Thoughts about Children

[pianosinger]

Been thinking about this, and looking at the "dimensionality of functions" (http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...y_of_functions).

It seems to make sense, to me, that young children have obviously not been "around" long enough or experienced enough to think three-or-four-dimensionally. Which means that, in terms of functions, even the Ego (and Id) functions will be sorely underdeveloped from the start. And the Super-Ego and Super-Id functions, for all intents and purposes, might as well not even exist to the young mind.

I suggest, that one's Base function, in an immature state, will look more like a Mobilizing function, and one's Creative function will look more like a Dual-Seeking function. That is, one's early development in the Base function will only be 2-dimensional, developed over time by experience and observing norms; and the Creative function will only be 1-dimensional, that is, developed by experience.

It is only as a child grows older, that he becomes secure and practiced enough in these basic functions, that they have finally become fully-operational, that he can then begin to focus his energies on the weaker functions-- things which up until now he had been more or less oblivious to.

Take my SLE son, for example. Sure, his Base is Se, but he can hardly control-- or understand-- his Se urges in the way an Se-Base adult could. Rather, he must learn by experiencing and observing first-hand, how to "use" Se to its full potential.

Following is Wikisocion's description of the Mobilizing function:

Help in this element is appreciated, but past a certain point is seen as excessive. The subject is more comfortable using this function than the suggestive function but still can only use it sporadically. If he isn't careful and directs it at an individual who does not value it, he will likely meet a harsh response, since they are almost sure to see it as a puerile gesture (more so than when he uses the suggestive function, usage of which comes off as more mature and well-considered, since he takes it more seriously in the first place). The subject's innate lack of balance in the mobilizing function can easily cause him to indulge in it recklessly or to sorely neglect it. It is best used in support of the suggestive function.

And the Se-Mobilizing description from the same source:

The individual tends to feel capable of achieving his goals, but hesitates on whether the path he is choosing is the right one. In these cases he needs to feel the support of others in order to be motivated to finally choose.
He likes to be involved in competitive and challenging endeavors and to see his will and personal power develop as he overcomes obstacles together with other people. However, he depends on others to provide the gusto and motivation for these endeavors.

The above describes my son pretty well in his current stage of life. He certainly has a very strong tendency to be competitive and a "go-getter," but he also requires a lot of encouragement from those he trusts, to come to a final decision about whether to "move." And when he does not wait for this "go-ahead," and rather follows his own impulse, it can easily get him into trouble.

But as he grows, he will become more and more competent and confident in his Base, that there will come a time when he will utterly refuse any help in this area, and will probably fight tooth-and-nail anybody who tries to dicstate to him what to do, since-- in his mind-- he will "know better" than anyone else. His Se-Base will become four-dimensional, only once he has been alive long enough to look back on the past for clues to help him see the full consequences of his and others' actions in the future before he actually acts.

Now take the Creative function...as stated before, in the immature child, this will look more like the Suggestive function. For my SLE son, the Creative function is Ti, which may resemble Ti-Suggestive:

The individual has great admiration for people with well-developed systems of views. He especially likes clear and concise explanations of concepts, rather than a lot of background information about them that is not directly pertinent. He wants his actions to make sense, and thus needs external assurance that the conceptual understanding behind them is correct. If he cannot find a source of certainty, he may become flustered and unable to act rationally at all.

This sort of thinking in him seems to crop up time and time again. Consistency and things "making sense" are so important to him. Without this, he becomes immobilized. When he asks a question, he cannot let it rest until he gets a straight answer. And if he has made an observation about something, he is eager to share it and receive confirmation that his understanding is correct. He takes everything he is told literally, and seems to have an excellent memory. Don't make a promise to this kid rashly-- he will hold you to it!

It is only with time, that the Creative function will become fully-developed and three-dimensional; at that time, he will then be able to understand Ti, not only as it pertains to him personally, but also as it is more generally applied, and how it can change based on the current situation.

[Aiss]

Dimensionality isn't "how much you learned", but rather "how much you learn [from something]". So you're right in a way that children would be still developing a lot, but the dimensionality is there and actually corresponds to the process of development and learning, how much you can get out of some information.

I keep reposting it, but whatever, maybe you'll find it useful.

 

I think dimensionality can actually be pretty visible - 1-dimensional is case-by-case learning, 2-dimensional is normative, 3-dimensional situational and 4-dimensional futuristic. Each one is less specific and more context-dependent than the previous one. So when we're faced with an unknown situation, we're able to use what we learned via a stronger functions, because it's flexible and adaptable, but what we learned by a weaker one is useless in comparison, as in this area we need experience and familiarity with the matter first (which always helps, but it's an essential difference early on).

A really lame analogy (purposefully revolving around abilities unrelated to socionics):
1-d - learning how to draw a line with a pencil.
2-d - learning how to use a pencil.
3-d - learning how to draw.
4-d - learning how to represent an object.

The point of that pattern is, 1-d is most specific and 4-d most generic. You may start with learning to draw a specific object with a specific tool, but depending on the "mode" of learning (dimensionality) you effectively learn this, to use a tool, to draw in general, or the most vague yet widely applicable "creating a representation". And when you're faced with a new situation - for example 3d modeling - only the latter would be of any use to get started in the area, though of course not nearly as good as an actual experience.

So to 1-d, higher dimensions seem to generalize what's learned, to project it onto other things; to 4-d, lower dimensions seem too specific, not making full use of it.

An element with dimensionality is simply how much we can learn from its type of information; so 4-d Ni would be able to "predict" development of unknown situation based on its generic observations of indirect consequences, while 1-d Ni would assume a known situation to develop as they know it to have once (not necessarily "lived through it"), and an unknown one to be unpredictable.

Edit: I don't deny external manifestation of functions would be different than in adults, and descriptions made for adults, though.

[Slacker]

My feeling is that you can't tell what type they are for probably several years, but not for those reasons. Like my little one is in to lining things up in rows, organizing things in boxes, etc., but that's just because she's just turning 2 and that's what kids - all healthy kids - this age do. It's a developmental stage and not type related. Kids do a lot of things that aren't type related and are instead related to developmental stages. Also, I think it's easy to project when we look at our kids, like my older daughter seems very IEE but I'm sensitive to the idea that I could be projecting my feelings and assuming she's like me. So I don't hold onto that typing too tightly. Also when kids aren't very verbal yet a lot of our ideas about what they're feeling are at least in part projection. They need a good command of language to really understand what's going on beneath the surface. On the other hand, there are things I can tell about the little one already. I'd be suprised if she weren't introverted and a sensor. But thats as far as I am.