Strength of Function Order

[Crispy]

What is the order of functions from strongest to weakest?
I would assume (for INTj) it would be:


Is this the general pattern or did I mess something up?

[Mattie]

I don't think there's an order really, just the idea that some are strong and weak.

[Crispy]

Well the average whatever type must have a tendency for stronger and weaker functions. To say this is not true is to say all types have equal strength with all functions, which is blatantly false.

Or do you think the average INTj has a set of equally strong functions () and a set of equally weak functions ()? This would make some sense as it leaves room for subtype interpretations.

[Krig the Viking]

According to Bukalov's Dimensionality of Functions, an LII's functions are arranged like so:

4-Dimensional: ,
3-Dimensional: ,
2-Dimensional: ,
1-Dimensional: ,

[MatthewZ]

There's a concept of dimensionality of the IMs. By the traditional dimensionality, quasis have an as sophisticated grasp of each function as each other.

These dimensions being:

4D functions: 1, 8 (LII )
3D functions: 2, 7 (LII )
2D functions: 3, 6 (LII: )
1D functions: 4, 5 (LII )

It plays on the idea of duality. Duals have a strong understanding of each other's DS (for maximal psychological comfort) and PoLR. (to soften each other's weak point) It also supports the notion that dual relations are more optimal than activity relations. (which have the same strong/weak functions and value matchups as duals)

EDIT: Darn you, Krig.

[Crispy]

Interesting, that seems close enough to what I was asking. No wonder Quasi's look similiar. Thanks!

EDIT: So does that mean if I find someone absolutely terrible at math, my first guess should be ESFx?

[MatthewZ]

Interesting, that seems close enough to what I was asking. No wonder Quasi's look similiar. Thanks!

EDIT: So does that mean if I find someone absolutely terrible at math, my first guess should be ESFx?

If being good at math was correlated with either or , then yes. However, there are many people on this forum that would argue math aptitude is not type-related.

[Crispy]

I'm referring to computation/mental math/ doing quick arithmetic in yo hed, which I assumed was Ti but I may be wrong.

[krieger]

I reject dimensionality and distinguish only between strong and weak functions using a binary distinction.

There are far more accurate ways to establish the difference between Base and Creative than the "stronger/weaker" model.

ps. the dimensionality numbers were defined based on the fact that quasi identicals look similar, NOT the other way around.

[MatthewZ]

ps. the dimensionality numbers were defined based on the fact that quasi identicals look similar, NOT the other way around.

Is there proof of this?

[krieger]

Is there proof of this?

Until its proven that the russians found out about those numbers by empirical (~ scientific) means, we should expect them to have been defined the way anything else gets defined in socionics: conveniently in a way that fits with what is observed so as to explain these observations after the fact rather than prior to it.

The burden of proof is on them, not on me. Anything less would be dogmatism and religious faith.

[The Exception]

There's a concept of dimensionality of the IMs. By the traditional dimensionality, quasis have an as sophisticated grasp of each function as each other.

These dimensions being:

4D functions: 1, 8 (LII )
3D functions: 2, 7 (LII )
2D functions: 3, 6 (LII: )
1D functions: 4, 5 (LII )

It plays on the idea of duality. Duals have a strong understanding of each other's DS (for maximal psychological comfort) and PoLR. (to soften each other's weak point) It also supports the notion that dual relations are more optimal than activity relations. (which have the same strong/weak functions and value matchups as duals)

EDIT: Darn you, Krig.

If you put all 8 in order without ties, keeping functions of the same dimensionality adjacent, I think it goes like this:

1 > 8 > 2 > 7 > 3 > 6 > 5 > 4

The PoLR is the weakest and the demonstrative is the second strongest.

I may have 2 and 7 and 3 and 6 switched around.

[MatthewZ]

Until its proven that the russians found out about those numbers by empirical (~ scientific) means, we should expect them to have been defined the way anything else gets defined in socionics: conveniently in a way that fits with what is observed so as to explain these observations after the fact rather than prior to it.

The burden of proof is on them, not on me. Anything less would be dogmatism and religious faith.

There are 16 intertype relationships in the Socion. I see no reason why they would necessarily have examined Quasi-Identicals to get the idea for function dimensionality. The reason for differences between mirror pairs is more than enough to require a theory to explain it.

