# Thread: Functional Dichotomies: Bold vs Cautious

1. ## Functional Dichotomies: Bold vs Cautious

Originally Posted by Wiki
Bold functions are used more freely than cautious functions, sometimes even in a way that makes a subdued function more heavily used than a valued function (e.g. role and suggestive functions). This may be considered an aspect of function strength.
For extroverts, all extroverted elements are Bold functions, and all introverted elements Cautious. Conversely, introverts have Bold introverted functions and Cautious extroverted functions. The reason for this is that a type is more comfortable with their preferred direction of energy ("-tim"), and even the weak-bold functions are used with a considerable amount of confidence (whether it is just to put on a show or is naively used). In contrast, one's Cautious functions are used with great care - the creative function is more sensitive to criticism even though it is a strong function, for example. This especially applies to the vulnerable function, where one is especially cautious about its use.
I've recently become fond of this functional dichotomy especially when typing, due to it's benefit in figuring out if someone is E or I.

I find this especially useful in dealing with socially avoidant E's and socially gregarious I's.

Have you noticed this functional dichotomy like I have, if so, please share your experience.

2. the separation between individual functions is spurious. functions are never observed in isolation, so any talk of characteristics peculiar to these is suspect. at least things like i/e can be related to types so as to form Static/Dynamic. with this one, though, the reduction just yields the thing that was initially derived from.

3. I don't think this involves any of that. Function dichotomies don't deal with a function in isolation but aspects of the structure of Model A where functions are not in isolation. So Bold functions are always Xe in extratims and cautious functions are always Xi in introtims.

So even a extratim with a weak E function will have it as a bold function. Functional dichotomies are pretty much not about a function in isolation but how functions interact and are structured within Model A.

4. All it means is that one function from a block is typically more prevalent than the other one. It makes sense enough, to say that base > creative, role > PoLR, mobilizing (hidden agenda) > suggestive, and demonstrative > ignoring. It's a simple, sensible concept in the confines of the theory. It's all based on the I/E dichotomy.

Originally Posted by wikisocion
The reason for this is that a type is more comfortable with their preferred direction of energy ("-tim"), and even the weak-bold functions are used with a considerable amount of confidence (whether it is just to put on a show or is naively used). In contrast, one's Cautious functions are used with great care - the creative function is more sensitive to criticism even though it is a strong function, for example.

5. Yea, it's very sensible and basic, but noticing it in day to day interactions has been interesting for me in typing and analyzing social interaction. Especially with E/I. I want to see if others have experiences with this functional dichotomy as well as any outlier experiences such as a socially introverted E type who display E functions boldly.

I'm looking for stories.

6. Originally Posted by labocat
the separation between individual functions is spurious. functions are never observed in isolation, so any talk of characteristics peculiar to these is suspect. at least things like i/e can be related to types so as to form Static/Dynamic. with this one, though, the reduction just yields the thing that was initially derived from.
How is it spurious, exactly? It seems to me it's a simple matter of becoming familiar with the different categories of information, learning to identify which category of information a person is currently processing, and observing how they process it. I don't really understand how that's more spurious than any other aspect of socionics.

Originally Posted by hkkmr
Yea, it's very sensible and basic, but noticing it in day to day interactions has been interesting for me in typing and analyzing social interaction. Especially with E/I. I want to see if others have experiences with this functional dichotomy as well as any outlier experiences such as a socially introverted E type who display E functions boldly.

I'm looking for stories.
I know an ILE who is fairly socially introverted (when trying to type himself, he initially assumed he was an Introvert) who displays this dichotomy. He's very free and impulsive in proposing new ideas (Ne), much more so than I am. I tend to analyze an idea pretty heavily before putting it out there; he's the other way around. And although he's not all that confident in expressing emotion, he's certainly more confident doing that than trying to create any kind of physical comfort, which is again the reverse of me -- I might be willing to attempt cooking or some other Si-related activity, but I'm extremely cautious when it comes to expressing my emotions.

