The Functions: A New Perspective

[tcaudilllg]

I've thought it over, gradually, for months, and have reached the following conclusion: Boukalov's dimensionality hypothesis does not explain personal reasons for the exaltation of base functions. In particular, ENFJ capacities for persuasion seem to have nothing to do with their strong desire to be liked -- even if they were poor in these, their attempts to influence the emotions around them in such manner as to increase their popularity would continue unabated. (though they would probably feel frustrated or even depressed). The importance they place on Fe, therefore, must have nothing to do with their considerable capability, which is little more than an evolved convenience.

Thus the "functions" and the "positions" must be two wholly distinct cognitive entities. The position determines the importance placed on the function by the person and their attitude towards it; the function's fitness determines their actual ability to use the function effectively.

[silverchris9]

I agree with this, mostly. The development of capacity to do (represented by "functions") is distinct from the development of interest in (represented by "positions"), although I think they are intertwined. The way I imagine it is, you have a capacity to do something (i.e., "use a function"), which may or may not be native. And as you do that thing, you keep getting positive response from it. Eventually you have a transference of "good feeling" from the reaction to the action itself, in the same way that if I am always happy when I'm at a certain place, I getting happy purely as a result of being in said place. So there's a subconscious expectation in place that performing action x will receive a good reaction, and the individual continues to perform that action even in situations in which there is not a good reaction. So function and position are related insofar as strength in a function will make it more likely for it to fall into a higher position, but there is no intrinsic or necessary relationship between the two.

[tcaudilllg]

I agree with this, mostly. The development of capacity to do (represented by "functions") is distinct from the development of interest in (represented by "positions"), although I think they are intertwined. The way I imagine it is, you have a capacity to do something (i.e., "use a function"), which may or may not be native. And as you do that thing, you keep getting positive response from it. Eventually you have a transference of "good feeling" from the reaction to the action itself, in the same way that if I am always happy when I'm at a certain place, I getting happy purely as a result of being in said place. So there's a subconscious expectation in place that performing action x will receive a good reaction, and the individual continues to perform that action even in situations in which there is not a good reaction. So function and position are related insofar as strength in a function will make it more likely for it to fall into a higher position, but there is no intrinsic or necessary relationship between the two.

Well it looks like you took it on from the EM perspective there, not the IM perspective. But I agree, interest and ability do not necessarily coincide.

[1981slater]

I've thought it over, gradually, for months, and have reached the following conclusion: Boukalov's dimensionality hypothesis does not explain personal reasons for the exaltation of base functions. In particular, ENFJ capacities for persuasion seem to have nothing to do with their strong desire to be liked -- even if they were poor in these, their attempts to influence the emotions around them in such manner as to increase their popularity would continue unabated. (though they would probably feel frustrated or even depressed). The importance they place on Fe, therefore, must have nothing to do with their considerable capability, which is little more than an evolved convenience.

Thus the "functions" and the "positions" must be two wholly distinct cognitive entities. The position determines the importance placed on the function by the person and their attitude towards it; the function's fitness determines their actual ability to use the function effectively.

I see your point. Lets assess the "strength" of a function on a particular individual. For instance, think of an ILE with low IQ. Since he's not supposed to become a brilliant scientist, he'll probably end up being 1) not successful 2) disliked by gammas. On the other hand, think of an ILE who has lots of friends and has a good grasp of Fi. He will not disturb others all the time, as most ILEs do.

Besides, I have seen super intelligent ESIs and SEIs in typical alpha NT environments: their high IQs may reflect strong Ti or whatever.

What do you think? ?

Another idea: regardless of the particular type, some people use one ot two functions (mostly ego!), whereas others use all functions. The former group are usually regarded as narrow minded geeks, the latter, open-minded/healthy/adult/smart/whatever.

[tcaudilllg]

I see your point. Lets assess the "strength" of a function on a particular individual. For instance, think of an ILE with low IQ. Since he's not supposed to become a brilliant scientist, he'll probably end up being 1) not successful 2) disliked by gammas. On the other hand, think of an ILE who has lots of friends and has a good grasp of Fi. He will not disturb others all the time, as most ILEs do.

Yes, I've noticed this, too.

Besides, I have seen super intelligent ESIs and SEIs in typical alpha NT environments: their high IQs may reflect strong Ti or whatever.

What do you think? ?

I think the phenomenon of types being in other types' environments can be attributed to having the EM type correspondent to the type of the environment. For example, LSEs will often have lots of LSE EM helpers on hand to assist in the running of the organization, to make sure everyone is doing what's expected of them in various departments. (particularly if that department concerns matters related to their own IM types).

