ would agree a lot more than an INTJ and an ENTP.

  8. #8
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think mirror partners see the same issue, but that which is more personal to one partner(his creative output) is "normal" to another, and vice versa. I think ENTjs see logic as an objective compenent of reality that is not subject to any creative reformulation or presentation, facts are facts, and they say it in the most simple way possible, end of story. Whereas with me, I always try to put a "twist" on whatever logical explanation comes to my mind, and the expression of it is more personal which gives ENTjs the impression that Im too slow and that Im missing the point of whatever subject is at hand, and it gives me the impression that theyre too cut and dry about it.

    Well thats mostly my experience with ENTjs, I cant say much more, as it is rather limited to a few people I didnt know too well.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    100
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default :)

    Guessing: An INTP sees wide *fragments* of activities of objects and time intervals or moments in which it can happen. An ENTJ sees a whole procedure, but it's vision is limited - not deep enough in fragments of activities and time so they aren't as flexible as INTPs at creating new procedures from scratch.

    Example:
    Let the following fragments denote tasks:

    I-I
    I--I
    I---I
    I----I

    A procedure would be:
    I-II--II-II---I ( a chain of tasks ).

    INTPs because of their perception can easily take variety of tasks and create various procedures (lists of tasks) for a group of objects.
    I-II---II--I - one procedure
    I-II-II-II-II-I - second procedure
    I----II--II-I - third procedure, and so on.
    The point is that INTPs can play with fragments of activity and time and therefore create a rich variety of procedures.

    ENTJs are more firm in that matter. They can memorize more whole procedures and are less detailed in creating new ones. For example, an ENTJ would memorize the whole
    I--II-II-II---I and he would have trouble at changing it deeply.
    drake
    --Dilemmas are illusions.

Posting Permissions

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