The 4-D functions- are they always turned on?

[The Exception]

Here's something I'm wondering about functions and their dimensionality. The 4-D functions (base and demonstrative) have the time dimension. My understanding of that is that they are always actively doing their work and not really turned off. For me as an LII, my base is Ti and my demonstrative is Ni. I'm always analyzing the things around me logically, trying to fit them into some system (Ti) and also anticipating things, seeing where they are headed and how they change through time (Ni). I'd be hard pressed to come up with an instance where I'm not using these functions.

Even when I'm using other functions, it gets filtered through my base function. For example if I have to use , I will approach it in a sort of manner. I'm not sure things get filtered through my demonstrative but it's like it always has a strong presence in the background, supporting the base

Anyone find that happening with their base/demonstrative?

Can you deliberately turn off these functions? Are you effective in doing so? Are there situations where you would want to do so?

I was in a socionics chat with an ILE we were discussing the theory of using PoLR functions and taking a base function approach to it. It's like I can't be fully aware of my raw physical power and strength because I'm not totally in the moment just sensing things. There's always the and going on.

[anndelise]

I think the only way to quiet them down would be to turn your attention to types of information that would compete for cognition. Such as Fi instead of Ti, maybe.

Also, consider that the type of info you have as 4D has more neural connections that will trigger/fire off. Those that fire together, wire together, and vice versa. So with the 4D elements, you'll have that type of info easily triggered. Kind of like if you spent a few years studying a topic, as you research other topics you'll likely be noticing instances where the new topic connects with the old topic.

With 1D we just experience the type of info. X.
With 2D we notice patterns to the experiences. When/if X, then means A. Type of thing.
With 3D we've experienced and attended to and reflected on enough of those patterns that we know of situational differences. A if X or Y. If X, then A or B or C.
With 4D we've gained enough experiences, patterns, situational differences, etc that we can see how things developed to get to the point of A, or how things might progress given X, Y, and Z.

Also think of it in terms of how much of that info we can juggle within our working memory. It used to be thought we could handle 7+/-2 clearly delineated items, though it has since dropped down to about 4. But for each "slot" we can unpack it and repack as needed. We are much more limited in juggling, packing, and unpacking 1D type of info than we can with 4D type of info, which we have a much richer database/system to draw from.

Edited to add: sorry, i forgot to bring it around to your question again.
You can try approaching it by picking out maybe 2 things to begin delineating from. For Se maybe something like what are the Se type properties of object A? What are the Se type properties of object B? How can you distinguish A from B using Se type of info? Add another object that is similar, to begin building a packing/unpacking system for Se type of info.

Edited to add again: initially it will be difficult, with the Ti/Ni being constantly triggered. So you,ll have to keep reminding yourself to return to Se type of info. Then the Se networks will begin forming.

[Pookie]

Well in moments of Fe/Ti extrapolation ive been caught completely ignoring the Fi aspects of scenarios before. Like, my friend asked me a question and I gave him my 2 cents, and from an Fi standpoint it would have been shocking that I said what I did. But focusing on it through an fe/ti lens I didnt even think of the fi ramifications.

Now in that scenario, there was no contact with the person who I basically Fi offended. So, I think because the demonstrative isnt conscious, if you can remove yourself from the interaction you could probably circumvent the demonstrative lens you interpret things through. Abstractly dealing with the problem instead of in the midst. I think jf you were in the center of the hurricane, the demonstrative would warp everything to its standards because the unconscious is at play dealing with the raw overload of stimuli that happens when you deal with things first hand.

[Soupman]

Yes but proficiency is not guaranteed.

Can't paste a table on this topic



Aspect of implementing functions (TIMs)	Indicators of reliability	Unreliable indicators
Intuition Opportunities (EIE and LIE)	Seizes promising opportunities, choose from a range of opportunities optimal	Miss opportunities, lost in the multi-variant situation, blaming the problem of choosing the other
Intuition of Time (LII and EII)	Punctual in the prescribed period, to monitor trends	Late or in a hurry, tear terms, missing trends
Volitional Sensor (ESE and LSE)	Neat, well-kept, control the territory and status, good value their strength	Untidy, do not look for appearance, inattentive to the territory and status, underestimate or overestimate their strength
Sensonrika Sensations (LSI and ESI)	Maintain their health, create around themselves a comfortable, well-maintained environment	Start up your health, have uncomfortable, groomed environment at home and in the workplace
Business Logic (ILE and SLE)	Are healthy, active, choose the most effective ways of working	Refuse to work and action, make useless, unnecessary work, are ineffective
Structural Logic (OR, SSI)	Comply with the rules, laws and agreements	Not bound by the rules and arrangements violate laws
Ethics of emotions (SEE and IEE)	Maintained stable emotional background, uplifting, light enthusiasm	Heating up the emotional environment exacerbate the situation, pump depression
Ethics training (EISs and IEI)	Polite and accommodating communicate with people, even up complicated the situation	Allow yourself to rudeness, disrespect for the people coming to the conflict, provoke quarrels in relations

[anndelise]

There's also the Aspectonics approach. For LII...
Fields:
Ni interactions + explicit/defined properties -> Ti
Ti + sensory interactions -> Si
Si + affect properties -> Fi
Fi + abstracting interactions ->
Ni interactions

Objects: Fe interactions + abstracting properties -> Ne + explicit/defined interactions -> Te + sensory properties -> Se + affect interactions -> Fe

You've already got the Ni+Ti part, so when you focus on which of the Ti you can physically see/touch/interact with, this will build up your sensory network, and also your Se since focusing on sensory fields requires dealing with sensory objects. It will also attach the sensory fields to your current networks, making it easier to build off of, instead of starting from scratch. Similar if you add affect fields, it would also build your Fe type networks. It also means you're only changing a couple of traits at a time, again expanding existing networks to include the other types of information.

[xerx]

I always interpreted the "time" dimension as giving a meta-awareness of the function's use, including any deficiencies. If mastery includes pushing the boundaries of what a function can overcome, it requires the ability to determine what can go wrong.

Tracking the development of an idea through time requires a bird's eye view. It means being able to jump to and manipulate any point in the process, hence the "meta" designation.

By contrast, the creative function's range is circumscribed within fairly solid parameters. It focuses strategically only on the correct, ideal information within its sphere of implementation.

[ouronis]

I think the only way to quiet them down would be to turn your attention to types of information that would compete for cognition. Such as Fi instead of Ti, maybe.

Also, consider that the type of info you have as 4D has more neural connections that will trigger/fire off. Those that fire together, wire together, and vice versa. So with the 4D elements, you'll have that type of info easily triggered. Kind of like if you spent a few years studying a topic, as you research other topics you'll likely be noticing instances where the new topic connects with the old topic.

