as a very rough outline, is this correct?
strongest to weakest:
6. hidden agenda
as a very rough outline, is this correct?
strongest to weakest:
6. hidden agenda
I dont know, it may come down to how you define strength. And then personal eccentricities will change them for people. Base subtype will nave a stronger Ha than role, and vice versa for creative subtype.
Mine would look like (I think)
I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.
Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If it’s a disease, it’s nobody’s fault. Yay empiricism.
so the stronger functions would process info instantly and correctly, the weaker ones may actually get the same result by do so slower and make more mistakes along the way
Good point about personal eccentricities affecting it, hadn't thought of that. I'm just looking for a general trend though
why is hidden agenda stronger than polr for you?
Also suggestive over polr because suggestive is unconscious, it seems to be routinely overlooked. The polr by contrast is sensitive when it has at least some experience.
Why is role weaker than suggestive?
According to the theory of dimensionality of functions, it should be something like this:
Role/Hidden Agenda, 2-D
I'm not sure if that always works out in practice though and how much subtype has an effect on it.
Can a function with a lower dimensionality be stronger than a function with a greater dimensionality? I'm also inclined to think that even though they are equal in dimensionality, the base tends to be a little stronger than the demonstrative, and the suggestive a little stronger than the PoLR.
I sometimes think my Fi and Si (2-D) are stronger than my Te (3-D), so my overall order might be something like.
1. Base Ti
2. Demonstrative Ni
3. Creative Ne
4. Role Fi
5. Hidden Agenda Si
6. Ignoring Te
7. Suggestive Fe
8. PLR Se
Last edited by chips and underwear; 01-02-2015 at 05:11 PM.
EII - INTj - Dostoyevsky -
No, it's not a typo!
1-2. Base; Demonstrative (see as above)
3. Ignoring - fast automatic, though not "on" much
4. Creative - fast but not always automatic (only the already well-ingrained aspects are automatic) and often not turned "on", then sometimes "on" very much
5. HA - fast, easy, but incomplete
6.-7. Role - slow, though not too bad if it gets to directly process; Suggestive - fast, easy because of receptiveness but very much incomplete results of processing and can be outright incorrect
8. PoLR - slow, incorrect, if it ever gets to directly processing anything
Lol where I wrote that Creative is "fast but not always automatic (only the already well-ingrained aspects are automatic)", I should've realized that wasn't my Creative (I was talking about Ti). Or where I wrote that Ignoring is "fast automatic, though not "on" much".. fits Demonstrative better lol. I wasn't sure how to evaluate my skills in superego functions, either. And as for Suggestive, same issue. The rest I saw largely correctly before too.
Basically it's Demonstrative = Base => Creative > Ignoring >>> Mobilizing > Suggestive => Role > PoLR
Instead of strength, "dimensionality" seems more accurate, in the case that we are talking about the dimensionality that an information element can perceive.
It's hard to talk about strength per se, I would rather say comfort and predisposition.
But in this order : 4D > 3D > 2D > 1D. We have a general overview of the strength of each IE.
the function strength spectrum is bs in my opinion. whether a function is prioritized over its alternative is a binary matter. any other differentiation between funtions can be amply understood in terms of other dichotomizations. further differentiating strenths is an illusory crutch without rational basis.
dimensionality is especially terrible in that it imposes illusory quantifyability where there realistically is none. it is entirely made up. the only appropriate quantification is the binary one.
i also disagree that the polr is a particularly weak function compared to other unprioritized ones. there's tons of people including myself who don't have huge trouble balancing polr and creative function.
a) Matching purely on strength
1. Base = Demo (4D fncts)
2. Creative = Igno (3D fncts)
3. HA = Role (2D fncts)
4. Sugg = PoLR (1D fncts)
4D > 3D > 2D > 1D
b) Matching on strength and value
1. Base (4Dv)
2. Demo (4Duv)
3. Creative (3Dv)
4. Igno (3Duv)
5. HA (2Dv)
6. Role (2Duv)
7. Sugg (1Dv)
8. PoLR (1Duv)
4Dv >~ 4Duv > 3Dv >~ 3Duv > 2Dv > 2Duv > 1Dv > 1Duv
...where's the problem at again?
I agree that it certainly depends on which assumptions you make. You could probably make a good argument for saying that each function in Model-A is equally strong, although in terms of "strength" in relation to a Base function, that other functions are thus weaker.
(My PoLR could be strong in direct proportionate to my Ego, rather than being inversely linked for example).
I have difficulty in accepting that such an order of strength can be accurately measured and determined.
Allow me to demonstrate:
I am deeply hurt and saddened that anyone would say that my Te is less than stellar and my Se is less than phenomenal.
Anyway, the idea that demonstrative is strongest would have certain implications leading me to believe that there are quite a few mistypings due to the use of demonstrative function. Although I did read it is primarily used "in private". I would have to agree with that since I am more likely to use the demonstrative function with those I feel know me best. I do get those feelings of attraction/repulsion when gauging how other people respond or react to me. I usually only make serious fun of it in private. I have taken to considering the demonstrative function when typing others because I don't think it is as "private" as I previously thought. I do this through the engaging of my base function which leads me back to maintaining my base function is strongest and all the rest are just tools in my toolbox.
