# Thread: Could the Function Ordering be Different from Model A?

1. ## Could the Function Ordering be Different from Model A?

Consider an LII as an example. Could it be possible that LII function ordering is better captured by the following?

2. Creative: Ne.
3. Role: Se.
4. Vulnerable: Fi.

5. Suggestive: Fe.
6. Mobilizing: Si.
7. Ignoring: Te.
8. Demonstrative: Ni.

The reason that this might make more intuitive sense is that there is more symmetry in this model. For instance, in the LII above, the strongest function contrasts the weakest function (which is judging), seeks another judging function and is contrary to another judging function. Perhaps Ausra Augusta missed something when creating Model A... What do you think?

2. ..."symmetry"? Is there something I am not getting here? >_>

3. If that's the case she completely misread Jung in the course of plagiarizing his work.

4. Originally Posted by Taknamay

..."symmetry"? Is there something I am not getting here? >_>
See how the left column is (supposed to contain) all judging functions and the right column all perceiving functions... That is what I mean by "symmetry"...

5. Does it matter?

Superficial and cosmetic ordering is different from the actual dispositions caused by psychological orientation. I can't tell if you're referring to the former, latter or both.

6. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
Does it matter?

Superficial and cosmetic ordering is different from the actual dispositions caused by psychological orientation. I can't tell if you're referring to the former, latter or both.
How do you distinguish something "cosmetically superficial" from something "mathematically elegant"?

7. no.

8. Originally Posted by labocat
no.
What am I to make of an answer like that?

9. it's a simple and straightforward empirical fact that the function we currently know as the 4th is the vulnerable one, whereas the 3rd is not.

10. Originally Posted by labocat
it's a simple and straightforward empirical fact that the function we currently know as the 4th is the vulnerable one, whereas the 3rd is not.
I am proposing that this might be wrong for something along the lines of mathematical reasons. I don't know how it could be established convincingly either way without a solid study. And I'm not a skeptic of Model A (which wasn't exactly your claim). I'm just thinking critically...

11. mathematics and formal structures are the terms in which empirical claims are expressed. they can not themselves serve as "reasons" for anything.

12. Seems kind of odd that a introverted-rational would be so against another introverted-rational function. To me, said function is more of a "there's that way (Role) to think of it, but there's also this way (Dominant). And I prefer the latter." That is, they're both based on some type of static system, but they source of them is different. Extroverted-irrational functions, on the other hand, are more related to objects in themselves, their potential or their state. That is why they make more sense (to me) as a Polr-function: they are not about understanding how things relate to each other, or a system, but about how things are. That is, Se or Ne are contrary to the concept of a system, to which Ti or Fi are related.

13. Originally Posted by jason_m
2. Creative: Ne.
3. Role: Se.
4. Vulnerable: Fi.

5. Suggestive: Fe.
6. Mobilizing: Si.
7. Ignoring: Te.
8. Demonstrative: Ni.

The reason that this might make more intuitive sense is that there is more symmetry in this model. For instance, in the LII above, the strongest function contrasts the weakest function (which is judging), seeks another judging function and is contrary to another judging function. Perhaps Ausra Augusta missed something when creating Model A... What do you think?
No because opposite IAs don't conflict by themselves (they are actually very close), but as functions [1]. Then as functions, they trully conflict when one is Accepting and the other Producing. Please use the square of opposites as an analogy to understand how is it conceptually sensible.
---

Quantifiers make a huge difference. Imagine this case: Person A believes that all substances are composite, person B believes that all things are composed of simple parts, therefore not all substances are composite [2]. This corresponds to the Base (for goor reasons also called "Program") function role of generalizing a certain aspect to all facets of the universe. But now what? We have two people of diverging absolute beliefs, but who can't prove anything to each other for the simple fact that their the universals can never be proved (it would require knowledge of everything), it is a life-long goal that can only refine knowledge, but never be complete. I my experience, persons of opposite Base end-up in endless unfruitful debates, just not in conflict.
Situation: one can be right or both can be wrong.

Now imagine a person C who has no universal opinion on the topic, but evidence that in particular cases one of the two is incorrect or unapplicable. This immediately dismisses the opposite universal view entirely, and that happens precisely because that view is universal. A single exception is sufficient to create strict opposition and self-righteousness in person C, which corresponds to our PoLR/Vulnerable function: the opposite universal simply cannot be accepted.
---

[1] - one thing is the idea itself, a different thing is if and how it applies.
[2] - refer to Kant's second conflict of transcendental ideas, in the Critique of Pure Reason.