With 1D we just experience the type of info. X.
With 2D we notice patterns to the experiences. When/if X, then means A. Type of thing.
With 3D we've experienced and attended to and reflected on enough of those patterns that we know of situational differences. A if X or Y. If X, then A or B or C.
With 4D we've gained enough experiences, patterns, situational differences, etc that we can see how things developed to get to the point of A, or how things might progress given X, Y, and Z.

Also think of it in terms of how much of that info we can juggle within our working memory. It used to be thought we could handle 7+/-2 clearly delineated items, though it has since dropped down to about 4. But for each "slot" we can unpack it and repack as needed. We are much more limited in juggling, packing, and unpacking 1D type of info than we can with 4D type of info, which we have a much richer database/system to draw from.

Edited to add: sorry, i forgot to bring it around to your question again.
You can try approaching it by picking out maybe 2 things to begin delineating from. For Se maybe something like what are the Se type properties of object A? What are the Se type properties of object B? How can you distinguish A from B using Se type of info? Add another object that is similar, to begin building a packing/unpacking system for Se type of info.

Edited to add again: initially it will be difficult, with the Ti/Ni being constantly triggered. So you,ll have to keep reminding yourself to return to Se type of info. Then the Se networks will begin forming.

I notice that 3D is basically an extension of 2D over time in what you've written here(and 4D). If a 2D function can observe enough patterns to become a 3D function, there doesn't seem to be a fundamental difference between the two, and it implies that 2D functions can eventually be raised to 4D functions.

[anndelise]

I notice that 3D is basically an extension of 2D over time in what you've written here(and 4D). If a 2D function can observe enough patterns to become a 3D function, there doesn't seem to be a fundamental difference between the two, and it implies that 2D functions can eventually be raised to 4D functions.

Right, there isn't a clear delineation between the dimensions. It's not like passing a line and yay, now I'm at 3D Ti!
However, it's not so much time itself that's required, but further experiences and ruminations and effort...which do take time.

Yes, 2D functions have been raised to 4D...we were all born with the capacity for 1D experiences in each element, and over time and immersion and ruminating about situations/experiences that involved certain types of information, we gradually built up the network/memory/database of that type of info. But consider how much immersion and such that took. Children learn at exponential rates, adults learn significantly slower and require significantly more effort.

Consider language learning. A child is exposed to the sounds of the language, learns how to differentiate the sounds, how combined sounds have meanings (words) and how those combined words have further meanings, and so on and so on. They learn this rather effortlessly, but it required a particular stage of brain developing, deep immersion, and people providing feedback in their efforts (which initially is a jumbled mess).

Now, consider the difficulties adults have with learning a 2nd language. How much trouble they have with thinking in their native language and then trying to translate those thoughts into the second language. If they can't learn to think in the 2nd language, they won't get far. But there are programs that help them immerse themselves in a language and a culture that uses that language. But it also requires them to NOT take the easy way out and resort to using their native language in communication attempts. Even then, for the vast majority, they still can't develop fluency, and their vocabulary in that language is impoverished. And most adults get so frustrated with their limitations in their initial stages....not appreciating the fact that their vocabulary is that of a toddler's (without the extensive sound database) while their thoughts are significantly more complex. It'd be like trying to give a college level lecture but only capable of speaking like a 2yo.


However, just like in 2nd language learning, if one spends the time learning the new vocabulary related to a specific topic of interest, then at least they can communicate within that particular topic. Similar if one wanted to turn 1D into earliest form of 2D. Such as for a 1D Ti to take a few critical thinking and logic related courses and practice it on something like...a forum. However, if they didn't approach it AS a budding Ti, but instead attempted to "translate" it via Fi with some Fe/Te, their ability to produce something resembling Ti is still going to be severely limited. Whereas, if they had done it AS a budding Ti, they could begin to transfer the rules and norms they learned from the one forum topic into another topic, practice that, learn from it, etc....and then eventually transfer that to yet another topic, each time getting a little easier and a little easier as their Ti type vocabulary and grammar grows.



So, yeah, it's doable...eventually. But the amount of success would depend on how doing it, and level of motivation to do it. Can that motivation push the person through all the initial hardships? Is it really worth that person's time/energy/efforts/frustrations to go through all this? Will their life be enhanced AS they're doing it?

[mu4]

All functions are always on, but relatively 4D functions are ON, ALL CAPS.

Evaluatory functions, 1/4/5/8 functions are also quite different vs Situational functions 2/3/6/7.

Also like in many ways function 4/5 are always ON as well, but in a neurotic fashion. Both 4th/5h function behavior is very reaction based vs generative or creative.

[Myst]

It used to be thought we could handle 7+/-2 clearly delineated items, though it has since dropped down to about 4.

Source?

You can try approaching it by picking out maybe 2 things to begin delineating from. For Se maybe something like what are the Se type properties of object A? What are the Se type properties of object B? How can you distinguish A from B using Se type of info? Add another object that is similar, to begin building a packing/unpacking system for Se type of info.

Edited to add again: initially it will be difficult, with the Ti/Ni being constantly triggered. So you,ll have to keep reminding yourself to return to Se type of info. Then the Se networks will begin forming.

@LIIbrarian also, I'm having a hard time imagining that Ti/Ni goes "over" Se when it's put in this way anndelise did now. I mean, surely everyone has two eyes to see with (and the other senses as well) and has had time in their life to experience objects in every way. So the Se PoLR person also sees these properties of the object and is easily able to sense the visible/tangible differences between objects, no? Why would this have to be practiced? I'm sorry it makes no sense to me, explain a bit more about what you with Se PoLR exactly lack there? I thought it was more like just being inattentive? Is this me being unable to think outside my Leading function?

You've already got the Ni+Ti part, so when you focus on which of the Ti you can physically see/touch/interact with, this will build up your sensory network, and also your Se since focusing on sensory fields requires dealing with sensory objects. It will also attach the sensory fields to your current networks, making it easier to build off of, instead of starting from scratch.

OK and this again sounds like the above... surely everyone has the basic sensory networks. It's needed for survival What I'm trying to say is I thought Se PoLR types are just inattentive to these things most of the time. Though, I'm probably missing something here because I know that with my Fi PoLR it seems like I'm not "just inattentive" to Fi information, though there is that too, definitely .

I notice that 3D is basically an extension of 2D over time in what you've written here(and 4D). If a 2D function can observe enough patterns to become a 3D function, there doesn't seem to be a fundamental difference between the two, and it implies that 2D functions can eventually be raised to 4D functions.

Can, with a 0.0001% chance. Lol. But anndelise already explained why.