The IM type leads its EM identicals.

[krieger]

If you're starting to get fed up with dimensionality theory (like I have always been), you may want to give my views a try. I never think of functions as existing in graduations of strength. I think Accepting/Creating (aka Base/Creative) refers respectively to Divergence and Convergence from observation. The first puts a focus on the observed and freely ranges across world-states that can bring these observations about, whereas the latter puts the focus on a single world-state that can bring multiple previous observations about and thus lends a common explanation to these.

[Words]

I'm not such a fan of function 'strength', it's not so much what you've got, but what you do with it that counts.

It's kindov like a guy with a small penis, he just has to do other things with it, and the actual result can be better than someone with a biggie.

[tcaudilllg]

I'm not such a fan of function 'strength', it's not so much what you've got, but what you do with it that counts.

It's kindov like a guy with a small penis, he just has to do other things with it, and the actual result can be better than someone with a biggie.

****** would probably agree.

Although Beethoven might, too.

General principle though: whenever you give your weak functions a workout, you're going to piss people off.

[tcaudilllg]

If you're starting to get fed up with dimensionality theory (like I have always been), you may want to give my views a try. I never think of functions as existing in graduations of strength. I think Accepting/Creating (aka Base/Creative) refers respectively to Divergence and Convergence from observation. The first puts a focus on the observed and freely ranges across world-states that can bring these observations about, whereas the latter puts the focus on a single world-state that can bring multiple previous observations about and thus lends a common explanation to these.

Dimensionality offers one thing that the other models don't, and that is the globality hypothesis. From what I understand, the proper way to interpret globality is as a web of aspects all of the same element. In this sense, a snapshot of a person's mind when using their base function would resemble a concept web composed of only information of that element.

It seems like globality enables that the Ti function (object processor) be used in an auxiliary capacity to validate observations. For example, say an IEE observes that a person probably isn't going to go to the store today. They may cite a lack of motivation as the rationale for their not going. They would assert that only specific motivations, like desire for a food that is not available at home, can drive a person to go to the store. The motivation is a condition that must be satisfied for the potential act of going to the store to be realized.

Now any type could argue that with their Ne and Fi together. But IEE wants to be sure, so they will then consider how other people could possibly act as motivators. For example, maybe a guest comes by to eat at lunch or thereabouts, and they eat up the first person's desired foods. Now the situation has changed and the first person is motivated to go to the store. So, IEE needs to be sure that no guests will arrive. They can recall all the people who know the person (this is where extroversion is a big help), and deliberate over those persons' individual motives and also their ability to get to the house, perhaps in great detail.

This in the producing modality -- the accepting modality would probably look at all those people and ask itself how it could possibly motivate them to pay a visit to the woman's house and eat her food. Or it might invite itself over to eat the food and compel the woman to go to the store. There is also the matter of whether among the individuals in question there even is a person who wants to eat said foods. IEE would disqualify individuals from the contact pool based on this knowledge alone, if they had it.

By this time, an LSI would be completely exhausted by all these considerations. They would not want to give them a lot of thought and might well be surprised to see the person in question at the store because they had never suspected that the person's motivation level for going to the store might have changed.

An SLE would acknowledge the possibility of seeing X person at the store, but they wouldn't explore it in any great depth. They would leave the possibility open, using factors of cultural expectation to infer the probability that the event would occur. (this is why 2D functions are said to be "normative") They would acknowledge the people who the woman knows and the probability of their coming, but wouldn't really try to figure out, probably, which people might come and which people might not. And if they did try, they would find themselves severely lacking in information (unless they had some kind of table, obviously). Assuming they did lack for information, they would probably rely on various low dimensionality characteristics of various functions (prejudices, biases, rules of thumb, beliefs based on testimony from trusted experts) to try to ad hoc a formula by which to deduce all those unknowns based on some core philosophical premise. If you've heard of Gaussian interpolation, it's something like that: starting with something rough, then bullshitting it into shape.

So:
* 1D Ne considers just one object's characteristics when trying to deduce the likelihood that potential will be exercised.
* 2D Ne considers many objects, but avoids focus on their characteristics and the specifics of their potential interactions.
* 4D Ne considers many objects and as many possible interactions as time will allow.
* 3D Ne would consider the many objects and their characteristics, but not many of their interactions.

[krieger]

The thing you're missing is that "4D function" (aka Accepting + Strong) means something completely different when you're talking about a Static function than it does when you're talking about a Dynamic function. This obliviousness of yours of the importance of the Static/Dynamic dichotomy is what limits me from finding common ground with any of your ideas.