14. Analogies always give headaches to Ne-PoLRs. labcoat, I just got an idea, let's ask the administration for a "NSFSeC" tag (not suitable for Se-Creative types). I would use it.

15. Originally Posted by ClownsandEntropy
Seems kind of odd that a introverted-rational would be so against another introverted-rational function. To me, said function is more of a "there's that way (Role) to think of it, but there's also this way (Dominant).
That's why our second function is opposite temperament

16. Originally Posted by The Ineffable
I my experience, persons of opposite Base end-up in endless but fruitful debates.
Crap, scratch that. Excuse my blunder, it's endless *unfruitful* debates. The former can be observed in Id interactions (ie. Ne and Ni), not Super-Ego.

17. The function "ordering" is just qualitatively describing functions. The functions are qualitatively different for every type; that is Se for ESFp is different than Se for INTp; but there is no order in how they are processed. They all happen simultaneously. If there were an order, you would be looking at 256 potential types. Since we have 16, there is no order. But you can add order to the function "order" and get more types - that is what subtype does, places order by grouping functions into blocks. Really there is confining block between functions until you place a subtype onto the type.

18. Well I see the rational/irrational type dichotomy as "means" versus "ends." Hence, the "accepting" and "producing" functions.

For rational types,

Basic (irrational) information ---> Complex (rational) conclusions

For irrational types,

Complex (rational) information ---> Basic (irrational) conclusions

19. Originally Posted by jason_m
Consider an LII as an example. Could it be possible that LII function ordering is better captured by the following?

2. Creative: Ne.
3. Role: Se.
4. Vulnerable: Fi.

5. Suggestive: Fe.
6. Mobilizing: Si.
7. Ignoring: Te.
8. Demonstrative: Ni.

The reason that this might make more intuitive sense is that there is more symmetry in this model. For instance, in the LII above, the strongest function contrasts the weakest function (which is judging), seeks another judging function and is contrary to another judging function. Perhaps Ausra Augusta missed something when creating Model A... What do you think?
it's a topic i wish i understood better, but Model A's functions are deliberately arranged to show specific information paths. if you look you can see the information path always alternates between an Introverted element and an Extroverted element (e.g. → back to → etc. for an IEI's Mental ring). you can also see that the information always goes Accepting function → Producing function, meaning that information of a certain kind cannot be Produced without first Accepting some other kind of information. and so on.

i think Model A is trying to show how information is passed along and transformed within the psyche, and you can see how these complementing and conflicting flows of information go along with the intertype relationships. if you take Duality, you see that their information flows are perfectly complementary, e.g. IEI's Mental ring is , and SLE's Mental ring is , which are two flows of perfectly complementary information going in the same direction (////). the same is true for duals' Vital rings. in the case of IEI's Conflictor LSE, their Mental ring goes . this is the same information as IEIs Mental ring, but the information is going in the exact opposite direction, which causes information "clashing" - hence why they are not compatible types. (ETA: besides the psyche and intertype relationships, information transfer can also be observed on a wider, "real world" scale through phenomena such as quadra progression.)

Work of Model A

 (→) 1 → 2 → ↑ ↓ Mental Ring (←) 4 ← 3 ← (←) 6 ← 5 ← ↓ ↑ Vital Ring (→) 7 → 8 →

i don't see how the arrangement you suggest would necessarily bring anything new to the table. it would interfere with the information flows that Model A is attempting to demonstrate - which is not necessarily a bad thing, you would just have to show why your arrangement is an improvement upon the current setup of Model A.

20. Jason maybe you are just saying this:

2. Creative: Ne.
3. Vulnerable: Se.
4. Role: Fi.
5. Suggestive: Fe.
6. Mobilizing: Si.
7. Ignoring: Te.
8. Demonstrative: Ni.

The ordering is certainly cosmetic, unless it is stated that the order represents a functional distinction, such as weaker or stronger.

Are you suggesting that the descriptions of role and vulnerable should be reversed (my model above), or that in some quantitative terms, Fi is weaker than Se (for LII)?

For the first option, I'd have to hear your descriptions to make a judgement. For the second option, wouldn't that imply the same switch for Te and Ni as well?

21. Right. I can only see two reasonable ways to go:

Left are accepting, right are producing.

OR

Left are homoverted, right are heteroverted.

22. I'm a homovert

23. Originally Posted by polikujm
That's why our second function is opposite temperament
Is that something to do with the creative function only being used in service of the dominant function, and not used reliably and constantly?