Now, consider the difficulties adults have with learning a 2nd language. How much trouble they have with thinking in their native language and then trying to translate those thoughts into the second language. If they can't learn to think in the 2nd language, they won't get far. But there are programs that help them immerse themselves in a language and a culture that uses that language. But it also requires them to NOT take the easy way out and resort to using their native language in communication attempts. Even then, for the vast majority, they still can't develop fluency, and their vocabulary in that language is impoverished. And most adults get so frustrated with their limitations in their initial stages....not appreciating the fact that their vocabulary is that of a toddler's (without the extensive sound database) while their thoughts are significantly more complex. It'd be like trying to give a college level lecture but only capable of speaking like a 2yo.


However, just like in 2nd language learning, if one spends the time learning the new vocabulary related to a specific topic of interest, then at least they can communicate within that particular topic. Similar if one wanted to turn 1D into earliest form of 2D. Such as for a 1D Ti to take a few critical thinking and logic related courses and practice it on something like...a forum. However, if they didn't approach it AS a budding Ti, but instead attempted to "translate" it via Fi with some Fe/Te, their ability to produce something resembling Ti is still going to be severely limited. Whereas, if they had done it AS a budding Ti, they could begin to transfer the rules and norms they learned from the one forum topic into another topic, practice that, learn from it, etc....and then eventually transfer that to yet another topic, each time getting a little easier and a little easier as their Ti type vocabulary and grammar grows.


So, yeah, it's doable...eventually. But the amount of success would depend on how doing it, and level of motivation to do it. Can that motivation push the person through all the initial hardships? Is it really worth that person's time/energy/efforts/frustrations to go through all this? Will their life be enhanced AS they're doing it?

That's a pretty interesting example, the language learning. I don't know if this is type dependent too but I found my own shortcut to learning languages without having to bother with all the bs trying to translate my thoughts from my first language to my second language. That shortcut involved no use of my first language so I was able to straight jump into thinking in the new language. I implied this may be type dependent because I used Ti for the shortcut. I could've used Se too but I figured this was a faster shortcut if I wanted to quickly pass a language exam that I was sorta required to take (optional but it did give me a big advantage if I got the exam done so I did).

The other thing I want to comment on... transferring information processing proficiency in one specific task to another one. First let me say I don't relate to your example where you said that you will naturally relate a new topic to an old topic. (This sounded Ne to me and I don't have much Ne.) And yeah, I don't see how you make this work with a low dimensionality function.

I do see this working for ego functions though, at least for the Creative, so far I had two periods in my life where I could see some Ti stuff being transferred to other areas. It was a quite interesting experience for the first such period. Quite.. impactful. In either of these periods, I did not have to consciously try to transfer the new Ti to other topics, it happened on its own.

So, as I said, I have a hard time seeing how this would work so well for non-Ego functions. Like, I do exercise my Ne role sometimes, say when I was trying to understand socionics theory lol, but it did not transfer to any other topics. And I'm going to say I'm quite ok with it *not* transferring. I don't have a motivation to be that much better at Ne, though sometimes I do think it'd be very useful in service of Se goals. In that way I may be able to learn to go to Ne better if needed, through this line of Se->Ti->Ne. I'm no good at trying to directly access Ne, I definitely lack the networks for it, they are not built up to be global enough, and I don't have the motivation for that either. I have quite the cognitive aversion for accessing Ne directly.

And that's just the role function as an example, let's not talk about PoLR now Etc...

I hope all that made sense. Let me know.

[chemical]

It really is a mindset thing --- while everyone has sensations, the key is the raw physical stimulus hitting you vs not, yes, is just perhaps being attentive, but the ego functions are more like your mindset and means to interface with this realm than merely the 5 organs themselves. Which is why Se is often thought of in socionics not merely in terms of having awareness of an object, but your involvement with it, ability to move it, etc.

A good way to look at this I've found is force/acceleration modifies the kinetic energy of something (i.e. you "move" something), and Ni is seeing this from a different perspective, more like what abstract time-dependent path the object is taking (change in potential through time perhaps). This continuous change is a certain perspective on the fact that an object is being affected somehow (Se). The ILI perspective e.g. says to prevent corrosion, and to maximize the fulfillment of demands of their IP orientation, which tends to say step into the flow and ride it in a certain sense, you calculate the efficiency of the processes you undergo to navigate, and minimize the inefficiencies.
This is why commonly these are "equivalent" but in a very indirect way.

One-dimensional Se can do the bare minimum in terms of knowing what is physically in front of you, but the kind of information a Ne/Ti transmits to awareness tends to bypass much of this direct involvement, which is probably what LIIbrarian experiences in the OP.

[Myst]

It really is a mindset thing --- while everyone has sensations, the key is the raw physical stimulus hitting you vs not, yes, is just perhaps being attentive, but the ego functions are more like your mindset and means to interface with this realm than merely the 5 organs themselves. Which is why Se is often thought of in socionics not merely in terms of having awareness of an object, but your involvement with it, ability to move it, etc.

That makes sense

When I said I don't know if it's just not being attentive... I know some people who are low in Se who do have trouble that goes beyond simply not being aware of Se out of habit. But this isn't true of all the people who are typing themselves as types low in Se. So idk.

A good way to look at this I've found is force/acceleration modifies the kinetic energy of something (i.e. you "move" something), and Ni is seeing this from a different perspective, more like what abstract time-dependent path the object is taking (change in potential through time perhaps). This continuous change is a certain perspective on the fact that an object is being affected somehow (Se). The ILI perspective e.g. says to prevent corrosion, and to maximize the fulfillment of demands of their IP orientation, which tends to say step into the flow and ride it in a certain sense, you calculate the efficiency of the processes you undergo to navigate, and minimize the inefficiencies.
This is why commonly these are "equivalent" but in a very indirect way.

One-dimensional Se can do the bare minimum in terms of knowing what is physically in front of you, but the kind of information a Ne/Ti transmits to awareness tends to bypass much of this direct involvement, which is probably what LIIbrarian experiences in the OP.

OK. Are you able to make it all conscious and when it's made conscious how well are you able to handle the Se info? (I know you type as LII so Se PoLR)

[ConcreteButterfly]

well none of the functions are really turned off, the psyche works as a system one function leading to the other. it's apparently, in the order of acceptance and processing of information, going from 5th -> 6th -> 7th -> 8th -> 3rd -> -4th -> 1st -> 2nd.
with the 4D functions, I'm guessing their time-relevant info would be most "potent" to the next immediate function, that is the role for the 8th, the creative for the 1st. so when using either of these functions you're probably taking the preceding function's time-relevance into account more than expected.

eg. SLI when using Ni would be accounting for time-related Ti info

the other functions (down the line) would likely have a diluted impression of the 4D functions' time-relevance.
the 5th function is probably least affected by time since it is the start of information metabolism

[ConcreteButterfly]

Yes but proficiency is not guaranteed.

