Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Suggestive function, conscious or unconscious?

  1. #1

    Default Suggestive function, conscious or unconscious?

    The suggestive function, aka the 5th function,is part of the vital ring in socionics, so it is supposedly unconscious. However the same function is the 4th/inferior function in MBTI, which is conscious, albeit very weak. MBTI's 8th function is equivalent to socionics' role function, which is supposedly the most unconscious.
    Which is true?? Is suggestive unconscious or not? Likewise with the mobilising, which is conscious in mbti (3rd function) and unconscious in socionics. Granted they are two different theories, but socionics is derived from mbti and im wondering why they would change the positions of these functions.
    In your own experience, are you conscious of your mobilising and suggestive functions? Or only their flip side, aka, the superego block

    Somewhere on this site i read about how the unconscious function manifest as first a reaction, then awareness. By that description id say the role is actually unconscious, since it reacts before it becomes aware (in accordance with the ignoring function). The role seems to manifest consciously, ie. Aware first, only when the ignoring function is suppressed.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    3,394
    Mentioned
    340 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConcreteButterfly View Post
    The suggestive function, aka the 5th function,is part of the vital ring in socionics, so it is supposedly unconscious. However the same function is the 4th/inferior function in MBTI, which is conscious, albeit very weak. MBTI's 8th function is equivalent to socionics' role function, which is supposedly the most unconscious.
    Which is true?? Is suggestive unconscious or not? Likewise with the mobilising, which is conscious in mbti (3rd function) and unconscious in socionics. Granted they are two different theories, but socionics is derived from mbti and im wondering why they would change the positions of these functions.
    In your own experience, are you conscious of your mobilising and suggestive functions? Or only their flip side, aka, the superego block

    Somewhere on this site i read about how the unconscious function manifest as first a reaction, then awareness. By that description id say the role is actually unconscious, since it reacts before it becomes aware (in accordance with the ignoring function). The role seems to manifest consciously, ie. Aware first, only when the ignoring function is suppressed.
    Socionics was not derived from MBTI. These fine differences in the models are speculative anyhow. But I'll mention that according to Jung the inferior function (suggestive in socionics) is right at the gate to the unconscious. The function above it (mobilizing in socionics) is slightly more accessible but still pretty unconscious.

    Personally I've got some conscious control of role function but I don't have direct conscious control of suggestive function. A bit better for mobilizing but it's usually still unconscious.. I'm going with Jung here really but it happens to fit model A too.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is one of the HUGE points of divergence between Jung and the Beebe (aka traditional MBTI+ extra) model... since realistically the MBTI foundation doesn't seem to go by a specific model and thus most/many type practitioners seem to follow after Beebe's ideas since he's the main famous Jungian analyst who seems to go by the whole aux opposite attitude of dom thing, with plenty of others doggedly in favor of the same attitude.

    The thing is, by Jung, a Ni-dom has most unconscious Se, so I'd say socionics is closer to Jung in this regard. Of course, it is different in other regards.

    Then again, Beebe's perspective can be understood perhaps if you look at how he organizes his model:where in Jung, the aux is a SLAVE to the dominant principle, in Beebe, the two dom-inf and aux-tert seem to form complementary pairs (hero-anima/us, parent-child).
    So his very perspective on what the "second" function is, seems to be different. I'd say the proper analogy in Jung would be something like Hero-Sidekick, not Hero+Parent.

    And again in my experience, it really depends which of these kinds of dynamics underlies a person's given psyche. objectively I doubt any set of function-orders will capture everyone's accurately.

    Socionics is somewhere in between Beebe and Jung, I think. Socionics says the IXI's Ni/Se does form a complementary pair, in that you tend to seek out the opposite, not produce it yourself. Beebe almost suggests it is more conscious than the shadow functions. The Jungian viewpoint was closer to, Ni-types repress Se to the fullest extent, so it's unlikely they'd "seek it out" -- the unconscious really and truly was that, unconscious, aka the side least recognizable, and probably known through dream interpretation at best.

    An easy way to remember Jung's difference from Beebe here is that for Jung, the shadow side encapsulated the inferior function (Se for Ni type), whereas with Beebe it's portrayed as a gateway to the unconscious in the sense of being semi-conscious it seems (since it's the lowest of the ego functions).
    Last edited by chemical; 06-19-2015 at 11:18 PM.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    3,394
    Mentioned
    340 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    @chemical

    Uh yeah, there's so many different views... I see model A as a decent try tho', even in jungian terms I can translate it somewhat with demonstrative being a pretty good auxiliary along with the creative. HA and DS are the same just fine and who cares about weak crappy unvalued superego (or the ignoring function). But that's all I'm willing to state (see below too as to why). I wouldn't say either Jung or Beebe is right about that slave vs complementary pairs approach etc etc. That's too much refinement on no real grounds again... I don't know if it depends on the person whether Jung or Beebe will fit better. I have no way to check at this level of refinement really.