Now that I think about it, combining the Bold/Cautious dichotomy with the Strong/Weak dichotomy would probably be enough to explain the Dimensionality of the functions. Similar to how "-Ti" can be considered shorthand for "Ti blocked with Ne", perhaps "2-dimensional" could be considered shorthand for "Weak and Bold".

7. Originally Posted by Krig the Viking
I know an ILE who is fairly socially introverted (when trying to type himself, he initially assumed he was an Introvert) who displays this dichotomy. He's very free and impulsive in proposing new ideas (Ne), much more so than I am. I tend to analyze an idea pretty heavily before putting it out there; he's the other way around. And although he's not all that confident in expressing emotion, he's certainly more confident doing that than trying to create any kind of physical comfort, which is again the reverse of me -- I might be willing to attempt cooking or some other Si-related activity, but I'm extremely cautious when it comes to expressing my emotions.

Now that I think about it, combining the Bold/Cautious dichotomy with the Strong/Weak dichotomy would probably be enough to explain the Dimensionality of the functions. Similar to how "-Ti" can be considered shorthand for "Ti blocked with Ne", perhaps "2-dimensional" could be considered shorthand for "Weak and Bold".
It's more then just what you do but also how you go about it. I'm actually a pretty decent cook because I love food, but still imo cautious with the Si part of it. I'm like recipes, I read a lot about how to cook before I do it. I want to know all the step/details ingredients and I need things in a very organized and detailed fashion. But when I find a good sounding recipe, I am not very strict about following it, with substitutions and the like as well as alter the cooking technique, temperature and various other factor. I think this is due to my strong intuition, thinking and bold extroverted sensing. It goes to show that each portion of the psyche plays a role in how we approach tasks and once we start looking at the various areas where we might be "bold" and "cautious", a typing analysis can be expressed.

If I cook for others, I only try and do things I have a good idea is going to turn out well or is something I've cooked before. I'm very picky with restaurants and usually am not into going to places I haven't got a good idea about or heard via word of mouth.

Once I observe someone and their behavior this sort of things come out quickly and you can often determine a lot about their personality.

8. argg... dimensionality got involved in this thread. now it is positively doomed.

do you guys realize that when the only unproblematically real parts of the model A are evaluated (i.e. the ego functions), this function dichotomy is equivalent to Accepting/Creating... judging by the responses so far i bet y'all didn't realize that till now.

9. Originally Posted by hkkmr
It's more then just what you do but also how you go about it. I'm actually a pretty decent cook because I love food, but still imo cautious with the Si part of it. I'm like recipes, I read a lot about how to cook before I do it. I want to know all the step/details ingredients and I need things in a very organized and detailed fashion. But when I find a good sounding recipe, I am not very strict about following it, with substitutions and the like as well as alter the cooking technique, temperature and various other factor. I think this is due to my strong intuition, thinking and bold extroverted sensing. It goes to show that each portion of the psyche plays a role in how we approach tasks and once we start looking at the various areas where we might be "bold" and "cautious", a typing analysis can be expressed.

If I cook for others, I only try and do things I have a good idea is going to turn out well or is something I've cooked before. I'm very picky with restaurants and usually am not into going to places I haven't got a good idea about or heard via word of mouth.

Once I observe someone and their behavior this sort of things come out quickly and you can often determine a lot about their personality.
Ah, that's interesting, and it makes sense. I'm pretty much the opposite of everything you describe when it comes to cooking. While I also prefer to follow a recipe when cooking anything complex (I'd guess that's related to Ti), I tend to just dive right in without studying it much beforehand, sometimes without even reading all the way through the recipe. On the other hand, I'm very cautious when it comes to altering the recipe; I almost never deviate from it, make substitutions, alter the technique, etc. And I'm not picky at all about restaurants, my motto being "I'll try anything once".

On the other hand, despite being cautious about altering recipes, when I'm not using a recipe I can be quite experimental, combining various things just to see what they're like. My favourite kind of sandwich is Cheese Whiz + Miracle Whip + Olives, which was the result of such experimentation. Not sure if that's evidence for or against the theory.

10. oh god, the cooking-is-type-related fallacy...