Can't paste a table on this topic



Aspect of implementing functions (TIMs)	Indicators of reliability	Unreliable indicators
Intuition Opportunities (EIE and LIE)	Seizes promising opportunities, choose from a range of opportunities optimal	Miss opportunities, lost in the multi-variant situation, blaming the problem of choosing the other
Intuition of Time (LII and EII)	Punctual in the prescribed period, to monitor trends	Late or in a hurry, tear terms, missing trends
Volitional Sensor (ESE and LSE)	Neat, well-kept, control the territory and status, good value their strength	Untidy, do not look for appearance, inattentive to the territory and status, underestimate or overestimate their strength
Sensonrika Sensations (LSI and ESI)	Maintain their health, create around themselves a comfortable, well-maintained environment	Start up your health, have uncomfortable, groomed environment at home and in the workplace
Business Logic (ILE and SLE)	Are healthy, active, choose the most effective ways of working	Refuse to work and action, make useless, unnecessary work, are ineffective
Structural Logic (OR, SSI)	Comply with the rules, laws and agreements	Not bound by the rules and arrangements violate laws
Ethics of emotions (SEE and IEE)	Maintained stable emotional background, uplifting, light enthusiasm	Heating up the emotional environment exacerbate the situation, pump depression
Ethics training (EISs and IEI)	Polite and accommodating communicate with people, even up complicated the situation	Allow yourself to rudeness, disrespect for the people coming to the conflict, provoke quarrels in relations

where is this from?

[Soupman]

where is this from?

Socionics Scientific Research Institute Socionics.ru I forgot the article, I wanted to post the link originally but couldn't find it.

IF you have time, you might find it m their site

[wacey]

well none of the functions are really turned off, the psyche works as a system one function leading to the other. it's apparently, in the order of acceptance and processing of information, going from 5th -> 6th -> 7th -> 8th -> 3rd -> -4th -> 1st -> 2nd.
with the 4D functions, I'm guessing their time-relevant info would be most "potent" to the next immediate function, that is the role for the 8th, the creative for the 1st. so when using either of these functions you're probably taking the preceding function's time-relevance into account more than expected.

eg. SLI when using Ni would be accounting for time-related Ti info

the other functions (down the line) would likely have a diluted impression of the 4D functions' time-relevance.
the 5th function is probably least affected by time since it is the start of information metabolism

Sounds great in theory, but where are you getting the function ordering from?

[chemical]

@Myst regarding this

Are you able to make it all conscious and when it's made conscious how well are you able to handle the Se info?

Basically I think in my case, I'm a bit more handicapped than average. Probably am one of those highly intuitive sorts myself.

In general to this thread, I'd say there's a distinction between whether an information element is conscious in the socionics sense and conscious in the Jung sense. Both concepts are important -- the latter differs from the former in that it's more about psychological relevance than informational coherence (in socionics, the latter corresponds to static/dynamic). The latter is where differentiation between Ne/Se happens for example.

So I like to say, of course sensation happens, and honestly how horrible someone is with sensation-based things might sometimes amount more to general clumsiness, etc. Might not best be explained by psychological type. (I'm on the clumsy side, but I'm not sure everyone with my information type would be quite as bad.)

There's a line between complements and true opposites -- I tend to see the two static perceptions more in the former light. Hence, they both end up being conscious, in the sense that one becomes aware of the information, but not necessarily in a directed way. With complements, in theory one should be able to access both, were it not for psychological relevance intervening. To take the example of potential observation vs observation of being able to move, as we know these complete each other, but from a psychological relevance standpoint, the question is at what point is there sufficient richness of information collected of the former, that one finally lets go to examine the latter? Also, since one is identified with one, and in theory the other is complementary, there's frequently the urge to try to reduce attempts to get at the latter to an issue of the former. That's one common way the latter gets "dodged" and then springs itself on you when you finally pay attention.

Assuming you were fine with the part about Se being a potential ego function, rather than just raw ability to feel the bodily senses, the question is more about how much directedness one employs to organize the very raw material conveyed by the senses into a relevant perception -- and that's what is reduced for Ne ego types.

[ConcreteButterfly]

Sounds great in theory, but where are you getting the function ordering from?

its from here http://www.socioniko.net but i forget which article exactly (it's in the russian section)

[Myst]

In general to this thread, I'd say there's a distinction between whether an information element is conscious in the socionics sense and conscious in the Jung sense. Both concepts are important -- the latter differs from the former in that it's more about psychological relevance than informational coherence (in socionics, the latter corresponds to static/dynamic). The latter is where differentiation between Ne/Se happens for example.

I thought that a function does not need to be conscious to still have good informational coherence, even to have full 4D. So I don't see why they need to differ from the jungian version here. ?

So I like to say, of course sensation happens, and honestly how horrible someone is with sensation-based things might sometimes amount more to general clumsiness, etc. Might not best be explained by psychological type. (I'm on the clumsy side, but I'm not sure everyone with my information type would be quite as bad.)

It's definitely a strong trend about people with your type being clumsy but yes I'm not sure if that's always true.

There's a line between complements and true opposites -- I tend to see the two static perceptions more in the former light. Hence, they both end up being conscious, in the sense that one becomes aware of the information, but not necessarily in a directed way. With complements, in theory one should be able to access both, were it not for psychological relevance intervening. To take the example of potential observation vs observation of being able to move, as we know these complete each other, but from a psychological relevance standpoint, the question is at what point is there sufficient richness of information collected of the former, that one finally lets go to examine the latter? Also, since one is identified with one, and in theory the other is complementary, there's frequently the urge to try to reduce attempts to get at the latter to an issue of the former. That's one common way the latter gets "dodged" and then springs itself on you when you finally pay attention.

Er how are Se and Ne complementary?

Assuming you were fine with the part about Se being a potential ego function, rather than just raw ability to feel the bodily senses, the question is more about how much directedness one employs to organize the very raw material conveyed by the senses into a relevant perception -- and that's what is reduced for Ne ego types.

Can you please go into this more - what kind of directedness are we talking about? Relevant perception? Describe this whole thing more please

[chemical]

o I don't see why they need to differ from the jungian version here. ?

Well to make the paradigm difference more concrete, in Jung, conscious for you would be sensation+thinking, or just sensation even, and unconscious would be intuition and feeling. Different from dividing into SeTiNeFi / the rest. It's just a terminology difference in what he means by conscious. In socionics consciousness seems to be more that you become aware of information in a certain format, whereas consciousness is more like a preference in Jung, and more related to how the will of the ego is carried out in accordance with a distinctive principle.

Can you please go into this more - what kind of directedness are we talking about? Relevant perception?