    As for seeking out the socionics suggestive function vs rejecting the jungian inferior function, I think the truth is in between, the suggestive is not part of the ego, pretty far from it really in a sense so it makes sense you reject part of it consciously but yet if you get into your base function too much it's basically -unconsciously- crying out for a complementing function, that's how I see Jung's writings about the dominant functions actually. He just describes them in a way that you get that feeling that they are really needing that balancing out influence, the inferior function. Especially if the dissociation (as in the jungian term) between dominant and inferior gets too large.

    Commenting on it being fully unconscious in the jungian model, well sure it should be unconscious to a large degree IMO but I think Jung says somewhere that you can access the inferior function through the tertiary (transcendent?) function, it makes sense. I never read that from Jung directly, just from an interpretation though.. anyway I don't think you need to go as far as trying to interpret dreams. And, I thought the gateway to the unconscious thingie was in Jung's writings too? Overall I'm not too worried on the issue of inferior being in the shadow or in the ego, pretty obvious it isn't in ego though it can be a bit compatible with it but I actually see it as ego-dystonic to a degree, so not fully going with Beebe on this one. As for shadow, I don't know if anything necessitates that the entire inferior function remain there forever.

    Overall tho', why on earth would anyone see the inferior/suggestive function as a proper conscious function? Beebe doesn't state that either. Conscious and direct control over it would -logically obviously- be pretty poor and I'm not too worried about the nuances beyond this basic statement as those go way beyond what these function models can realistically state; they are too simplistic, missing many principles for organization of information processing. I would not try to make up for the lack of complexity in these function models by trying to refine things endlessly based on the existing principles. They are simply unfit for that. Period.

    PS: I do like that Jung has a much more complete model than just the functions. So he overall makes somewhat more sense than the other speculations

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Myst, I'd agree with the overall "truth is somewhere in between" sentiment, because I think the real answer to all these divergent models is that 16 types wasn't magical, it was a certain rule of thumb.. people's degrees of and distributions of T, F, S, N, E, I are ridiculously varied.
    I've read one place that Beebe struggled on whether he is an extravert or introvert, and poof, well, he realized he had one function one direction another another direction. Jung had himself said that there's a large group of people in the middle between E/I, and so wouldn't it make sense some of these would look like Beebe found his psyche looked?

    The problem always is in generalizing one model to everyone... the only truth is that there's certain tendencies that oppose each other, but the degree/distribution is hugely varied.

    I like to keep it very conditional: in a mostly pure intuitive type, sensation is more or less the most severely horribly unconscious thing. In someone where things are less black and white, say someone fitting modern ILI, it can make some sense that Ni, Si are stronger and Se weaker, and so forth. If you've ever watched Jung's Freeman interview, when he talks of this woman (Ni type) who says she has a snake in her abdomen, walks on air, etc, I'd say that's an example of a case where extraversion and sensation were both very unconscious, and where it's unlikely she had a strong auxiliary function -- one that was more unconscious than conscious by the looks of it, as he had to fish out her rationality from beneath intuition for her, to help her.
    Whereas his own description of himself suggests he had good intuition/logic balanced.
    So clearly he allowed for variation.

    Really at a point, I tend to find religious following of any model contradicts basic experience and common sense.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    3,394
    Mentioned
    340 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    @Myst, I'd agree with the overall "truth is somewhere in between" sentiment
    That was not actually my main point, nope. That there^ is such a meaningless statement.


    because I think the real answer to all these divergent models is that 16 types wasn't magical, it was a certain rule of thumb.. people's degrees of and distributions of T, F, S, N, E, I are ridiculously varied.
    No magic, the issue here is that this variation is not to be explained by the principles of the typology models as they are not sufficient for that. My point was this as some people -including the OP- do not seem to understand that.


    I've read one place that Beebe struggled on whether he is an extravert or introvert, and poof, well, he realized he had one function one direction another another direction. Jung had himself said that there's a large group of people in the middle between E/I, and so wouldn't it make sense some of these would look like Beebe found his psyche looked?
    Jung said that and the results of studies is the same about E/I, sure.


