Demonstrative function
So Maritsa brought up an interesting note of sorts about Fe and Fi in the demonstrative function. (IxFp, ExFP). The thread was "The difference between Fi and Fe"
Now im curious as to how the demonstrative function expresses the other Information Elements as well.
Any and all help would be appreciated.
here's some stuff, make of it what you will.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=32366&highlight=demonstrative
There's a description of how every information element manifests as a demonstrative function on that element's wikisocion page.
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ation_elements
Stan is not my real name.
Hmm. Demonstrative seems to act like a muscle twitch. It appropriately responds to whatever level and form of that element it finds in the environment. Too much of that element though and you'd start feeling like a puppet on a string, since you can't help but respond in equal force.
This is probably why its hard to be around quasi identicals- their base constantly stimulates your demonstrative.
demonstrative - broadcast their strength of will
demonstrative - broadcast their politeness and civility
demonstrative - broadcast their knowledge and efficiency
demonstrative - broadcast their opportunism
demonstrative - broadcast their comforting presence
demonstrative - broadcast their ethical integrity
demonstrative - broadcast their logical reasoning
demonstrative - broadcast their appropriate timing
People can't really "beat" you on your demonstrative. You're too fluent in it, you rarely make a mistake here and if you do, you don't repeat it. If anything, you're more likely to become an unwitting authority.
The interesting thing about your demonstrative function is how it affects your dual's POLR. Your dual is very clearly going to notice your fluent use of it, and over time begins to imitate it (which can be endearing). Since you do not value this function except to get people off your back, you use it less and less around your dual who, out of all people, least requires it.
You bumped a three year old thread lol. I'm not hating you for it, I just find that funny and interesting. Time is an illusion anyway.
Good job. Not many people can make condensed descriptions of functions and make them accurate.Originally Posted by ConcreteButterfly
Hmm. Demonstrative seems to act like a muscle twitch. It appropriately responds to whatever level and form of that element it finds in the environment. Too much of that element though and you'd start feeling like a puppet on a string, since you can't help but respond in equal force.
This is probably why its hard to be around quasi identicals- their base constantly stimulates your demonstrative.
People can't really "beat" you on your demonstrative. You're too fluent in it, you rarely make a mistake here and if you do, you don't repeat it. If anything, you're more likely to become an unwitting authority.
The interesting thing about your demonstrative function is how it affects your dual's POLR. Your dual is very clearly going to notice your fluent use of it, and over time begins to imitate it (which can be endearing). Since you do not value this function except to get people off your back, you use it less and less around your dual who, out of all people, least requires it.
Not quite. Time is not a phenomenon that exists in it's own right, so in that sense you are right. However, it is a means by which humans perform some kinds of measurements. it is a type of measurement that is egocentric in nature, hence the illusion. In reality, all possible configurations of the Universe exist 'simultaneously' (for the lack of a better word).
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Very good indeed. I will nominate you for Socionist of the year 2014!Hmm. Demonstrative seems to act like a muscle twitch. It appropriately responds to whatever level and form of that element it finds in the environment. Too much of that element though and you'd start feeling like a puppet on a string, since you can't help but respond in equal force.
This is probably why its hard to be around quasi identicals- their base constantly stimulates your demonstrative.
People can't really "beat" you on your demonstrative. You're too fluent in it, you rarely make a mistake here and if you do, you don't repeat it. If anything, you're more likely to become an unwitting authority.
The interesting thing about your demonstrative function is how it affects your dual's POLR. Your dual is very clearly going to notice your fluent use of it, and over time begins to imitate it (which can be endearing). Since you do not value this function except to get people off your back, you use it less and less around your dual who, out of all people, least requires it.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
LMAO. Yeah, my LSI suffers my attempts to give him a massage for about 30 seconds, and then tells me to stop.
But I do remember one thing he said when we first started going out, and he was showing me around his place - "I live very comfortably."
hahahha no it's not quite like that.