DOOOOOOOOOOOOMED

11. Originally Posted by labocat
argg... dimensionality got involved in this thread. now it is positively doomed.

do you guys realize that when the only unproblematically real parts of the model A are evaluated (i.e. the ego functions), this function dichotomy is equivalent to Accepting/Creating... judging by the responses so far i bet y'all didn't realize that till now.
Er... yes, labcoat, we're aware of the basics of Socionics. It's in the Vital Ring where Bold/Cautious and Accepting/Creating are different. They also describe very different aspects of behaviour.

Frankly, the idea that the Ego functions are "the only unproblematically real parts" of Model A seems a little silly from my point of view. Once you're able to accurately distinguish between the various categories of information (i.e., the IEs), and begin observing how people behave and process information about the world, the validity of the rest of Model A becomes pretty self-evident.

12. Sorry err, does this mean that extraverts are more extraverted, and introverts are more introverted? Isn't that...obvious?

13. Originally Posted by labocat
argg... dimensionality got involved in this thread. now it is positively doomed.

do you guys realize that when the only unproblematically real parts of the model A are evaluated (i.e. the ego functions), this function dichotomy is equivalent to Accepting/Creating... judging by the responses so far i bet y'all didn't realize that till now.
Yes, I was working on it here:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post811783

All Model A system analysis should go there.

14. Originally Posted by labocat
oh god, the cooking-is-type-related fallacy...

DOOOOOOOOOOOOMED
It's funny when people who are clearly wrong act all condescending toward people who are clearly right.

Edit: More seriously, this is why that "Schools of Thought in Socionics" thread is so important. We're clearly operating from substantially different theoretical bases here.

Originally Posted by FDG
Sorry err, does this mean that extraverts are more extraverted, and introverts are more introverted? Isn't that...obvious?
It's more like a functional explanation for why and how extraverts are extraverted and introverts are introverted. As I understand it, the Type Dichotomies are all manifestations of the various combinations of Function Dichotomies and Information Element Dichotomies.

15. Originally Posted by FDG
Sorry err, does this mean that extraverts are more extraverted, and introverts are more introverted? Isn't that...obvious?
People forget the obvious stuff quite easily, but I want to get storeis about something that is supposedly simple, obvious but has a lot of interesting interactions when all the functions within a psyche is looked at together, working towards a goal or on a task. We are always thinking the way we think, and it plays into every action we formulate. And the more differentiated we become as we advance our knowledge, the more these divisions can become visible and analyzable.

I want some details!

16. It's funny when people who are clearly wrong act all condescending toward people who are clearly right.
you sound like a peddler of homeopathic medicine. seriously, i'm not the making outrageous postulations here. you talk about functions as if they are concrete entities that can be studied through a microscope. in reality, even ego functions are barely discernable and there is scant basis of consensus as to who to point to as an example of any of them. to say we can not just identify types without difficulty, but also go ahead and say we can break types down into their constituent functions AND THEN break them down further so as to expose a whole universe of sub-blocks and auxiliary functions, takes the whole thing three steps up on the hierarchy of postulative excess when it's clear even the "simple" treatment has major epistemic problems. there is a word for this. obfuscationism, mysticism, or more fittingly, woo-woo.

17. Originally Posted by labocat
you sound like a peddler of homeopathic medicine. seriously, i'm not the making outrageous postulations here. you talk about functions as if they are concrete entities that can be studied through a microscope. in reality, even ego functions are barely discernable and there is scant basis of consensus as to who to point to as an example of any of them. to say we can not just identify types without difficulty, but also go ahead and say we can break types down into their constituent functions AND THEN break them down further so as to expose a whole universe of sub-blocks and auxiliary functions, takes the whole thing three steps up on the hierarchy of postulative excess when it's clear even the "simple" treatment has major epistemic problems. there is a word for this. obfuscationism, mysticism, or more fittingly, woo-woo.
Insults and ad hominen arguments don't really help prove your point. An argument won by hurting your opponent's feelings until he gives up in disgust is enlightening to no-one.

If you would like to continue discussing the specific differences in our theoretical understanding of Socionics, I suggest doing so here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...103#post816103

18. I don't get this whole mysticism or obfuscation thing. Me and Krig just describing our individual psyches and how we approach tasks based on Ex and Ix functions and how they line up with this functional dichotomy.