    The problem always is in generalizing one model to everyone... the only truth is that there's certain tendencies that oppose each other, but the degree/distribution is hugely varied.
    If the problem is "always" about applying the model to everyone then the model isn't too good, the truth is that simple.

    The question is, what other principles will explain that variation but this goes way way beyond basic typology

    And yes, my other point was this, what's solid in typology is a few basic ideas, e.g. the opposition of some functions, yeah.


    I like to keep it very conditional: in a mostly pure intuitive type, sensation is more or less the most severely horribly unconscious thing. In someone where things are less black and white, say someone fitting modern ILI, it can make some sense that Ni, Si are stronger and Se weaker, and so forth. If you've ever watched Jung's Freeman interview, when he talks of this woman (Ni type) who says she has a snake in her abdomen, walks on air, etc, I'd say that's an example of a case where extraversion and sensation were both very unconscious, and where it's unlikely she had a strong auxiliary function -- one that was more unconscious than conscious by the looks of it, as he had to fish out her rationality from beneath intuition for her, to help her.
    Whereas his own description of himself suggests he had good intuition/logic balanced.
    So clearly he allowed for variation.
    I'm sorry but that Ni woman had more going on than just dominant Ni without much of a conscious auxiliary. Sounds like some serious mental illness. Why the need to try and see that strictly inside the framework of typology functions


    Really at a point, I tend to find religious following of any model contradicts basic experience and common sense.
    Another meaningless piece of trivia...? Sorry I find generic appeals to common sense extremely boring, lol.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst
    That was not actually my main point, nope. That there^ is such a meaningless statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical
    @Myst, I'd agree with the overall "truth is somewhere in between" sentiment

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst
    As for seeking out the socionics suggestive function vs rejecting the jungian inferior function, I think the truth is in between, the suggestive is not part of the ego
    I don't understand -- are you calling your own sentiment meaningless, or are you saying that this sentiment was mostly not your point?

    Your post sounded a lot like you're portraying whether we see the inferior as part of the conscious/egoic psyche or the shadowy psyche as pretty conditional/not something to nitpick/fuss over, so you'll need to clarify.

    My point is the models all zoom in on some aspect of tension in the psyche, and obviously some work better for some than others, because some people end up more in-the-middle on some models and more polarized/pronounced in others. The best way in terms of absolute accuracy is to simply say there exists an inferior personality, and what it is would depend on what tensions play out most in the given psyche in question...whether that looks like a Ni .... Se tension or something else really depends.

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst
    The question is, what other principles will explain that variation but this goes way way beyond basic typology
    I think there's a LOT of variation in the typology itself, more than any given model accounts for, precisely because T, F, E, I, etc are SUCH BROAD ideas that so many different interesting interplays/tensions can result. Each model is zooming on some particular subset of these interplays/tensions and trying to slice the possibilities up into 16 pieces to emphasize a point. There's obviously more possibilities than 16, but at the end of the day, you work with whatever number you need to emphasize the particular point you want to make.

    Regarding the woman, well this gets into the fact that the typology only defines the basic elements of consciousness -- why types occur itself isn't explained by the typology really, it's more or less just posited. I think Jung was right about the woman being insanely intuitive and insanely repressed in sensation, but to explain why she was that way probably goes outside of Jung's basic ideas. I mean, he did consider she's perhaps crazy, but at the same time, crazy is just a word. Being extreme in intuition and very repressed in sensation is somewhat more specific, and you can of course get MUCH more specific if you analyze and figure out exactly what led her to that prioritization/what else was wrong.
    Last edited by chemical; 06-20-2015 at 10:20 PM.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Myst OK tell me if this is your point, lol I THINK I understand it, but I didn't spell out what I understood:

    You're suggesting that the truth is in-between in the following specific sense, in my reading: the inferior is both complementary and ego-dystonic, thus whether we view it as the 4th ego-function or as a repressed unconscious function really depends on which of these angles (complementary or ego-dystonic) we are focusing on. Yea? If that's not your point then definitely you're going to need to clarify.
    If so, then it's another instance of me having gotten what you're getting at but not spelling it out as literally as your tastes want and leaving it understood that I understand.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    3,394
    Mentioned
    340 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    I don't understand -- are you calling your own sentiment meaningless, or are you saying that this sentiment was mostly not your point?
    Lol I'd like to think I'm more consistent than that so yeah, I meant the latter. I was just using "truth in between" as an expression


    Your post sounded a lot like you're portraying whether we see the inferior as part of the conscious/egoic psyche or the shadowy psyche as pretty conditional/not something to nitpick/fuss over, so you'll need to clarify.
    I think it's actually important to note that it's definitely not going to be fully conscious, far from it, this is what is solidly known; now about its exact relation to the ego, shadow and consciousness in general is what's less clear, "nitpicking" is ok if there's something to go by but in these theories there's not much to go by...