With
I like your descriptions, and I especially like your use of the term "broadcast"
there's one part I disagree with, though, and it's your assertion that being around quasi-identicals is "difficult"
I'm ESI and I think that I'm dating a LSI. When I'm in his company, I feel like I'm living in the present moment. As an ESI, that's not my natural state of mind. But being in a Si that of mind is great, because I prefer this state to being always preoccupied (Ne POLR?) with things I have to do for school or at work. I just want to "be", live in the "here and now". He expressed something very similar. So, as we both seem to value being in a Si state, would we be able to get along and be satisfied in our relationship, or would we get drained by too much focus on Si? You're talking of a "weird constant preoccupation with comfort". That doesn't seem interesting. I want to add that we have common life projects that need a lot of work to get realized, and shared creative interests, so we could be in a active Se state too.With
Ah, and I think that my nickname "serenity" talks a lot about which state of mind I'm "longing" for. I'm E6 and integrating in an E9 peace of mind.
LSI notice Si in that they lay on my couch and say "finally you got a couch. this place feels comfortable now." You think they were demonstrating all Si in the way they sink comfortably into a couch, are quiet and relaxed in that moment. But, just as soon as they go looking for programs to watch on TV, seeking out varied emotional atmospheres, you sure know that they aren't ones trying hard to get away from Fe.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
that's interesting, the part about wanting to be "in the moment" as oposed to being preoccupied. To be honest I wasn't sure about what I wrote here, at all, it's mostly guess work. I don't have much experience with LSIs/ESIs
@Chris Clearly,Hmm. Demonstrative seems to act like a muscle twitch. It appropriately responds to whatever level and form of that element it finds in the environment. Too much of that element though and you'd start feeling like a puppet on a string, since you can't help but respond in equal force.
This is probably why its hard to be around quasi identicals- their base constantly stimulates your demonstrative.
People can't really "beat" you on your demonstrative. You're too fluent in it, you rarely make a mistake here and if you do, you don't repeat it. If anything, you're more likely to become an unwitting authority.
The interesting thing about your demonstrative function is how it affects your dual's POLR. Your dual is very clearly going to notice your fluent use of it, and over time begins to imitate it (which can be endearing). Since you do not value this function except to get people off your back, you use it less and less around your dual who, out of all people, least requires it.
"I have high morals and values" What does that speak of? Guess which number mr know it all.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Ahahah! He's seeking Fe! Now I understand why he always put a movie or a comic show on when we're lazy, on the couch, instead of talking "casually" or about serious stuff.
how is fighting about a time related issue a demonstration of
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Ok! You seemed very knowledgeable on the subject.
YES, he is seeking Fe. Good for you. You're one of the brightest, nicest ESI I've met.
Now I'm going to sing "I caught myself...saying.." oops
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Okay, I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, english is not my first language, but I'm honestly glad to finally understand what is the matter with this quasi non-stop movie watching in my presence. I was taking it personal, like I wasn't interesting. And as he's Ti-based, I was expecting at least to talk about Ti stuff most of the time. And that would have been ok, as I'm flexible. And for that reason, I think that I'm trying to act like his dual, the EIE. Because I like him very much, heh.YES, he is seeking Fe. Good for you. You're one of the brightest, nicest ESI I've met.
Now I'm going to sing "I caught myself...saying.." oops
lol, he's talking about the demonstrative function here, which for IEI happens to be Fi
thanksOk! You seemed very knowledgeable on the subject.
I wasn't being sarcastic. I was agreeing that what you were observing was accurate.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
It's wrong. Now do you agree with yours? which says demonstrative - broadcast their politeness and civility
you just told me that you like to poke fun of people who display their emotions
That seems counter intuitive as you're supposed to be polite
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
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.
So what you've said is true-you understand the demonstrative function. However, you do not understand what's around it. The demonstrative is unvalued and strong. This means that although the person feels confident in studying and evaluating claims made in regards to information it deals with, they will do so with a decidedly negative approach. So yes, an ILI will understand Ti well, but dismiss it. It is in effect, a very high critical understanding of something. So the ILI will have flaws, but not because they don't understand what they're talking about, and the ILE will have bad facts, but not because they can't choose the right facts, but because there are more important concerns to him. The second thing is that this function is in the unconscious- you will not necessarily be able to relate your understanding in terms of said function. Therefore, what you have is a strong, critical undercurrent capable of even more strongly defining the ego's approach. Strength here is largely non-graded(just stepped) because of the obfuscating factors, however I will say that whether demonstrative is really as strong as base is not truly able to be seen, but likely, given its other disadvantages and the fact that it remains a strong influence.
I don't think it's just a matter of not valuing, as Socionics proposes. If a persons shows major flaws in one domain, even if they use it frequently - as the Demonstrative Function, as we know, is frequently used - it means that it's not that strong.