Yes, or in other words, what your senses do is just give you the ability to see/interact with the physical, but the ego function involves an act of will and a certain "intelligence" about the perception and interfacing with it. One of the things that's often underestimated is how much "perception" is ultimately a mental thing, i.e., the line between simply receiving stimulus and forming images of that stimulus enabling you to interact intelligently with it.

As to the complementary part, well it's not saying any more than that Ne/Se together provide the full picture of static perception...but the thing I wanted to emphasize is that I've come to find the complementary vs opposite distinction important. I don't think of N/S or T/F as opposites and find this fine distinction really helps get at the psychology of the types more closely. Probably you could ignore this part, as it's not the most directly relevant to what you were asking. Hope that helps.

[Myst]

well none of the functions are really turned off, the psyche works as a system one function leading to the other. it's apparently, in the order of acceptance and processing of information, going from 5th -> 6th -> 7th -> 8th -> 3rd -> -4th -> 1st -> 2nd.

I'm pretty sure not all of them are always on

Just think about how many brain areas are not constantly on.

Weird ordering...

Well to make the paradigm difference more concrete, in Jung, conscious for you would be sensation+thinking, or just sensation even, and unconscious would be intuition and feeling. Different from dividing into SeTiNeFi / the rest. It's just a terminology difference in what he means by conscious. In socionics consciousness seems to be more that you become aware of information in a certain format, whereas consciousness is more like a preference in Jung, and more related to how the will of the ego is carried out in accordance with a distinctive principle.

Yes I know jungian theory; but as for the definition of "conscious", I don't see a difference there. The information format that becomes conscious is the preferred format. Or what do you mean by preference if not that?

Yes, or in other words, what your senses do is just give you the ability to see/interact with the physical, but the ego function involves an act of will and a certain "intelligence" about the perception and interfacing with it. One of the things that's often underestimated is how much "perception" is ultimately a mental thing, i.e., the line between simply receiving stimulus and forming images of that stimulus enabling you to interact intelligently with it.

Yeah that's a good point about the perceptions being generated by your brain. I'd just like to be more clear on this "intelligence" about perception that's lacked by Se PoLR. Please don't forget I'm pretty biased there about Se, it being in my ego, so I'm having a hard time understanding your PoLR.

To clarify where I'm having the issue, see where I responded to @anndelise about Se above in the thread here

As to the complementary part, well it's not saying any more than that Ne/Se together provide the full picture of static perception...but the thing I wanted to emphasize is that I've come to find the complementary vs opposite distinction important. I don't think of N/S or T/F as opposites and find this fine distinction really helps get at the psychology of the types more closely. Probably you could ignore this part, as it's not the most directly relevant to what you were asking. Hope that helps.

Yeah um that's right about N/S or T/F but I think that's Ni/Se rather than Ne/Se in terms of being complementary

[chemical]

The information format that becomes conscious is the preferred format

In socionics, to put it this way, the ego block is probably the only one Jung would've considered conscious (if not only the base).
Which is significantly different a definition from noting 4 conscious and 4 unconscious. In my language, I wouldn't say that the 4 conscious indicate a preference so much as there is a preference among the information paradigms that are socionics-conscious, and that gives rise to ego/superego.

Jung definitely would not put 4 things as conscious -- only 1-2. But again, because he is meaning a slightly different thing, because consciousness for him is closer to direct relevance to the ego.

but I think that's Ni/Se

I think to not get caught on terminology, here's the difference: you only can have Ne and Se together, not Ni/Se in the mental blocks, so I think of Ni/Se more as opposite-equivalents than completing the picture (of perception) for one another. Going to the changing-potential/force that is the agent of this change analogy illustrates how Ni/Se is a little more like the same thing viewed from different perspectives, whereas Ne/Se actually aren't so much equivalents as building the incomplete picture together.

I get the sense this is why one can accept info of the suggestive and welcome it once one realizes what it contributes, whereas with the Polr it's more like which part you fell short on, misestimated, etc.

I'd just like to be more clear on this "intelligence" about perception that's lacked by Se PoLR.

I get the sense it's not that Ne types don't have the ability to exercise it so much as they are drained by switching from Ne. At least what I think is the answer to LIIbrarian's question is basically that in part this demonstrative being constantly active in the background is offsetting the energy losses that might occur from needing to move consciousness too directly from Ne to Se. So Ni is serving more to ensure vital stores aren't depleted than really in inherently valuing Ni style information.

I mean the main thing extraverted functions do is they really and truly engage objects, and Se really is the mindset of how can I affect an object. You can see how Ne mindsets tend to be way more indirect -- seeing the absolute potential of the object, rather than how to affect the objective situation. Yet without doing so, we can become directionless. How to ensure this doesn't happen? I get the sense this is where a Ni perspective is assumed. Forming a kind of mental impressionstic trajectory.

[Myst]

In socionics, to put it this way, the ego block is probably the only one Jung would've considered conscious (if not only the base).
Which is significantly different a definition from noting 4 conscious and 4 unconscious. In my language, I wouldn't say that the 4 conscious indicate a preference so much as there is a preference among the information paradigms that are socionics-conscious, and that gives rise to ego/superego.

OK but superego is only weakly conscious anyway. The difference is really that Jung thought only certain people develop an auxiliary enough...

I think to not get caught on terminology, here's the difference: you only can have Ne and Se together, not Ni/Se in the mental blocks, so I think of Ni/Se more as opposite-equivalents than completing the picture (of perception) for one another. Going to the changing-potential/force that is the agent of this change analogy illustrates how Ni/Se is a little more like the same thing viewed from different perspectives, whereas Ne/Se actually aren't so much equivalents as building the incomplete picture together.

Lol word usage, I would say opposites for Ne/Se and complementary for Ni/Se but I see what you mean.

I get the sense it's not that Ne types don't have the ability to exercise it so much as they are drained by switching from Ne. At least what I think is the answer to LIIbrarian's question is basically that in part this demonstrative being constantly active in the background is offsetting the energy losses that might occur from needing to move consciousness too directly from Ne to Se. So Ni is serving more to ensure vital stores aren't depleted than really in inherently valuing Ni style information.

I mean the main thing extraverted functions do is they really and truly engage objects, and Se really is the mindset of how can I affect an object. You can see how Ne mindsets tend to be way more indirect -- seeing the absolute potential of the object, rather than how to affect the objective situation. Yet without doing so, we can become directionless. How to ensure this doesn't happen? I get the sense this is where a Ni perspective is assumed. Forming a kind of mental impressionstic trajectory.

Well getting drained by it is one thing, sure. But I find that with my PoLR it's more than just it being draining (and also more than just me being inattentive on it). Are you able to describe what it is like when you try to focus on Se? Some real life situations would help. And how does the Ni play any part in this? That part was very abstract, some example?