Last edited by Aylen; 08-31-2015 at 05:43 PM.
At the end of the day, the dimensionality stuff is just a speculative blueprint, just as is the idea that ego consists of 2 things! Ultimately in a more irrational type, or more rational type, the ego will mostly consist of one thing with the other much more tempered. And Jung allowed for a second auxiliary, and the analogous idea definitely applies whether you're using socionics definitions or Jungian ones, in socionics theory.Originally Posted by chips and underwear
Really all this is saying is that you're more of an introvert than you are a T, which is obvious enough a thing to consider, considering you almost always typed yourself as introverted types, used to have the "self-submerged H subtype" thing to describe you, etc.
Jung viewed all these things in terms of degrees, and on some points, even if we use socionics theory more than we use his, where his ideas make more sense (e.g. being flexible about which areas show most differentiation, rather than using the one-fits-all packaged blueprint), it's necessary to make adjustments.
For what it's worth BTW Gulenko puts H as strengthening both Si and Ni and more secondarily Fi in one of his descriptions, and there's actually an idea to this, in that introverted feeling is often said to evaluate against harmony with the self.
It's also worth looking at Jung's view of Nietzsche's type for a lot of these issues --- frequently in MBTI/socionics/Jung-related settings, people are quick to assume a blueprint along the lines of
dom = clear attitude E or I
aux = more mixed
inf = opposite dom
However, this all depends on which aspects of polarization/dichotomy one emphasizes. Jung thought Kant was overall a clear introverted thinking type (dominant), but not as repressing of extraverted thinking as was Nietzsche, despite introverted intuition outranking thinking in Nietzsche, with introverted thinking secondary.... demonstrating how the above blueprint/model doesn't really always work -- ultimately everything depends on the extent to which what preferences actually become egoic. If introversion is highly pronounced as the ego's attitude, and if the secondary function is quite differentiated, it may sufficiently offset an extraverted influence to the secondary, despite it being more prone to unconscious influences.
This is why it's important to get the theory behind the assumptions of the models
All this means is that overall, Nietzsche was more polarized towards introversion than Kant, despite both being highly pronounced introverts, and Kant was more polarized to T (and indeed one of Jung's other close associates confirmed Kant was an uber-T, and we can probably see this in how he describes ethics, namely in a way Jung would probably say is a highly T slant repressing F).
Yeah it seems to be a general thing with all the subs to view them as strengthening one temperament form + an "auxiliary"
E.g. I think dominant strengthens the EJs (Te, Fe) but also Se, creative's formula is Ne+Se and then Fe, H is like creative but everything is introverted, N is Ti, Fi predominantly, then Ni.
This is by memory, but you can of course just find the page, it's on here somewhere.
I understand some people are worried adding subtypes will water down taking the main type seriously, but at the end of the day, Jung himself, despite giving this general idea about doms and auxes and inferiors, in his diverse writings, has written of many different variations/scenarios, and various Jungian analysts have figured out many cases where the orders aren't rigidly determined.. I often get mistyped by others as EII.
My general philosophy is that the model A types are good for general cognitive blueprints, i.e. they can be more rigidly structured because they're more based on assumptions of philosophy of cognition, i.e. that the different philosophies of information processing cannot be jumbled together in assembling a coherent viewpoint.
So for instance, one person who habitually formulates his/her views in a T fashion is not going to always be temperamentally and psychologically just as T > F in every respect of life. These are both relevant to things Jung talked about, and I think it's a welcome thing to classify them separately.
I would guess Jung himself was a case where he was not quite as T compared to some of his contemporaries in terms of raw temperament, but was quite T in how he formulated his views and ideas, albeit not really pure T, very much mixed up with intuition.
Dimensionality of information processing isn't just a "made up" thing (wtf sort of "reasoning" is that?), this isn't just a socionics concept, it's found in general psychology as well.
As for PoLR, you had a recent post explaining how you ignore Se a lot. How's that balanced. (Rhetorical question)
Well I wish that my polr was strong. I don't have forceful and pushy qualities. My bf said "you should stand up for your self" having realized that it makes me feel bad he said "don't worry about it I got it" still, I like being independent and though it depresses me and makes me feel down I often manage to avoid situations that require it. My Fi goes first as things are evaluated through subjective feeling and system of ethics. Ne is second because I feel that people have the potential to be good and don't just assume they are bad. This gives a positivist angle to my Fi . I dread Se
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
I've weirdly found my Suggestive to be pretty good, (I'd give it a B-) kind of middle of the road- as I often help correct physical/tangible stuff for people that they have issues on. Nobody would think this about me though, because I am campy and faggy.
My polr is god awful, it's just painful and even if I can get good at it, I still avoid it.
My Fe is the strongest, then my Ni. My Fi I think is kinda weak-ish even though the theory says I'm supposed to be good at it.
It would be interesting to think of things in more nuanced/complicated terms like this rather then trying to make some neat theory that possibly can't include everybody and all their complexities.
Have the model fit the person. Not the other way around.
Well yeah that's what they say, but do you mind giving me a concrete example of how this is true?ah nah, your Fi passes as 4D just fine, you are just not consciously aware of it much (demonstrative)