Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: productiveness and the socionic model

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default productiveness and the socionic model

    Waddlesworth verified that socionic functions explain intertype relations and Transigent added an explanation on the origin of the functions and how they can be properly defined. I will attempt to expand a little bit more only taking into consideration in productiveness and how it relates to the blocks of the socionic model.

    The human goal is survival. Happiness in the human psyche represents that one is not only surviving, but is prospering. Happiness is a result of productiveness, yet, like every living organism, human beings naturally have the desire to survive with as little effort as possible. As Waddlesworth pointed out, in Maslow’s heirchachy of needs, effort is needed to oscillate a ring of “functions” to self actualization. A well-developed person has more use of his or hers functions than the average person. The most developed people are also the most productive.

    Honesty=personal development

    Personal development=productivity/happiness

    Awareness + effort -----> ability

    Productiveness requires realism. The very act of expelling energy into one’s functions is based on necessity, and requires more energy to use the weaker functions. What the functions are described to do is automatic and indirect, like walking, such as Se and the know-how to exercise physical energy; the know-how is where thinking and awareness come together. Reality is a product of awareness and awareness is a product of valid thinking reaching conclusions and experience (both of which require honesty). This takes effort; otherwise lazy thinking will eventually detach oneself from reality (involving all functions). Information must be processed in order to determine its validity. The stronger a function is or is not determines how realistic that aspect of thought will be. The very part of the brain that develops Se will not use energy as well as the part of the brain that develops and produces Ne. Since it takes energy to verify or collect experience using a certain function, a less developed function will not be as realistic.

    Thinking is what we do with our awareness, and awareness can be or is universal in all types. How it gets there is different though.

    Ego opens the door to desire

    Desire + ability= purpose

    The ego opens the door to desire, but on the other hand there is the opposite of ego, and it is guilt, (which also goes along with the super ego). Guilt causes one to not desire, thus hindering purpose. This is another reason why I believe that the more developed people are more productive, because their super ego is a little more like an ego than a real super ego, (not hindering purpose) yet they got there honestly and productively. In contrast, sociopaths (those with Anti-social personality disorder) also do not have a super ego, they use their functions indiscriminately, which is why we cannot type people like Ted Bundy (read my post oldforumlinkviewtopic-115-15.html).

    In conclusion, thinking and awareness both have different origins, although they come to the same thing, and that is in “know-how,” (the functions) which also greatly affects how someone deals with reality.


    This is all probably very obvious, especially considering that much of this is based on Waddles’ posts plus some of my own thinking.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  3. #3
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There isn't much I can add, but this summary deserves some appreciation because it is very well put. Not only did it help me to see my own thoughts from a different set of eyes, but it gave them alot more structure. Excellent.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    At first, I believed that logic was the only way to correctly identify things in realistic terms, and therefore understand the laws of nature, for example, (that is why I used to think that explained why F types were more involved in establishment activities that required a set of arbitrary rules, i.e. organized religion). After a while I noticed other types, especially S types who were atheists. So I changed my speculation of only NT types (specifically the Te and Ti) to S types as well, thinking that the S directly corresponds to reality and T correlates with realty. This continued until I saw Transigent’s “Funky functions,” where each function was a representation of a focus on an aspect of reality. I finally realized that it was not which function adhered to reality, but how they all do it together.
    Back when I was in high school, my wrestling coach would say “wrestle hard, wrestle smart,” I would say this to myself, wrestle hard, wrestle smart. When I started to seriously study economics and began to apply business concepts to everyday life, I began to say to myself while at work, work hard, work smart. The working hard part was of course the effort, and the work smart part of it was being realistic about what could and should be accomplished. In my philosophical background, being realistic is the key to productiveness, realism requires honesty, and honesty is the road to personal development. I know this is a long shot, but the key to personal development is conquering the superego. Its like extra leverage, but I will explain more in detail later.

    On another note, a function does not have to be in one’s consciousness to be used. Awareness of a function only gives it more expression. The more expressed a function is, the more know-how it also has. The difference between thinking and awareness in the case of Ne and Ni, where as curiosity is a by product of awareness, which has little to do with type (oriented around honesty). What I am saying is that the act of using functions allows for accepting (awareness), but it may not be in the same area.

    I know this is a no-brainer, please just try to bear it.
    I need to elaborate more. I’ll be back in about ten hours or so.

Posting Permissions

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