    My point is the models all zoom in on some aspect of tension in the psyche, and obviously some work better for some than others, because some people end up more in-the-middle on some models and more polarized/pronounced in others. The best way in terms of absolute accuracy is to simply say there exists an inferior personality, and what it is would depend on what tensions play out most in the given psyche in question...whether that looks like a Ni .... Se tension or something else really depends.
    Yeah that's a good solid point.


    I think there's a LOT of variation in the typology itself, more than any given model accounts for, precisely because T, F, E, I, etc are SUCH BROAD ideas that so many different interesting interplays/tensions can result. Each model is zooming on some particular subset of these interplays/tensions and trying to slice the possibilities up into 16 pieces to emphasize a point. There's obviously more possibilities than 16, but at the end of the day, you work with whatever number you need to emphasize the particular point you want to make.
    That'll be due to issues with how we categorize. Now say you decided on some very specific categories, now whatever falls outside that is simply not part of the model, the model does not explain it. No need to be surprised about variation in this sense. As for the functions being very broad categories, that's true in terms of trying to apply it to concrete elements, e.g. Se being power vs Se being hedonism, and such attempts to make these links I again don't view as part of the model.


    Regarding the woman, well this gets into the fact that the typology only defines the basic elements of consciousness -- why types occur itself isn't explained by the typology really, it's more or less just posited. I think Jung was right about the woman being insanely intuitive and insanely repressed in sensation, but to explain why she was that way probably goes outside of Jung's basic ideas. I mean, he did consider she's perhaps crazy, but at the same time, crazy is just a word. Being extreme in intuition and very repressed in sensation is somewhat more specific, and you can of course get MUCH more specific if you analyze and figure out exactly what led her to that prioritization/what else was wrong.
    Simply calling her crazy isn't going to cut it either... It's ok that she was an extreme Ni-dom and it can even be relevant to her psychological issues but there was definitely at least one more other factor that led to her loss of contact with reality as we know it. I can't say more on that as I don't know the case.


    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    @Myst OK tell me if this is your point, lol I THINK I understand it, but I didn't spell out what I understood:

    You're suggesting that the truth is in-between in the following specific sense, in my reading: the inferior is both complementary and ego-dystonic, thus whether we view it as the 4th ego-function or as a repressed unconscious function really depends on which of these angles (complementary or ego-dystonic) we are focusing on. Yea? If that's not your point then definitely you're going to need to clarify.
    If so, then it's another instance of me having gotten what you're getting at but not spelling it out as literally as your tastes want and leaving it understood that I understand.
    Well I prefer to take it all into account, not just looking at one incomplete angle, but yes I said the inferior is both -at least partially- rejected and complementary. To what degree it's rejected, that depends -I think partly depends on other factors outside the basic model too-, but it won't ever be accepted into the conscious ego. Btw no I cannot see it as simply the 4th ego function, ego is the dominant function, not its opposite. If Beebe really meant that it's part of the conscious ego, I disagree with that for sure. That'd just make no sense. I interpreted the concept of ego-syntonic as not the same as being in ego, just either being in ego or being at least compatible with it and so it is not on the extreme other end of the unconscious shadow. But, inferior function can be somewhat ego-dystonic too if rejected too much. Overall it's a function that's got a distance from actual ego that has the capacity to be integrated in a certain sense and be less distanced/dissociated. This is how it makes sense to me but I don't want to speculate on the details of this without the right means to investigate.
    Last edited by Myst; 06-20-2015 at 11:40 PM.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst
    It's ok that she was an extreme Ni-dom and it can even be relevant to her psychological issues but there was definitely at least one more other factor that led to her loss of contact with reality as we know it.
    I guess the thing is, in some sense Jung thought of sensation as the ego's connection to reality (beyond just the raw 5 senses). I mean, he always was pretty emphatic: reality, reality, reality, reality. That's the value for the sensation type.
    And even more so for the extraverted sensation type because one's subjective registering of reality-impressions isn't .. well.. reality. So I think part of the point is inferior-sensation really IS pretty much a tenuous relation with reality...it isn't an explanation for the causes, of course, and yes you could in theory have inferior-sensation without having intuition dominant -- aka, other factors could be behind the repression. And/or both intuitive dominance and other factors could be behind it.