24. Originally Posted by jason_m
I am proposing that this might be wrong for something along the lines of mathematical reasons. I don't know how it could be established convincingly either way without a solid study. And I'm not a skeptic of Model A (which wasn't exactly your claim). I'm just thinking critically...
The 4th is vulnerable because people deliberately choose to ignore it when making decisions. It always seems to be getting in the way. Your conflictor will do more than chide you for this: they will call foul and warn others of the "danger" you pose. All of a sudden everyone is against you and although you couldn't care less what they think, you are nonetheless anxious and afraid. Your dual may call foul if you disregard the suggestive function, but they will also forgive you if you "see the light" and convert. Your conflictor, however, will be very suspicious from that point forward.

Not to mention that your supervisor will unceremoniously kick your ass over it.

The 4th is in a constant state of flux because valuers of it are always responding to the use of your creative function. For example, LIIs like to test and pry. This is often thought of as an invasion of others' privacy. Did you have the right to experiment with the materials in your test? ESEs probably won't give a damn, and SEIs will probably appreciate knowing the results... but ILEs might be a bit unreliable in your defense, because respect for others' property is important to them.

And the EM identical to your conflictor will NEVER let it go... ugh. I deal with that myself. Lots.

25. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
The 4th is vulnerable because people deliberately choose to ignore it when making decisions. It always seems to be getting in the way. Your conflictor will do more than chide you for this: they will call foul and warn others of the "danger" you pose. All of a sudden everyone is against you and although you couldn't care less what they think, you are nonetheless anxious and afraid. Your dual may call foul if you disregard the suggestive function, but they will also forgive you if you "see the light" and convert. Your conflictor, however, will be very suspicious from that point forward.
Although that makes the relationship seem rather unsymmetrical. Technically, you should both have an advantage over the other.

26. Regarding the work of Model A, I don't think that I normally follow that flow. I do sometimes, but not normally. Seems like Labocat does though. I'm less of an experimentalist and more of an inferrer (Se fear being the main reason). I think I follow the reverse flow most often, with a strong Ne predominance (not dominance... not an extrovert).

Anyone else who feels that way?

27. Originally Posted by Taknamay
Although that makes the relationship seem rather unsymmetrical. Technically, you should both have an advantage over the other.
I do, but only if I have a specific goal in mind as to what to offer. However, politics generally gets in the way. It's a long road back to equilibrium, usually.

28. Thread needs more facepalm, cause it's funny.

29. Originally Posted by labocat
it's a simple and straightforward empirical fact that the function we currently know as the 4th is the vulnerable one, whereas the 3rd is not.
Fact aha, big word there.

30. ive thought for a while that Fi base and Ti polr worked the best for me if it "worked that way"

math something something cyles something information paths

31. Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
Jason maybe you are just saying this:

2. Creative: Ne.
3. Vulnerable: Se.
4. Role: Fi.
5. Suggestive: Fe.
6. Mobilizing: Si.
7. Ignoring: Te.
8. Demonstrative: Ni.
Thats what labcoat thinks Jason is saying!

32. Originally Posted by Typhon
Thats what labcoat thinks Jason is saying!
LOL, seems like labcoats philosophical problem is what number each function fundamentally is

33. Thats what labcoat thinks Jason is saying!
no, i don't and didn't. what are you even talking about.

LOL, seems like labcoats philosophical problem is what number each function fundamentally is
there you go again, agreeing with things that are patently untrue.

34. Originally Posted by labocat
no, i don't and didn't. what are you even talking about.
...

it's a simple and straightforward empirical fact that the function we currently know as the 4th is the vulnerable one, whereas the 3rd is not.

35. for INTj, the function we currently know as the 4th is Se, which is empirically vulnerable, not "role". what Jason suggested:

3. Role: Se.
any more questions? apologies maybe?

36. I dont think you understood Jason. Not that I care, really.

37. Originally Posted by labocat
for INTj, the function we currently know as the 4th is Se, which is empirically vulnerable, not "role". what Jason suggested:

any more questions? apologies maybe?
Not from me. That is because you reason formally, in labels, missing the point.

In the context, it was actually: Jason kept the numbering and naming of the functions, placing Fi as Vulnerable, on the presumption that Fi is contradictory to Ti of the Base. We know that 4th function is *PoLR/Vulnerable*, not Se. Being Se in the LII is a different matter and there is a reason for it, reason which Jason argues about.

If you can't get over you LSI limitations, let Typhon help you, for he is your Dual .

38. look, Se is vulnerable in INTj, Fi is not. this is an empirical certainty. Jason claimed otherwise. there is no room for misunderstanding here except on the part of stubborn jokers like you that are catatonically immune to reason.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

#### Posting Permissions

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