Logic Behind Analyzing Functions Separately

[Lobo]

Is there any logic behind describing the particular functions separately? As in describing what is, for example. It just doesn't click for me to use the functions as nouns. For instance, why does it make sense to say "Xx function is stronger for certain types" or "Xx function is related to this and that"? I've been considering that it might be wrong in a realistic (actually practical) sense to do so, and that it might be better to describe pairings rather than individual functions. Has anyone thought about this more or less? I'm finding myself straying from the "block" way of describing personality types. Of course, it might be that I'm not understanding this aspect of Socionics well, or that the impression I get is from people who project their own personal understanding of it. I'm just curious to see if there is some kind of thought behind approaching types as the combination of individual function blocks, and depending on the specific order, you get a personality type. Ultimately, what seems to be the main issue for me is the justification that types are a mix of primary colors, using the color spectrum as an analogy, instead of each type having their own primary colors.

[crazedrat]

Just shut up and go continue thinking

[Ezra]

Is there any logic behind describing the particular functions separately? As in describing what is, for example. It just doesn't click for me to use the functions as nouns. For instance, why does it make sense to say "Xx function is stronger for certain types" or "Xx function is related to this and that"? I've been considering that it might be wrong in a realistic (actually practical) sense to do so, and that it might be better to describe pairings rather than individual functions. Has anyone thought about this more or less? I'm finding myself straying from the "block" way of describing personality types. Of course, it might be that I'm not understanding this aspect of Socionics well, or that the impression I get is from people who project their own personal understanding of it. I'm just curious to see if there is some kind of thought behind approaching types as the combination of individual function blocks, and depending on the specific order, you get a personality type. Ultimately, what seems to be the main issue for me is the justification that types are a mix of primary colors, using the color spectrum as an analogy, instead of each type having their own primary colors.

The functions are described separately because they are individual. There are no character traits of each function, of course; characteristics come through when one function is blocked with another in the ego. Nonetheless, what makes a block? Separate functions. And there are elements to each function which are unique to that function. There are buzzwords associated with the function, as well as behaviours which, when blocked with another function, are due mainly to the function itself e.g. Se in the SLE and the SEE may be different due to its being blocked with Ti in the first case and Fi in the second, but generally, you'll find behaviour in individuals which is attributable to their being Se leading, regardless of the creative function.

[Jarno]

Is there any logic behind describing the particular functions separately? As in describing what is, for example. It just doesn't click for me to use the functions as nouns. For instance, why does it make sense to say "Xx function is stronger for certain types" or "Xx function is related to this and that"? I've been considering that it might be wrong in a realistic (actually practical) sense to do so, and that it might be better to describe pairings rather than individual functions. Has anyone thought about this more or less? I'm finding myself straying from the "block" way of describing personality types. Of course, it might be that I'm not understanding this aspect of Socionics well, or that the impression I get is from people who project their own personal understanding of it. I'm just curious to see if there is some kind of thought behind approaching types as the combination of individual function blocks, and depending on the specific order, you get a personality type. Ultimately, what seems to be the main issue for me is the justification that types are a mix of primary colors, using the color spectrum as an analogy, instead of each type having their own primary colors.

Very good post !!!

Blocks are good for theory.
But not really practical.
However this forum is aimed heavely on theory, so that's a reason you see it often.

What you are saying touches a common problem. Do types show using all functions or do they only show their ego functions. (all colors vs specific colors)

Since their non ego functions are either actively repressed or subcounscious, you could say that for practical reasons, a type uses only his two ego functions.

Yet if you want to make a theoretical model of personality, you have to include the other functions, which are present in their personality, no doubt about that. There are several ways to prove it.

[MysticSonic]

I think it would be important to consider exactly how one begins to look at functions as pairings in order to understand how one can look at functions separately. How might one come about to think of things in terms of an ego-block with one function in relation to another if one doesn't understand to at least some degree how a function exists as a unit itself? Meaning, in order to actually gain some sort of understanding of how functions work together, it is necessary to first define to some degree the individual functions and in turn note the relationships that arise from any two functions being paired together.

Even though it is interesting to think of things in terms of blocks and to a great degree useful, as it gives a clear picture of how the "strengths" in a person function most clearly, I think that there is great use in attempting to understand and in turn recognize in other people the influence of an individual function, as it is something that in my opinion allows for much greater typing speed and efficacy. While understand the block and how it manifests in people is useful when you know the person's block formation or simply one and sort of attempting to solve for the "missing variable" function, it lags behind in situations of attempting to understand a person's behavior when any of their blocks are unclear or you are attempting to type a person whom you are completely uncertain about. It has its uses, but I believe seeing it in those terms is relatively less useful than seeing the simple expression of one function.

I dunno, just an opinion I guess. I don't doubt blocks are useful, but I also don't believe looking at the functions individually is horrible either.

[Gilly]

This is a really important issue in properly understanding socionics imo, and something I plan to address in my thread on model A and the functions. This is as simple as I can make my conclusions (cell phone typing=need for brevity): as ezra and ms say, it is important to understand the functions individually for purposes of trait recognition and basic theoretical comprehension, but ultimately (and this is not immediately apparent or extremely easy to grasp without a thorough comprehension of the IM definitions) it is only possible to interpret actual human perceptual processes in the context of Model A as a product of a compatible pair of functions: sensation or intuition cannot function without one of either logic or ethics, or vice versa, to give it proper "focus," if you will.