    Btw no I cannot see it as simply the 4th ego function, ego is the dominant function, not its opposite. If Beebe really meant that it's part of the conscious ego, I disagree with that for sure.
    Yeah me too, I mean I think he is vague on this point, but I think the best interpretation (in other words, how to make his idea work, whether or not it does the way he uses it himself) would be to say he's focusing on complementary phenomena, and that the sense he calls it an "ego" function is that it's part of the complementary/compensatory interplay simply because of the dom being what it is.

    Unlike you, I spend a lot of speculation on what these guys probably *were* seeing that led them to formulate their model -- of course, like you I assume, I nitpick the hell out of whether the model works as stated, but I'm usually willing to figure out the best possible revision.

    Basically I think the sense in which he calls it the ego function is that it is an aspirational function that nonetheless gets sidelined frequently, which is more or less the same thing as with socionics. I get the sense his use of shadow is not quite like Jung, in that his shadow is the *opposing* personality... in other words, including things opposing the perspective aspired to. Jung's use of shadow was closer to conscious v unconscious.

    The issue of course is how consciously aspired to the inferior is, and here there's probably variation. Socionists have written that we might not really directly see the value of the suggestive/dual which sounds about right at least if the type is pronounced enough.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    3,394
    Mentioned
    340 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    I guess the thing is, in some sense Jung thought of sensation as the ego's connection to reality (beyond just the raw 5 senses). I mean, he always was pretty emphatic: reality, reality, reality, reality. That's the value for the sensation type.
    And even more so for the extraverted sensation type because one's subjective registering of reality-impressions isn't .. well.. reality. So I think part of the point is inferior-sensation really IS pretty much a tenuous relation with reality...it isn't an explanation for the causes, of course, and yes you could in theory have inferior-sensation without having intuition dominant -- aka, other factors could be behind the repression. And/or both intuitive dominance and other factors could be behind it.
    I do agree with all that


    Yeah me too, I mean I think he is vague on this point, but I think the best interpretation (in other words, how to make his idea work, whether or not it does the way he uses it himself) would be to say he's focusing on complementary phenomena, and that the sense he calls it an "ego" function is that it's part of the complementary/compensatory interplay simply because of the dom being what it is.
    Well I don't like that terminology directly calling it an ego function. I get your idea, sure.


    Unlike you, I spend a lot of speculation on what these guys probably *were* seeing that led them to formulate their model -- of course, like you I assume, I nitpick the hell out of whether the model works as stated, but I'm usually willing to figure out the best possible revision.
    Lol sure we have that difference.


    Basically I think the sense in which he calls it the ego function is that it is an aspirational function that nonetheless gets sidelined frequently, which is more or less the same thing as with socionics. I get the sense his use of shadow is not quite like Jung, in that his shadow is the *opposing* personality... in other words, including things opposing the perspective aspired to. Jung's use of shadow was closer to conscious v unconscious.
    I noticed that too


    The issue of course is how consciously aspired to the inferior is, and here there's probably variation. Socionists have written that we might not really directly see the value of the suggestive/dual which sounds about right at least if the type is pronounced enough.
    Yes, though dualization process also affects that. Other part of the variation would be factors outside typology models

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Me either about the terminology (i.e. I don't like it). I'm only explaining what I think is the idea, but I would definitely not have chosen ego/shadow exactly because Jung used those in a way that seems quite contrary/incompatible, and for heavens' sake Beebe's a Jungian analyst, so he should be able to appreciate how this might be confusing

  13. #13
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ah! Chemical, I am really into your POV on all of this. Also I need to actually read the Jung and then this Beebe fellow, with whom I am not familiar. I tried to read Jung but then I gave up in disgust because the anima/animus theory is so radically sexist and it's so deeply baked into his thought that it's difficult for me to deal with the rest of it given the rotten floorboards in the anima/animus business.

    But I am very fascinated by the notion of the fluidity of the order of the functions. Perhaps we could say that different function orders provide us with different perspectives on the interactions of the function attitudes (that's what Jung called them right? Something like that?), and it is probably valuable to analyze people through several different models of how the attitudes interact, as the particular nature of their interaction in any individual's psyche is arbitrary and unpredictable, and therefore unlikely to cling precisely to any particular model. In my case, I think that extraverted sensation in and of itself is unconscious for me, but, perhaps because of my contact with theory, I am conscious of its manifestations, and conscious of the feeling of being around that energy... or maybe that's just something I've made myself believe by spending too much time on this message board, lol. But then, I think theories like this just don't have truth-value. I think they have use-value, so if you take the terms and hold them against your experience, and they prove useful for the generation of knowledge and action from experience, then they have value.

