Why is the fourth function contrary to the second, and not the first?
For instance,
Why is an LII:
1.
2.
*3. Fi
*4. Se
5.
6.
7
8
instead of:
1.
2.
*3. Se
*4. Fi
5.
6.
7
8
?
PoLR Function?
Why is the fourth function contrary to the second, and not the first?
For instance,
Why is an LII:
1.
2.
*3. Fi
*4. Se
5.
6.
7
8
instead of:
1.
2.
*3. Se
*4. Fi
5.
6.
7
8
?
For purely arbitrary reasons. Why is this important to you?Why is the fourth function contrary to the second, and not the first?
Because logic and ethics, and intuition and sensing, are regarded as dichotomous attributes. Activation of one is considered to result in the attenuation of the other. You might view them as having an inversely proportional relationship, so that at any given time, roughly speaking:
T = 1 / F
S = 1 / N
F = 1 / T
N = 1 / S
so if the strongest function is Ti, why wouldn't the weakest function be Fi?Originally Posted by k0rps3y
Ti most favored / Se least favored
Ne second favored / Fi second least favored
compared to
Ti most favored / Fi least favored
Ne second favored / Se second least favored
^ the fact that it doesn't line up proportionally is what i'm confused about. sorry if i'm missing something totally obvious.
I suggested inverse proportionality in a rough sense without any strict correlation. Simply put: one goes up, the other goes down.
Functions 1 and 3 (base and role) are input (accepting) and 2 and 4 (creative and vulnerable) are output (producing). Or some silly shit like that. PoLR opposes one's strongest means of engaging the world. From socioniko.net:
"4. The Vulnerable Function: it accumulates information, but a person is always not sure in its quality; people usually follow these principles rather in words than really, because decisive actions of the 2nd function "suppress" the shy voice of the 4th function."
The 4th function pairs with the 3rd function. The 3rd function is seen as something that threatens the ability of the 1st to do its work. So the 4th is only to be used... to create information that undermines the base! It's just like the creative function in that it produces new information by its activity, but it amounts to something that is a sheer waste of effort!
Way I see it the PoLR takes an equivalent support role to the creative (which, but because the creative is producing and less valued than the base, we don't even care or wanna think about the function it suppresses (the vulnerable). The role by comparison is suppressed by the lead, but as it has the same general focus to the lead it elicits more of our interest, so in wanting to be more complete individuals we occasionally try to use the role; suppressing all the while focus on the base to feed it. That is, the role becomes a pathetic shadow of the base.
So no, the role isn't actually stronger than the vulnerable, just more valued. We strengthen it when we feel we need it by weakening the leading function. The same applies to the creative and PoLR, but with that one we're unlikely to bother.
What do these signs mean—,
, etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason,
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function(extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
Because it is. Why shouldn't it be? Irrational functions are contrary to one another, and rational ones are too.
which leads us to the Law of Socionics
F = S - T*exp(N)
from this we can calculate the Coefficients of Rationality
T_N = F_(N-1) - (N-1)(1/S) + (N-2)(1/S)^2 + (N-3)(1/S)^3, etc
for all integers N > 0
Fucking nukes.
Seems like a circular argument.
EDIT: Went on with some philosophical garb about curiosity and this forum lacking it, and then it hit me: AHHHH!!!! Complete miscommunication. I get it now. This is what I was actually asking: why is Se the weakest function in theIrrational functions are contrary to one another, and rational ones are too.
Last edited by jason_m; 12-27-2010 at 07:32 AM.
Jason I explained it to you.
Of course. My point was addressed to THA specifically. Your explanation makes some intuitive sense to me.
They could have easily arranged it as, dunno:
1. Ni
2. Si
3. Fe
4. Se
5. Te
6. Ti
7. Ne
8. Fi
..for an LII, and it wouldn't make any significant difference, as long as we keep in mind what those positions represent (1. Demonstrative, 2. Estimative 3.DS, etc. in this case).
What part of "arbitrary ordering" don't you understand?
I always viewedand
being part of Ji functions, and so they're both about gathering a sort of system and stability.