[chemical]

OK but superego is only weakly conscious anyway. The difference is really that Jung thought only certain people develop an auxiliary enough...

Regardless, the point for me is just that there's two versions of "conscious" floating around: one is what you become aware of as part of assembling a coherent picture of reality, and the other in terms of directedness/will/etc.
The clearest I can put my point is that the latter is what Jung primarily referred to but also was aware of the other definition. Just that he never developed an 8-function-attitude model, and so his classification of types referred to just one.

If you don't see a huge need to distinguish the superego version of what you call weakly conscious from say the superid version of unconscious, then that distinction I mentioned would have no meaning for you FWIW.

Well getting drained by it is one thing, sure.

I think I probably am using things like "drained" in a much wider way than you might be FWIW -- like if you just view the ego + its motives as a collection of energetic charges together with mental maps for how to carry them out that constantly get updated, much of what is ego dystonic is a kind of negative energy experience. One can certainly use some strong terminology for how it is, and I'm far from nonchalant about it myself. I think the real main thing for the LII is you simply cannot approach certain situations primarily with principle and reason.
To give an Si-centric example, there's a difference between the principles defining sugar and the experience of tasting sugar. An ordinary example of the Ni/Se thing I was talking of in more concrete terms might be as simple as the relation between exerting force to move a situation and forecasting a trajectory for it to move in and envisioning how it may evolve.

[Myst]

Regardless, the point for me is just that there's two versions of "conscious" floating around: one is what you become aware of as part of assembling a coherent picture of reality, and the other in terms of directedness/will/etc.
The clearest I can put my point is that the latter is what Jung primarily referred to but also was aware of the other definition. Just that he never developed an 8-function-attitude model, and so his classification of types referred to just one.

If you don't see a huge need to distinguish the superego version of what you call weakly conscious from say the superid version of unconscious, then that distinction I mentioned would have no meaning for you FWIW.

OK I see what you mean. That makes sense about Jung. How do you distinguish the superego from superid in this way? I make a difference between them based on the former having more conscious information processing though not really via a complete coherent picture of reality

I think I probably am using things like "drained" in a much wider way than you might be FWIW -- like if you just view the ego + its motives as a collection of energetic charges together with mental maps for how to carry them out that constantly get updated, much of what is ego dystonic is a kind of negative energy experience. One can certainly use some strong terminology for how it is, and I'm far from nonchalant about it myself. I think the real main thing for the LII is you simply cannot approach certain situations primarily with principle and reason.

I still say it's not just about a negative energy experience. There's a reason for the idea of function dimensionality, right?

To give an Si-centric example, there's a difference between the principles defining sugar and the experience of tasting sugar.

So can you do this sugar example with Ne vs Se from your own perspective?

[chemical]

I still say it's not just about a negative energy experience. There's a reason for the idea of function dimensionality, right?

I confess I'm a bit Jung-biased there. I don't use dimensionality too much, to be honest, as I've not yet found a way that works uniformly to separate what exactly is 1D vs 2D vs 4D. But I do use it loosely.

I don't think it is entirely energy-loss, so much as that's how I tend to experience the effects most distressingly. In terms of what causes the energy loss, it's more like your fundamental mental condition is to tend to get at Se through a Ne-corrupted point of view. It's like since they are together completing the static perception picture, but your ego is identified only with one, you're bound to view one as the "residual part" of the picture rather than an equally important part for it to be complete.

As for Ne/Se and how I experience it, perhaps we are already seeing it with you and me, and our discussion here has a really similar flavor to ones I've had with Ananke, also SLE with high Ti, and also E8 interestingly. It's like there's a clear understanding and way to communicate due to high Ti on both sides, which helps me because I can clarify for ages and ages.
However, in terms of raw perceiving, rather than analysis, my mindset to gathering new information or presenting new information is extremely associational, with a giant "how are we expanding or weaving new paradigms into the essential conceptual contents of the entire flow of thought."

On this front, it tends to take some time for my clarifications to hit home -- i.e. for it to be clear how it is I actually clarified.

The really important thing here to note though is much of this is actually in a heavy T-biased context, and Se if anything isn't entering as the raw information involved so much as a mindset. It's a funny thing -- not the detail-orientation of Ti, a very different kind. How so? It tends to single out objects, kind of fixate on them, rather than view them solely as part of a relational framework. I think how it works with TiNe is one is constantly taking angles on the entire content of the relational frameworks in a flash. Any addition or subtraction of given rules is assessed against this kind of shift for me. Probably this is holographic-panoramic biased a description.

On a practical level this shows up as an excessive focus on the entirety of the context and a seeming indirectness. For me, it shows up in a sort of baffledness as to how I can clarify.

It's quite interesting. I've seen the same pattern with virtually every SLE I've talked to. Not sure if it would differ with LSIs -- haven't spoken in depth with any of them.

[chemical]

Though, I'm probably missing something here because I know that with my Fi PoLR it seems like I'm not "just inattentive" to Fi information, though there is that too, definitely

How about you explain what you mean by this, if you're up for it, and I can comment in parallel.

I think a good way of condensing stuff from my last post is I find perceiving functions more contextual, so the difference is how one assembles that context -- more through ideational association, greater holism and potential seeking, or greater directness and relatedness to one's own concrete experiential awareness.

Like I hinted, neither of these shows up as a weakness where our discussion is going, because it is so judgment-friendly that Ti seems to make up for any differences in style. But in other contexts of life, the difference becomes not so much a difficulty as a real mismatch of mindsets.

If you want to know whether this causes me to actually miss information, well sure. I tend to be quite detailed, but if anyone notices, not in my intake of information -- rather, in the thoughts I produce myself. Also Ti being relational, I may gain very little detail as to a given object I perceive, yet in the creation of concepts, fine relational distinctions constantly come to mind, which is why sometimes I seem needlessly nitpicky with models and such, but I'm not nitpicking the facts so much as the overall meaning of assembling rules in certain ways.

For me, polr is really a symptom related to the order of your ego functions. In Ti's case, the biggest and scariest thing on my list is when I cannot reason with something in a coherent way. Yet often reason is not independent of contextual experience or at least we cannot generally get rid of that factor. So that factor becomes key in HOW I know I can always reason, and Ne has become a big backbone in this way. When that how is challenged, which Se mindsets do, since they perceive the context so differently, that's where everything goes to the dogs and I find I cannot deal.

Wow, I actually came up with an example. Hope it helps, but I am pleased with myself regarldess, heh.

[Myst]

I confess I'm a bit Jung-biased there. I don't use dimensionality too much, to be honest, as I've not yet found a way that works uniformly to separate what exactly is 1D vs 2D vs 4D. But I do use it loosely.