    I am particularly curious about the notion of the fluidity of functions as relates to the hidden agenda rather than the suggestive (which I find operates for me rather as advertised by Augusta et al). I don't experience my HA function as unconscious in the slightest, and at least in the realm of organizing information, I think my level of sophistication and skill with Ti is as good or better than my level of sophistication and skill with Si. I would be interested in a model, then, that attempts to give some structure or pattern to the Ni/Ti, Se/Fe, Ne/Te, Si/Fi relationship. I see how socionics basically starts from the notion of complementarity between the base function and its opposite, and the theory of that relationship (i.e., the theory of duals/dualization) when paired with the assumption that the second function must be opposed to the first in terms of rational/irrational and introverted/extroverted, then implies the rest of the structure. It seems that socionics actively or positively commits to the first two propositions, and then reasons about the rest with a later reason; that is, the "meaning" of socionics is the relationship between the 1st and 5th function and the relationship between the 1st and 2nd function. All the rest, including the polr, is a way of exploring the consequences of the assumptions made about I-II and I-V. I think.



    Anyway, I don't know that I have anything really useful to contribute to the discussion of the suggestive because, like I said, in my experience it works for me as advertised: I'm not very good at it, I admire it, I prefer being around someone who will provide it for me to attempting to manufacture it artificially by myself. I also find that the more I am secure in a supply of Se, the more I feel free to indulge Ni. I imagine this is a conservative effort on the part of my psyche:

    I. Se is necessary to avoid losing touch with reality

    II. The more psychic investment in Ni, the less psychic investment in Se.

    III. Therefore, to avoid losing touch with reality, Ni must be regulated or limited in order to maintain a sort of necessary minimum of Se (and avoid getting an imaginary snake in my belly.)

    However,

    IV. Given an "external supply" of Se (which I will confess I experience in quasi-mystical terms of like... just being around this Se-leading person makes me feel more "grounded"---that is, the medium of exchange is not defined or explicit, and so I would have to attribute it, if pressed, to the "energy" or the "vibe" of the person), the limit on Ni may be relaxed, so I "produce" less Se, but that's OK because there is an "external supply."

    So yes, Se works for me just as advertised. And given my "medium of exchange" quip, I would suppose that it operates in an unconscious fashion as well. So yes, Se is, for me, an unconscious and compensatory function that is suppressed in my own psyche (for the greater operation of Ni) but maintained at a certain low level to avoid losing touch with reality, and accordingly is welcomed from external sources, as it is a stress on me to produce a variety of information for which my information-production-collection-and-processing faculties are not specialized or optimized.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  14. #14
    Arete GuavaDrunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Now in stores near you.
    TIM
    EIE 9w8-5-4 s?
    Posts
    1,524
    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    @silverchris9 : I like your point that the leading function seems partially held back until an external source of its opposite is available. I've noticed this in myself (get inexplicably bouncier, louder, cockier, more impulsive etc around presumed Ti-doms - even in the absence of any crush or relation), and have heard from someone else that they (Ti-dom) feel paradoxically calmer around Fe-dom. That was surprising to hear as I'd have imagined some kind of revving up instead.

    This may be related to the 'relaxing effect of duality'.
    Reason is a whore.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well SilverChris9, the idea of having a third function that's quite strong, just not quite as strong as the second, is pretty well-founded in Jung yeah; basically there's the classic case, which classical socionics is modeling, where you have 2 that make up the ego (the dominant, and a secondary that plays with the dominant well enough that it can be raised to high consciousness)... then there's the case his type portraits in Chapter X get at, and then there's the case of 2 mostly conscious and one in-between, and one truly mostly unconscious. To truly get at all the variation, I think some level of playing with subtypes is unavoidable.

    As for the rest of Jung's writings, to be totally honest, I don't go too far into belief or disbelief on them... the thing is that he founded a semi-religion from a point of view, and I think at times that one who is really interested in the rest of his writings would be better off reading widely into various spiritualities (Buddhism, etc) than to get totally caught in Jung, because as he said himself, his methods weren't so much things to be followed as an old man figuring out his own path, to which some tagged along.

