Originally Posted by
Dionysius
I'm against Socionics in regards to the definition of the Demonstrative Function.
I don't think it's strong as Socionics claims, as for example the concept of '4D, as strong as the Base function'. This is simply absurd in my opinion.
This function might have a strong potencial, where it can be developed and become very strong, but not everyone attain it.
An ILI might be a very organized (Ti) person in his Te domain (business, practicality, method, empirical analysis), but his logical reasoning will always have major flaws, differently from a Ti Ego type.
An ILE might be a very efficient (Te) person using his mental organization and quick intellect (Ti), but his factual knowledge, methods and practicality will always have major flaws, differently from a Te Ego type.
Te is an efficient empirical scientist, while Ti is a better conceptual scientist. One is strong at material and concrete results, the other on theoretical and epistemological frameworks.
My theory is that the Demonstrative Function is subordinate to the Creative Function. In other words, it will never have an independent and genuine nature as if it was in the Ego Block.
.
The expression of the Demonstrative Function may change a lot due to Subtypes, too. An LIE-Ni, for example, might be more interested in the long-term and a secure future (Ni). His Ne is supressed to a high extent; While an LIE-Te might be much more interested in experiencing things, risks, and lots of business or intellectual possibilities (Ne). But it can be related to a higher Se, as well.
An ILE-Ti is more focused in his own world of ideas (Ti), and not much in factual knowledge and wordly/superficial questions, as his Ti supresses his Te in the intellectual realm. While an ILE-Ne feels freer to use his Te alongside with his Ne, so he engages more in public discussions of actualities and common social problems, while an ILE-Ti is much more removed from these topics, prefering to analyze problems from a philosophical perspective - as Gulenko describes: "Their ideas do not have direct connection with reality". I would say that Sigmund Freud was an ILE-Ti, while Karl Marx was an ILE-Ne.
ILE-Ti prefers to act, i.e, gain immediate benefits from business activity - in a not very complex form - as it's not their strenght (Te), while ILE-Ne prefers to conceptualize with Te. They know the trends of economics and politics. ILE-Ne's seem to be good investors, who see distant prospects. Most of them might remain just intellectuals, but - I'm not sure in the following aspect - I suspect that as the great ILE brokers and investors have a high usage of Te, most of them might be ILE-Ne's. In Brazil, where I live, there's a very rich investor, formerly Forbes Top 10 - who's now investigated and had his belongings forfeit by the government - called Eike Batista. He strikes me as an ILE-Ne.
Bonus: ILI-Ni prefers to philosophize (Ti), but their concepts are most often off-the-mark. They're completely out of touch with reality; ILI-Te is more of a rationalizer, knows a lot of scientifical facts, as well as political and economical statistics, but in the philosophical/psychological domain, in deeper questions about human nature, its relationships and desires, they don't understand it at all - maybe due to their very weak Fe.