It's kind of absurd to throw this sort of words around when relating observations and it's like you don't even understand it. Labocat, I think you are the one who is obfuscating by trying to poo poo every observation of personal experience people make. Anyways I gotta put you on ignore since I almost never learn anything from you and you just seem to like to heckle others, with either mysticism, obfuscation or some other term you're misusing.

19. labocat's just remembering to "be skeptical".

Look, what you two, Krig and hakmirrrrr are saying makes sense... to you. This does not line up with my experience. If you incorporated a bunch of people, including socionics-naive individuals, I've no doubt your findings would be inconclusive.

I mean, you're making two mistakes. The first is to associate something that has little or no informational basis to information processing (like cooking, or sex, or favoured alcohol, or favoured music, or, or, or). The second is to expand, as good-with-ribbons said, the ego functions. You're better off just using the manifest aspects of I/E than strange obfuscations like "bold" and "cautious".

imo the first is the most problematic. How does cooking approach have anything to do with elements? Let's incorporate some scientific skepticism here. What's your proposed mechanism? Do you have one? That's the absolute most important question you should be asking.

I research basic technical approaches to this or that thing (like how to braise a thing) and wing it from there based on what I have on hand, more like Krig, than like hakmir. Why do I do it this way? Because I don't reliably have the ingredients I need and it's simple practicality to learn to be creative but technically diverse--enough to achieve an edible dinner. Information nothing, it's an environmentally conditioned approach. (It's analogous to metabolites/behaviours present being a result not of enzymes/functions but a result of available substrate/circumstances.)

20. Originally Posted by Cat King Cole
I mean, you're making two mistakes. The first is to associate something that has little or no informational basis to information processing (like cooking, or sex, or favoured alcohol, or favoured music, or, or, or). The second is to expand, as good-with-ribbons said, the ego functions. You're better off just using the manifest aspects of I/E than strange obfuscations like "bold" and "cautious".

imo the first is the most problematic. How does cooking approach have anything to do with elements? Let's incorporate some scientific skepticism here. What's your proposed mechanism? Do you have one? That's the absolute most important question you should be asking.

I research basic technical approaches to this or that thing (like how to braise a thing) and wing it from there based on what I have on hand, more like Krig, than like hakmir. Why do I do it this way? Because I don't reliably have the ingredients I need and it's simple practicality to learn to be creative but technically diverse--enough to achieve an edible dinner. Information nothing, it's an environmentally conditioned approach. (It's analogous to metabolites/behaviours present being a result not of enzymes/functions but a result of available substrate/circumstances.)
How I approach cooking is how I approach most tasks, cooking was just brought up because this is something I enjoy immensely and brings me a great deal of pleasure.

I think you're not reading what I say too well because of a misunderstanding on your part. I can wing it to, I was more talking about the steps I go thru to attain a delicious experience, I'm very cautious about this.

Technique, no problem, making something decent from what I got available, no problem. Trying to figure out something will taste without either having that experience or having a lot of people that I know tell me, problem.

I want to note you're talking mostly about E things, the ingredients you have available, the environment around you which you think forces your particular approach at this task. You could have taken a different approach to the criticism. Another person could also take a different approach to cooking in the environment you're in.(which I won't talk about here) Another person could have criticized me and said that perhaps some internal preference for cooking a certain way guided the approach. Another person may say that their cooking skills were taught their parents and they will always make it the way their parents did it. It could also be some other factor. How you criticized me is also a expression of your IM and from what I can tell you're more comfortable taking a E approach.

This is one of the reasons why I am becoming quite fond of this function dichotomy, because I can apply it to analyzing a lot of situations generally.

I want to also note that at your ages I more or less did exactly what you do, and I wasn't interested in acquiring these experiences except at restaurants. The only dishes that I made for myself for these experience were recipes I carefully studied from my mom.

I want to hear some more stories here, because it would be interesting to hear how other people approach various tasks. Don't make the functional associations. Just talk about what you do.

#### Posting Permissions

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