    At the end of the day, I don't think the function-"opposites" are mere opposites, more like complements. So they involve an element of opposite...but they also seem to involve some level of interplay. The simplest example of this would be where feeling serves to help inform where there are great ideas. This probably happens in ILE's Fe, where it complements the ego's search for promising ideas.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    3,394
    Mentioned
    340 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    Ah! Chemical, I am really into your POV on all of this. Also I need to actually read the Jung and then this Beebe fellow, with whom I am not familiar. I tried to read Jung but then I gave up in disgust because the anima/animus theory is so radically sexist and it's so deeply baked into his thought that it's difficult for me to deal with the rest of it given the rotten floorboards in the anima/animus business.
    I want to say, I liked your post But a few comments if you don't mind; first, well, interesting you find the anima/animus thing sexist.. I find some value in the concept myself even though I'm not your typical female gender. I do reserve judgment until all the framework becomes clear and tested -where I think a few things do need to still be explained and framework itself is in need of some improvement- but yeah.


    But I am very fascinated by the notion of the fluidity of the order of the functions. Perhaps we could say that different function orders provide us with different perspectives on the interactions of the function attitudes (that's what Jung called them right? Something like that?), and it is probably valuable to analyze people through several different models of how the attitudes interact, as the particular nature of their interaction in any individual's psyche is arbitrary and unpredictable, and therefore unlikely to cling precisely to any particular model.
    I don't find it very valuable actually to try and analyze people in this fashion precisely because of what you mention about the interaction of the various combinations of attitudes as being "arbitrary and unpredictable", which would be due to the narrowness of the framework for analysis. It isn't intended for that and is not sufficient to analyse all those things about people. Unless you mean you do take every other factor -outside the function model- into account when analysing, instead of overapplying the function model onto things that are not the functions. I think that's a mistake many people make.


    In my case, I think that extraverted sensation in and of itself is unconscious for me, but, perhaps because of my contact with theory, I am conscious of its manifestations, and conscious of the feeling of being around that energy... or maybe that's just something I've made myself believe by spending too much time on this message board, lol.
    Hahah I'm the same way


    But then, I think theories like this just don't have truth-value. I think they have use-value, so if you take the terms and hold them against your experience, and they prove useful for the generation of knowledge and action from experience, then they have value.
    I'm unclear on which theories you think have truth-value, so tell me more please; this is simple curiosity here.


    I am particularly curious about the notion of the fluidity of functions as relates to the hidden agenda rather than the suggestive (which I find operates for me rather as advertised by Augusta et al). I don't experience my HA function as unconscious in the slightest, and at least in the realm of organizing information, I think my level of sophistication and skill with Ti is as good or better than my level of sophistication and skill with Si.
    How do you experience conscious Ti? Describe some typical things about it please?

    That's really hm something I'd like to hear about more. My Ni HA isn't really conscious that much even though I do try to reach into it via the leading function. It can get partially conscious but that's about it.


    I would be interested in a model, then, that attempts to give some structure or pattern to the Ni/Ti, Se/Fe, Ne/Te, Si/Fi relationship. I see how socionics basically starts from the notion of complementarity between the base function and its opposite, and the theory of that relationship (i.e., the theory of duals/dualization) when paired with the assumption that the second function must be opposed to the first in terms of rational/irrational and introverted/extroverted, then implies the rest of the structure. It seems that socionics actively or positively commits to the first two propositions, and then reasons about the rest with a later reason; that is, the "meaning" of socionics is the relationship between the 1st and 5th function and the relationship between the 1st and 2nd function. All the rest, including the polr, is a way of exploring the consequences of the assumptions made about I-II and I-V. I think.
    Just a note, I actually think there's more assumptions that are required to build the entire model A.


    Anyway, I don't know that I have anything really useful to contribute to the discussion of the suggestive because, like I said, in my experience it works for me as advertised: I'm not very good at it, I admire it, I prefer being around someone who will provide it for me to attempting to manufacture it artificially by myself. I also find that the more I am secure in a supply of Se, the more I feel free to indulge Ni. I imagine this is a conservative effort on the part of my psyche:

    I. Se is necessary to avoid losing touch with reality

    II. The more psychic investment in Ni, the less psychic investment in Se.

    III. Therefore, to avoid losing touch with reality, Ni must be regulated or limited in order to maintain a sort of necessary minimum of Se (and avoid getting an imaginary snake in my belly.)

    However,

    IV. Given an "external supply" of Se (which I will confess I experience in quasi-mystical terms of like... just being around this Se-leading person makes me feel more "grounded"---that is, the medium of exchange is not defined or explicit, and so I would have to attribute it, if pressed, to the "energy" or the "vibe" of the person), the limit on Ni may be relaxed, so I "produce" less Se, but that's OK because there is an "external supply."