[marooned]

I agree with a lot of what Gilly just said. Also I think that it's part of the "learning process" of learning Socionics. In the early stages trying to see each IM element/aspect and each function independently is trying to see it alone in essence, so that it can be recognized. It is something that can try to tie real, practical, observable, outside things to the theory itself... so that it is properly rooted or something. But as an end method it can't work in actually typing people, it's more of an abstract activity, that may begin to fall away later in the learning process, or something.

[Lobo]

The functions are described separately because they are individual. There are no character traits of each function, of course; characteristics come through when one function is blocked with another in the ego. Nonetheless, what makes a block? Separate functions. And there are elements to each function which are unique to that function. There are buzzwords associated with the function, as well as behaviours which, when blocked with another function, are due mainly to the function itself e.g. Se in the SLE and the SEE may be different due to its being blocked with Ti in the first case and Fi in the second, but generally, you'll find behaviour in individuals which is attributable to their being Se leading, regardless of the creative function.

Yes, that makes sense. Each function has its own particular characteristic, and like you said for SLE and SEE, depending on what it's blocked with you get a different type. However, if we consider for example SLE and SEE with Se as main function, we should then expect both types to exhibit Se, and in a way where it is noticeable as the main function. The problem I see is in proving that this is the case, and not having other factors come into play, such as temperament and other functions that are shown externally, and can make one believe that a person has Se as main function, when it's really not the case. But then on the other hand you could be very good at typing each person, being able to "accurately" type SLE and SEE. Even so, I would still like to know why is it considered that SLE and SEE both have Se as the main function, when typing these two types could just be a matter of knowing to identify a group with similarities in personality, and then calling them SLE and SEE respectively. I would have to read up some more on Socionics theory.

Very good post !!!

Blocks are good for theory.
But not really practical.
However this forum is aimed heavely on theory, so that's a reason you see it often.

What you are saying touches a common problem. Do types show using all functions or do they only show their ego functions. (all colors vs specific colors)

Since their non ego functions are either actively repressed or subcounscious, you could say that for practical reasons, a type uses only his two ego functions.

Yet if you want to make a theoretical model of personality, you have to include the other functions, which are present in their personality, no doubt about that. There are several ways to prove it.

Yes, I have to give some more thought into this, because something I'm encountering here is the idea of a function hierarchy for each type, which implies that there could be a percentage of "strength" in each function for each type, which doesn't make sense to me. I would think that the important thing is not the order of the functions for a certain type, but the position in the personality scheme. So effectively, if you assign different names to the positions instead of 3rd or 7th, and shuffle them, thus removing the natural inclination to think of an order of importance because of the enumeration, then that might be the "right" way to look at a Socionics type.

I think it would be important to consider exactly how one begins to look at functions as pairings in order to understand how one can look at functions separately. How might one come about to think of things in terms of an ego-block with one function in relation to another if one doesn't understand to at least some degree how a function exists as a unit itself? Meaning, in order to actually gain some sort of understanding of how functions work together, it is necessary to first define to some degree the individual functions and in turn note the relationships that arise from any two functions being paired together.

I see what you are saying, and that would be necessary before moving on to a combination of two. But what I am also suggesting is the possibility of having a distinct function which would be the Socionics equivalent of having the ego blocked with creative, where they are simply a distinct function and not a combination of two.

Even though it is interesting to think of things in terms of blocks and to a great degree useful, as it gives a clear picture of how the "strengths" in a person function most clearly, I think that there is great use in attempting to understand and in turn recognize in other people the influence of an individual function, as it is something that in my opinion allows for much greater typing speed and efficacy. While understand the block and how it manifests in people is useful when you know the person's block formation or simply one and sort of attempting to solve for the "missing variable" function, it lags behind in situations of attempting to understand a person's behavior when any of their blocks are unclear or you are attempting to type a person whom you are completely uncertain about. It has its uses, but I believe seeing it in those terms is relatively less useful than seeing the simple expression of one function.

I dunno, just an opinion I guess. I don't doubt blocks are useful, but I also don't believe looking at the functions individually is horrible either.

Yes, it does seem easier to identify a specific function and go from there in terms of typing. I agree that there are similarities between types with the same main function, but then what makes their similarities necessarily the "main function"? I have to give some more thought into this, read a little more, because I'm getting confused .

[Lobo]

This is a really important issue in properly understanding socionics imo, and something I plan to address in my thread on model A and the functions. This is as simple as I can make my conclusions (cell phone typing=need for brevity): as ezra and ms say, it is important to understand the functions individually for purposes of trait recognition and basic theoretical comprehension, but ultimately (and this is not immediately apparent or extremely easy to grasp without a thorough comprehension of the IM definitions) it is only possible to interpret actual human perceptual processes in the context of Model A as a product of a compatible pair of functions: sensation or intuition cannot function without one of either logic or ethics, or vice versa, to give it proper "focus," if you will.

Ok, will this be in the general discussion section? I will keep an eye out then.

[Gilly]

Yea, but its going to be a week or so before I have a real comp and can really add to it.