OK by that I basically just meant that there is some sort of skill level associated with functions. (Before anyone jumps on "skill", I'll clarify I mean this in a general way throughout all real life scenarios, not just in one specific task.)

I don't think it is entirely energy-loss, so much as that's how I tend to experience the effects most distressingly. In terms of what causes the energy loss, it's more like your fundamental mental condition is to tend to get at Se through a Ne-corrupted point of view. It's like since they are together completing the static perception picture, but your ego is identified only with one, you're bound to view one as the "residual part" of the picture rather than an equally important part for it to be complete.

Lol Ne-corrupted pov? Sounds esoteric to me If you got any irl examples, I'd like to hear

As for Ne/Se and how I experience it, perhaps we are already seeing it with you and me, and our discussion here has a really similar flavor to ones I've had with Ananke, also SLE with high Ti, and also E8 interestingly. It's like there's a clear understanding and way to communicate due to high Ti on both sides, which helps me because I can clarify for ages and ages.
However, in terms of raw perceiving, rather than analysis, my mindset to gathering new information or presenting new information is extremely associational, with a giant "how are we expanding or weaving new paradigms into the essential conceptual contents of the entire flow of thought."

On this front, it tends to take some time for my clarifications to hit home -- i.e. for it to be clear how it is I actually clarified.

Haha about Ananke, yeah I don't do the associational part

The really important thing here to note though is much of this is actually in a heavy T-biased context, and Se if anything isn't entering as the raw information involved so much as a mindset. It's a funny thing -- not the detail-orientation of Ti, a very different kind. How so? It tends to single out objects, kind of fixate on them, rather than view them solely as part of a relational framework. I think how it works with TiNe is one is constantly taking angles on the entire content of the relational frameworks in a flash. Any addition or subtraction of given rules is assessed against this kind of shift for me. Probably this is holographic-panoramic biased a description.

On a practical level this shows up as an excessive focus on the entirety of the context and a seeming indirectness. For me, it shows up in a sort of baffledness as to how I can clarify.

Yeh it sounds like H-P Ti

OK before the H-P part it sounds a bit like you're contrasting extraversion with introversion But I get that Ne (base) would still be different from Se... How would having the Se mindset still work without Se raw information entering, tho? That's a serious question.

It's quite interesting. I've seen the same pattern with virtually every SLE I've talked to. Not sure if it would differ with LSIs -- haven't spoken in depth with any of them.

Try miss babydoll?

How about you explain what you mean by this, if you're up for it, and I can comment in parallel.

Well the PoLR for me, it's like, yes I'm usually just inattentive to it but if it comes to the conscious mind, it's like there are bits of Fi information that I can't assemble in any coherent way. It's only a simplistic focus on these bits that also change around without any real control, that is, you can't just put your focus on the bits to direct them in a consistent way: you may try but you will fail at it; though there is some kind of control on top of all of it (for the focusing and directing) but I can't say if that's Fi or something else, probably something else because it's not directly done on the Fi information itself. I can't really imagine Se being the PoLR in this fashion. Maybe I'm wrong though Your comments?

Btw I totally get the idea that Se as PoLR can be a negative experience and whatnot, just like the Fi is for me, but the above description is hard to translate to Se as the information element being PoLR, inside my sucky imagination anyway.

I think a good way of condensing stuff from my last post is I find perceiving functions more contextual, so the difference is how one assembles that context -- more through ideational association, greater holism and potential seeking, or greater directness and relatedness to one's own concrete experiential awareness.

Yes I noticed Se PoLRs have a problem with the latter...

Like I hinted, neither of these shows up as a weakness where our discussion is going, because it is so judgment-friendly that Ti seems to make up for any differences in style. But in other contexts of life, the difference becomes not so much a difficulty as a real mismatch of mindsets.

I actually see some mismatches here but nevermind that, nothing serious

If you want to know whether this causes me to actually miss information, well sure. I tend to be quite detailed, but if anyone notices, not in my intake of information -- rather, in the thoughts I produce myself. Also Ti being relational, I may gain very little detail as to a given object I perceive, yet in the creation of concepts, fine relational distinctions constantly come to mind, which is why sometimes I seem needlessly nitpicky with models and such, but I'm not nitpicking the facts so much as the overall meaning of assembling rules in certain ways.

I noticed

For me, polr is really a symptom related to the order of your ego functions. In Ti's case, the biggest and scariest thing on my list is when I cannot reason with something in a coherent way. Yet often reason is not independent of contextual experience or at least we cannot generally get rid of that factor.

Uh I find that an interesting conundrum; referring to your last sentence here ...Just a note

So that factor becomes key in HOW I know I can always reason, and Ne has become a big backbone in this way. When that how is challenged, which Se mindsets do, since they perceive the context so differently, that's where everything goes to the dogs and I find I cannot deal.

Wow, I actually came up with an example. Hope it helps, but I am pleased with myself regardless, heh.

Cool heh but I still want a concrete example

[chemical]

@Myst Babydoll seems to be one of those who gets me reasonably easily -- perhaps a good confirmation I'm more Ti-base than Ne-base (I am pretty sure my subtype is the Ne one nowadays).

I noticed

Probably this is all of the rest of our discussion with the Beebe/etc stuff on the other thread. I guess if someone doesn't come to understanding in the same format I do, it can seem like I'm making a huge deal of nothing. Usually this is pretty fixable with lengthy clarification though, which fortunately I don't tend to mind doing.

How would having the Se mindset still work without Se raw information entering, tho? That's a serious question.

Ah good question. Well this could be summarized as saying, I don't think the psychology of a Se-base goes away even when they're focusing more on Ti or whatever.

Psychological type to me is not about information or psychology alone, but their fusion. But when we pursue a different information format/focus on it, the psychological mindset native to our type tends to stay.

[Myst]

@Myst Babydoll seems to be one of those who gets me reasonably easily -- perhaps a good confirmation I'm more Ti-base than Ne-base (I am pretty sure my subtype is the Ne one nowadays).

Sure no problem with LII-Ne for you

Probably this is all of the rest of our discussion with the Beebe/etc stuff on the other thread. I guess if someone doesn't come to understanding in the same format I do, it can seem like I'm making a huge deal of nothing. Usually this is pretty fixable with lengthy clarification though, which fortunately I don't tend to mind doing.

That's cool (last sentence)

Ah good question. Well this could be summarized as saying, I don't think the psychology of a Se-base goes away even when they're focusing more on Ti or whatever.

OK. How about the rest of my post?

[Olly From Wally World]

They may or may not be but I am.