Of course your argument makes sense, in regards to ILE's lack of interest in absorbing facts. In this case, it would just be a matter of lack of information, not necessarily weakness. But I'll delve into it below.
Now, in regards to Ti - in the case of Te creatives - it's different. It's not a matter of information, like Te. Ti is a function related to analysis, logical dissection. If a person uses it all the time, and still isn't able to do it correctly, it can only be explained by the fact that it's not so strong. I see it mostly with ILIs. Maybe some of them have a developed Ti, but it's very rare in my opinion. I've never met one, to be honest.
I would go beyond, and say that ILEs are not only not very interested in objective facts, but they're unable to deal with them very well. If you take Carl Jung's perspectives on Ti x Te, he will even describe Ti as "The extraordinary impoverishment of introverted thinking in relation to objective facts finds compensation in an abundance of unconscious facts." In other words, a Ti user naturally has a weak Te, at least in regards to facts. "This thinking easily loses itself in the immense truth of the subjective factor. It creates theories for the sake of theories, apparently with a view to real or at least possible facts". In other words, Ti often loses itself in a crazy inner world. Some Ti users might develop Te and become geniuses. Maybe that's what Ti really needs... This fits with my perspective on the other post, where I see the Demonstrative function as a potencial. In regards to business activity, Meged describes the ILE as a type with little practicality, a little "torn off from reality". So, we have some indications. I've heard that Gulenko created a Model where the LII has Te polr (!)...
In my opinion, the order of Strenght of functions is:
1-Base
2-Creative
3-Demonstrative
4-Ignoring
And it's in the values (power) of something around: Base/Creative 70-80%; Demonstrative/Ignoring 30-20%.
Not at all in the edges of 50-50, as Model A claims to be.
Well, that's interesting. It's of course different if your experience conflicts with the model, assuming your judgement is sound. I only have claims to make regarding my own use(as opposed to others' use) of the demonstrative, which is not quite accurate to socionics or your analysis. However, what I can say is that I agree that it's slaved to the creative, at least when used consciously. It produces confusion in me if I do not devalue it, although I do not necessarily start off devaluing it.
I've never seen anything like this. Do you have a link?
My understanding is Te in the LII is a strong 3-D, ignoring function. The PoLR is a weak, unvalued 1-D function.
I suppose others could potentially mistake Te in the LII for the PoLR if its ignored enough.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Well here is my general observation: I do not think ultimately the demonstrative or ignoring is used to represent information, and that the id pair end up being more experimental and supplementary, and possibly the demonstrative can help to reduce loss of energy from the polr (since it is in a certain sense the equivalent perspective to the polr).
As an example to offset the extraversion and involvement with moving objects, the LII may appeal to perceiving their trajectories through the more removed Ni perspective, i.e. see how they are progressing and how their potential is changing. This isn't of interest in and of itself so much as a potential offset to energy lost through Se polr in my experience.
My experience with ILE is that they can often or at least at times sort of fiddle with Te (particularly if they fit a kind of "extratim subtype" which doesn't exist formally but you can imagine it if you try) -- since they are irrationals, and see the emergent possibilities of the object, before they attempt to fit it into structured logic, sometimes they fiddle with various schemes on what can be produced/implemented from the object they are perceiving into. It's more strong in the sense that I do not find they tend to be de-energized by it assuming it is not done for its own sake as a means of producing information/comprehension than that it is really something they do well.
This sort of fiddling sometimes leads to the potential of the object being clearer in their minds.
Also, in Jungian typology you can employ Ne+Te, as we can recall, so one way of seeing this is simply that the aim of extraversion is strictly irrational -- thus Te attains no significant of its own right, but attempting to see what activity the object can fit into can at times give a sense of its potential indirectly.
This sort of thing tends to be more strongly draining to LII who are more instantaneously looking for a coherent relational framework as opposed to examining the object more of its own right.
I think I agree that calling both id block stuff strong and mental block stuff strong is confusing because it gives the impression that there isn't a difference beyond just valuing one more -- I would add that one main obstacle to really "using" the demonstrative is that it seldom gets paired with something (because the natural choice, the ignoring, is ignored) long enough to do much of its own right.
wow I have heard this many times from ESIs. I knew one who liked a SLI because he said she is very "present", while Si is LIE's polr function, we can't provide it. LIE doesn't live in the here and now, mostly in the future. ESIs like to be dragged out of their thoughts and brought to enjoying the moment
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote