My twist on Functions

[Muddy]

I will start by saying that what most of I'm what I'm going to say isn't new and that some of you might already see it this way, but I still feel like this is worth posting. This is a way of viewing the functions that I think is more fitting then using "Valued" and "Strength" as terms to describe the functions.

I think "expressed" should be a term used to describe valued functions and that "focused" should be used to describe strong functions.

The terms valued and strong are a bit off IMO. Calling verbalized functions "valued" functions implies types hold philosophical attachment the element, when this isn't isn't always the case. For example, it isn't totally unheard of for some Beta NFs or perhaps even some LSIs to take philosophical or political stances against pre-mediated violence/aggression, despite "valuing" Se. Rather, verbalized functions are expressed in the actual way a type behaves and communicates, and not necessarily their code for how they think people should behave (Something a Ti "expresser" would likely have). Basically, these are the functions that leak out in face-to-face communication.

I think the term "Strong" is also bad. It implies types are innately better at anything that pertains to the element, when in reality we need to learn how to use elements to their full potential just like anything else in life. In my view the "Strength" from the Ego/Id functions comes the level of attention and study we give them, hence why I think calling them "focused" is more appropriate. Focused functions are generally seen as the elements we must become proficient at in order to survive and operate in the world, while "unfocused" functions are either seen more as games (Super-Id) or all together unimportant (super-ego).

Basic description of the functions using this:

Base: Very Strongly Expressed, Very Strongly Focused
Creative: Strongly Expressed, Strongly Focused

Role: Weakly Expressed, Weakly Focused
Vulnerable: Very Weakly Expressed, Very Weakly Focused

Suggestive: Very Strongly Expressed, Very Weakly Focused
Mobilizing: Strongly Expressed, Weakly Focused

Ignoring: Weakly Expressed, Strongly Focused
Demonstrative: Very Weakly Expressed, Very Strongly Focused

[Pookie]

Edit - Finished reading.

"Rather, verbalized functions are . . . the actual way a type behaves . . . and not necessarily their code for how they think people should behave "

Do you often run into people who behave in a way that they themselves don't think they should? Like, enough people that this distinction makes any sense?

[Muddy]

Edit - Finished reading.

"Rather, verbalized functions are . . . the actual way a type behaves . . . and not necessarily their code for how they think people should behave "

Do you often run into people who behave in a way that they themselves don't think they should? Like, enough people that this distinction makes any sense?

It happens, not often but it does. For example a strict conservative parent that preaches morals to their kids yet goes around engaging in fornication and all sorts of other "obscene" acts, thinking that going to church on Sunday will make everything fine again.

Guess that was a bit dark lol but I hope you get my point.

[Alomoes]

Pretty cool. I don't know if it is valid. I agree with the fact that strong and valuing are bad. I usually say they use it, or they want it. Use a lot, want a lot. Value works for a stand in of use as well.

[Bertrand]

Calling verbalized functions "valued" functions implies types hold philosophical attachment the element, when this isn't isn't always the case. For example, it isn't totally unheard of for some Beta NFs or perhaps even some LSIs to take philosophical or political stances against pre-mediated violence/aggression, despite "valuing" Se. Rather, verbalized functions are expressed in the actual way a type behaves and communicates, and not necessarily their code for how they think people should behave (Something a Ti "expresser" would likely have). Basically, these are the functions that leak out in face-to-face communication.