[chemical]

Anyway @Myst your Fi-polr seems to be about lacking the ability to see coherency. Which pretty much fits with Ep vs Ij issues, i.e. direct involvement with objects vs coherent relational frameworks. I guess if you want the analogue in me, it's similar to what I've been saying: Se-polr is about a resistance to direct involvement with objects, an excessive reliance on one's inner blueprint for what constitutes a coherent structural framework for rationalizing a body of concepts, and one's mindset as to objects is that they exist solely to expand such structural frameworks.

And this has shown up actually (and you seemed to have agreed) visibly in our discussions -- you're very capable (like babydoll) of getting a Ti statement. However, the two things different are:
-Not the same attachment to jumping straight to how to assemble a coherent framework
-Nowhere near the same addiction to holistic associational approach

So the point of a Ti-part in the whole might differ for different mindsets.

I find HP-Se/Ti, being panoramic, surveys the object from all angles for a complete objective apprehension. But TiNe's HP tends through associational leaps to survey various angles of the object not for a complete depiction of it, but for creation of new structural frameworks. It's the potential of the framework in mind the whole time.

I find S-types at times will object saying this conceptualization doesn't describe my sense apprehension. To me, the thing is half the time I'll have a hard time tweaking a law for that purpose and keep directing back to how that wouldn't change (again in holistic associational term) the framework, and that the objection is intuitively incorporated already -- it depends how one applies the framework to objects. The way I am may not align with another's. And this is really weird when someone's primary orientation is to objects -- but Ij in purest form isn't that way. A Ti "concept" doesn't exist as an object -- it's really a way of designating the relative logical association of ideas. Where we can have dialogue as to what the framework is actually about is in attempting to point to what contextual apprehensions triggered formation of our respective frameworks, and that's where the differences end up showing. One of the things about structural frameworks is they need be neither realistic nor match any kind of intuition, although as (I think) Ne-sub, I tend to try to ensure they must be the latter.

Other times it has nothing to do with Ti application styles, and just has to do with preferring Ne, which can have a "but it's all intuitively the same anyway" approach to things that S types say buuuuuut ittttt really is not....

Side note is I always found sensation+Ti interesting as compared to Te, in that both have a certain "realism." But, the way I understand the difference to be that sensation is a lot more about direct experience and involvement, so subsuming that into so-called "factual logic" that represents facts removed from sense experience is unappealing -- the subjective factor of structuring Ti frameworks might enable one to capture this involvement better.

[Myst]

Anyway @Myst your Fi-polr seems to be about lacking the ability to see coherency. Which pretty much fits with Ep vs Ij issues, i.e. direct involvement with objects vs coherent relational frameworks. I guess if you want the analogue in me, it's similar to what I've been saying: Se-polr is about a resistance to direct involvement with objects, an excessive reliance on one's inner blueprint for what constitutes a coherent structural framework for rationalizing a body of concepts, and one's mindset as to objects is that they exist solely to expand such structural frameworks.

Yes I understand that much.. hm I guess Se PoLR won't easily describe their PoLR in a Se way Would you want to try that?

As for the Fi, Fi sense of coherency isn't there, sure, only a Ti sense of it. Overall, I wasn't talking about lack of coherence itself but specifically about a lack of the Fi type of it.

And this has shown up actually (and you seemed to have agreed) visibly in our discussions -- you're very capable (like babydoll) of getting a Ti statement. However, the two things different are:
-Not the same attachment to jumping straight to how to assemble a coherent framework
-Nowhere near the same addiction to holistic associational approach

Good observations

I find S-types at times will object saying this conceptualization doesn't describe my sense apprehension.

I know exactly what you're talking about there. I find a lot of philosophy ideas (not all of them) are like that, I easily criticize from this standpoint.

Other times it has nothing to do with Ti application styles, and just has to do with preferring Ne, which can have a "but it's all intuitively the same anyway" approach to things that S types say buuuuuut ittttt really is not....

Uh haha

Side note is I always found sensation+Ti interesting as compared to Te, in that both have a certain "realism." But, the way I understand the difference to be that sensation is a lot more about direct experience and involvement, so subsuming that into so-called "factual logic" that represents facts removed from sense experience is unappealing -- the subjective factor of structuring Ti frameworks might enable one to capture this involvement better.

Yes you got that difference absolutely right.

[ouronis]

Yes but proficiency is not guaranteed.

Can't paste a table on this topic



Aspect of implementing functions (TIMs)	Indicators of reliability	Unreliable indicators
Intuition Opportunities (EIE and LIE)	Seizes promising opportunities, choose from a range of opportunities optimal	Miss opportunities, lost in the multi-variant situation, blaming the problem of choosing the other
Intuition of Time (LII and EII)	Punctual in the prescribed period, to monitor trends	Late or in a hurry, tear terms, missing trends
Volitional Sensor (ESE and LSE)	Neat, well-kept, control the territory and status, good value their strength	Untidy, do not look for appearance, inattentive to the territory and status, underestimate or overestimate their strength
Sensonrika Sensations (LSI and ESI)	Maintain their health, create around themselves a comfortable, well-maintained environment	Start up your health, have uncomfortable, groomed environment at home and in the workplace
Business Logic (ILE and SLE)	Are healthy, active, choose the most effective ways of working	Refuse to work and action, make useless, unnecessary work, are ineffective
Structural Logic (OR, SSI)	Comply with the rules, laws and agreements	Not bound by the rules and arrangements violate laws
Ethics of emotions (SEE and IEE)	Maintained stable emotional background, uplifting, light enthusiasm	Heating up the emotional environment exacerbate the situation, pump depression
Ethics training (EISs and IEI)	Polite and accommodating communicate with people, even up complicated the situation	Allow yourself to rudeness, disrespect for the people coming to the conflict, provoke quarrels in relations

what exactly is represented here?
Is this saying that positive norms associated with behavior are reliable evidence towards a certain typing and the opposite, anti-social behaviors are unreliable? Or is it saying that of each type, the first column shows a reliable EIE/SLE,etc and the second shows an unreliable one?

[The Exception]

Cool heh but I still want a concrete example

You won't be getting one from me.

[Myst]

what exactly is represented here?
Is this saying that positive norms associated with behavior are reliable evidence towards a certain typing and the opposite, anti-social behaviors are unreliable? Or is it saying that of each type, the first column shows a reliable EIE/SLE,etc and the second shows an unreliable one?

Probably the latter.

You won't be getting one from me.

Oh well any other Se PoLR up to the challenge?

[Soupman]

what exactly is represented here?
Is this saying that positive norms associated with behavior are reliable evidence towards a certain typing and the opposite, anti-social behaviors are unreliable? Or is it saying that of each type, the first column shows a reliable EIE/SLE,etc and the second shows an unreliable one?

For each type, the first column shows a reliable EIE/SLE,etc and the second shows an unreliable behaviours?