    So yes, Se works for me just as advertised. And given my "medium of exchange" quip, I would suppose that it operates in an unconscious fashion as well. So yes, Se is, for me, an unconscious and compensatory function that is suppressed in my own psyche (for the greater operation of Ni) but maintained at a certain low level to avoid losing touch with reality, and accordingly is welcomed from external sources, as it is a stress on me to produce a variety of information for which my information-production-collection-and-processing faculties are not specialized or optimized.
    That's pretty cool. Would you be able to go into some details, describing and analysing some typical situations or whatever other anecdotes you have about this Ni-base/Se-DS and Se-DS/Se-base interaction as you experience it?

    Comparing it with my own experiences.. I do find I get a bit lazy around duals, ahahah.. in the sense that I let them do all the Fe jobs in an active fashion where I don't have to try and do it myself (not that I'm any good at it anyway). But, it's not that simple because after a while I find I get a bit higher in Fe myself... without trying too hard, and thats the great part, I think. It's like, access to it becomes better and it's simply -almost- effortless compared to if I was trying to do it on my own. Though I wouldn't say it ever becomes a conscious function. No, far from that, for sure, only very short conscious glimpses are allowed into it perhaps. Most of the access is probably due to smoother Ti/Fe interaction or something like that.. so most of it's still viewed and analysed through my leading function.

    Hm, another note, the idea that you'd receive the Se just via the "energy" or the "vibe" of the person, I don't think so. I mean, that's part of it but also it seems like you don't notice what's actually happening in more concrete terms, you being true to having 1D Se, lol. I could totally describe a lot of observable visible details on how the receiving of my suggestive from my duals works for me. That's of course still only part of the whole story because that doesn't include analysis of how it then gets processed in my psyche/mind. The energy/vibe thing approach is interesting though, to add into this, I'll think about that more.


    Quote Originally Posted by GuavaDrunk View Post
    @silverchris9 : I like your point that the leading function seems partially held back until an external source of its opposite is available. I've noticed this in myself (get inexplicably bouncier, louder, cockier, more impulsive etc around presumed Ti-doms - even in the absence of any crush or relation), and have heard from someone else that they (Ti-dom) feel paradoxically calmer around Fe-dom. That was surprising to hear as I'd have imagined some kind of revving up instead.


    This may be related to the 'relaxing effect of duality'.
    I'm the same, yeah, I find it relaxed in a sense, very comfortable when being around Fe-leading types. I'm calm by default so that's not that, not simple calmness, feeling comfortable in a certain way is a better way to put it. I definitely don't become louder or more impulsive for the most part or at least I don't do it out of my own initiative. More like, -somewhat passively but still- going along with the Fe that's being around me, lol. I don't feel manic or anything like that at all, that's true, it's just natural and comfortable and loose/relaxing though I can't say I ever become "out of control". That Ti stuff always remains on top, lol. (I think that's a whole other interesting topic though that I'm not going into right now)

    I dont think it's simply Ti being less held back, though. IMO, it's more like the result of the interaction of Ti and Fe... your DS vs the base function of the dual just fit into each other in this interaction.


    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    Well SilverChris9, the idea of having a third function that's quite strong, just not quite as strong as the second, is pretty well-founded in Jung yeah; basically there's the classic case, which classical socionics is modeling, where you have 2 that make up the ego (the dominant, and a secondary that plays with the dominant well enough that it can be raised to high consciousness)... then there's the case his type portraits in Chapter X get at, and then there's the case of 2 mostly conscious and one in-between, and one truly mostly unconscious. To truly get at all the variation, I think some level of playing with subtypes is unavoidable.
    I like how you put that I mean the last sentence. Not that it's new or anything but I totally agree. Well, I'm more like classical socionics than original jungian model though not exactly that either, I have two very strong ego functions and both their complementary opposites kinda lag behind.. And as you know, whichever IE (Se vs Ti) is considered my secondary/creative function, it's also capable of being high in the conscious without having to play "well enough" with the dominant/base function. Tho' it's pretty obvious to me who my dual is so this is quite complex, lol


    At the end of the day, I don't think the function-"opposites" are mere opposites, more like complements. So they involve an element of opposite...but they also seem to involve some level of interplay. The simplest example of this would be where feeling serves to help inform where there are great ideas. This probably happens in ILE's Fe, where it complements the ego's search for promising ideas.
    Eh, that's what I was talking about when I said to silverchris above that I don't like the idea of analysing such arbitrary seeming interactions between functions/IEs. OK maybe it has value to you, sure, I just don't see any real explanatory power in such analysis
    Last edited by Myst; 06-28-2015 at 07:07 AM.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    3,394
    Mentioned
    340 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    @silverchris9

    Mind commenting/replying?

Posting Permissions

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