I see your point here but I think "verbalized" is just as loaded. the point here is that "valued" doesn't mean "philosophically attached" it just means they prioritize those functions in how they embody them. this can look 10 different ways, as you point out. but to say they're "verbalized" just fails to express the idea in a different way. the point is "philosophical attachment" is a misunderstanding of "value" and value really only means that when it comes down to this or that they prefer this as a cognitive function, not in a philosophical sense, where they could verbally justify their preference, but just for the brute fact that they prefer it as a baseline property of their personality, i.e.: it is intrinsic

in other words, your mistake is to assume

"valued" functions implies types hold philosophical attachment the element

which is manifestly not the case, according to standard notions of what a "philosophical attachment" is, which is something like a conscious introverted judgement nested within a supporting system of complimentary and consistent judgements. I don't think most people understand "valued" to imply philosophical attachment because it would be absurd on its face. most people in general aren't philosophically attached to anything, let alone cognitive functions, if for no other reason than they're not even aware of them [1]. if people gravitate toward that understanding of "value" when learning socionics I feel like they're sufficiently confused that you can't really build a system around obvious mistakes of that kind, because they'll confuse damn near every issue they come across if the above conclusion is the one they naturally draw. in any case the solution is simply to make clear the technical import of the word "valued" and what it means, you could do the same thing with "verbal" but you'd essentially just be attaching to it a special meaning requiring the same explanatory steps, except verbal has connotations of spoken word. its like what about mute people, etc, or languages with no written component. the point is you would have to narrow verbal to essentially "manifest", which is what "valued" already encompasses

[1] in fact you could make the argument that verbalizing (not auditorily, but in words) something is precisely what makes something philosophical. in other words, philosophy is values and perspectives given linguistic formulation, such that verbalization is what makes something philosophical, that until that point they are mere irrational perceptions. so what is interesting is that to accent the concept of "verbal" over "philosophical" is in some sense illusory where it counts anyway

[Sol]

> I think "expressed" should be a term used to describe valued functions and that "focused" should be used to describe strong functions.

valued = interesting, pleasant
strong = conscious, strong

[Chae]

I am an Ne expresser and focusser, how ya doing

[chrys]

Exactly yes. I hate dimensionality sorry. Everything you've said here I think is my preferred way of thinking of functions.

For example it gets rid of "wow i value ethics I must he Fi" which is a sentiment alot of Rational Logic types also share, and replaces it with "I tend to evaluate people regularly and instinctively"


"Type the eyes not the thing they look at"

[Bertrand]

if you hate dimensionality you hate socionics

[at sirac son of sirac]

Hmmm ..... I'm really not sure @Muddy.

Some people have a PoLR and a HA fixation, so it's ... frequently expressed.

Like an LII I know who keeps talking about food.

I like where you're going, but it's hard to get the right words to express, even 'Thinking', 'Feeling' 'Intuition' 'Sensing' don't really fit the bill .. but i'm not able to see an improvement, as for when clarity increases, we run the risk of complicating with jargon.

[Glare]

I like 'focused' on and 'expressed', instead of conscious/ unconscious and weak/ strong. However I think our unvalued functions (super-ego, id) psychologically oppose the valued functions (ego,super-id) somewhat and make up the psychological blueprint from which worldview, preferences and behaviours emerge in interaction with your enviroment. So, I think it might actually be pointless to make efforts to focus on and develop them...if that's even possible with your polr. On the other hand I think you may be able to develop your super-id because it complements your ego, so you would become a more well rounded individual by doing so?

Edit: just want to add to the above. Take the polr, I actually think it can be both strongly and weakly expressed but imo it will always be unvalued.

[powerrainbowcrystal]

I prefer the 'dimensions' thing I guess, as having for example 1d Ni polr, Ni things would be childlike/simplistic to you. Anything ni would feel straightforward/painful/abrasive/cutting like a knife to the gut/brain so to speak. Ego functions... more layered, complicated and refined. You can very easily defend it when it's attacked because you have so much going on around it from all sides. What you are naturally uppity/snobby/Gwenyth Paltrow in and what you naturally focus on when going for your dream career or whatever. Really there's not much wrong with calling something strong or weak other than it gets too easily confused with valued/unvalued. There is just more detailed descriptions explaining why something is strong or weak.

[Number 9 large]

I think its just useless nitpicking tbh
If we say LII has strong ti, we obviously mean "relative to other types if all other factors are equal". It also doesnt imply that there isnt room for personal growth