The other functions are dynamic, and so they can't be really used at the same time, nor blocked, with the static functions. Also, Je functions are still ordered and rational, and Pi functions are still more calm and introverted, so they don't challenge Ji as much.
Ji functions are most preferred, and the
Warm Regards,
Clowns & Entropy
Glam any type, any person can go either right or left. D and N subtypes prefer right, C and H subtypes prefer left. One is geared towards recall and transformation, the other towards observation and discovery.
The role function is similar to the base function, so it's easy to imitate it. The PoLR requires you to use something that takes effort (creative function) to even raise the semblance of it's use.
jason_m, it's because of the nature of the Creative function - as all producing ones. Unlike the Base, Creative works more... "brutally". Creative is not constant and confident, but acts sporadically but intensely, like some sort of mandatory requirement.
Let's use Logics as an example, Logical Rationals are interested in the coherence of the whole (rather resolute, what's not correct is rejected and falls outside their scope), while Irrationals in the individual incoherences (rather uncompromising, what's not sensible is always pointed out, in particulars).
If say vegetarianism was a function, as Base it means "all animal food is bad", while as Creative it means "some animal foods are bad". The negative approach as a Base, "all animal food is good" comes only as a contrary conclusion to the first Base (we can't be both right at the same time, but we may be both wrong), but as a Creative, "some animal foods are good", it comes as a contradiction (one of us is right and the other is wrong, certainly). Similarly, the first Creative would conflict with the second Base, "some animal foods are bad" vs "all animal food is good" (one is certainly right and the other is certainly wrong, again).
This is the nature of psychological conflict.
-- Bolt
depends. The base function is less perfecionistic, more laconical and indiscriminate. This can be a source of confidence, because the result is not held to a strict criterion, meaning there are a lot of "correct" ways to behave. In the event that the creative function does reach a singled out conclusion, though, it is more confident than the Base function ever is. It's a quantity vs. quality thing in large part. Base is always confident, but never in the most extreme way. Creative is doubtful most of the time, but really sure of itself when it singles out an answer.jason_m, it's because of the nature of the Creative function - as all producing ones. Unlike the Base, Creative works more... "brutally". Creative is not constant and confident, but acts sporadically but intensely, like some sort of mandatory requirement.
Hmm I agree... I think. I'm not sure how do you use the notion of "perfectionism", which I think that it's better applicable to Base, in terms of consistency and generalization, but yes, I could see how it applies to Creative in terms of accuracy.
In logical terms, it's a matter of quantifier. The Base is an universal quantification (eg "everything has a reason", "nothing has a reason", "all things connect with each other", "all things are by themselves"), while Creative is an existential quantifier (eg "some things have a reason", "some things have no reason", "some things connect", "some things are by themselves"). Now, in real life, the universal concepts (∀a∈X P(a)) can never be considered as absolute - that would imply that we know everything - so the convictions of the Base are held as more or less justified beliefs.
The existential ones (∃a∈X P(a)), on the other hand, are absolute IRL because they are based on justification and demonstration for particular cases, any negative universal (∀a∈X ¬P(a)) being a direct affront to them - hence how the painful point is activated -, it comes as ridiculous and unacceptable. For instance, someone who claims that alien witnesses are honest can be tolerated by (even have interesting discussions with) someone who claims that alien witnesses are liars, while they can't be tolerated by those who claim that some alien witnesses lied.
-- Bolt
At first I was inclined to associate existential/universal quantifiers with S and N respectively, but now that I think about it, there is a case to be made that they associate with Base and Creative roughly the way you suggest...
Basically, the two axes (Base and Creative) work with a focal point, signifying a common quality and a range of diffuse entities that exemplify said quality. In Base functions, the focal point is close to observability, i.e. on the level of direct empirical registration, and the world "out there" where the actual entities reside is ranged over in a very general way, hence the information close to one's observations and language functions as a "universal quantifier" applied to these real world entities. In Creative functions, the entity "out there" is singled out, hence "existential quantifier".
Not the first way I'd come up with to describe the two with, but not something I'm incapable of finding common ground with.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