The burden of proof for the statement "the dimensionality numbers were defined based on the fact that quasi identicals look similar, NOT the other way around" is indeed on the person making it. The statement is neither true nor false by default; it is merely unknown.

[krieger]

There are 16 intertype relationships in the Socion. I see no reason why they would necessarily have examined Quasi-Identicals to get the idea for function dimensionality. The reason for differences between mirror pairs is more than enough to require a theory to explain it.

Combined with the already widespread (but false) theory that the Base function is "stronger" than the Creative function, and the similarly widespread (but false) theory that the PoLR is weaker than the Role function (vulnerable does not equal weaker), the only thing that remains to be established is which of the Strong/Unvalued functions is the "stronger". This is done by either equating the type with the Contrary, or with the Quasi Identical. Bukhalov rather arbitrarily chose the latter.

The burden of proof for the statement "the dimensionality numbers were defined based on the fact that quasi identicals look similar, NOT the other way around" is indeed on the person making it. The statement is neither true nor false by default; it is merely unknown.

People had been claiming the opposite without justification before I did. The counteractive claim had to be made to balance the equation. All things being equal, my version is the more plausible, as socionical claims have a history of being made in the way I described. In regard to the issue as a whole, I am not on the apologists' side.

[xerx]

I'm personally of the opinion that the PoLR is the strongest function but is repressed because of sexual abuse everyone suffers as a child. The government tries to cover it up with drugs and brain damage pills, but it is secretly the basis of our entire society.

[krieger]

The irritating thing about the PoLR is that it doesn't exist. People have this notion that whenever you encounter a supervisor, your PoLR Se goes into battle with their Base Se or something. Its not like that. You just use Ne to understand the situation like you always do and it turns out to be badly suited to that situation! The notion of a PoLR function that is actively being used is redundant. It doesn't lend any extra explanatory power.

[xerx]

The irritating thing about the PoLR is that it doesn't exist. People have this notion that whenever you encounter a supervisor, your PoLR Se goes into battle with their Base Se or something. Its not like that. You just use Ne to understand the situation like you always do and it turns out to be badly suited to that situation! The notion of a PoLR function that is actively being used is redundant. It doesn't lend any extra explanatory power.

I mostly agree with this. Your PoLR is so weak it isn't even something you normally think about.

I have a hard time caring when people try to frame my actions in terms of Fi, as if I'm violating some Fi rules or acceding to them unconsciously. I'm not. I'm supplementing Fi with my Ti and Fe in order to navigate the situation. I can take as many "hits" to my Fi as I feel like, but it's creative function failures and HA failures that devastate me (since these are valued). Those failures can stick for a long time and force me to reevaluate my actions.

That said, I've heard of people using their PoLR as a secondary creative function, so there is still that to consider.

Rick also mentions people can have unhealthy fixations on their PoLR, to prove to the outside world that they're competent in it or to completely ignore it and act like it doesn't exist.

An example of the latter would be an xEI who makes fun of people who work too hard, does things inefficiently on purpose and blows the failures of corporate CEOs out proportion because he hates to see people being successful using Te.

[krieger]

I mostly agree with this. Your PoLR is so weak it isn't even something you normally think about.

Uhm, no. If you use the term PoLR, you don't agree with me.

[xerx]

Uhm, no. If you use the term PoLR, you don't agree with me.

You can represent the concept of non-existence (or in this case, limited existence) using a word or a term.

[krieger]

Except it isn't what you did.

[xerx]

Except it isn't what you did.

Then kindly enlighten me as to how I might have erred.

[Crispy]

vulnerable does not equal weaker

Why not? The definition of PoLR seems to be the "weakest point". Vulnerable and weak are pretty much synonyms.

I don't imagine my Se going against my supervisor's Se. I just imagine the vulnerability of my weakest point to his strongest without having a function that is good against his weakest point. The reason the ESTp is the supervisor and not ISTj is because the ESTp has the strongest Se.

[krieger]

Vulnerable and weak are pretty much synonyms.

A giraffe is a physically strong animal, but is vulnerable to predators. Its the same with functions. Creative Ne is strong, but vulnerable to Se. Notice that I am opposed to seeing the PoLR as something active and agentive. I am not opposed to the notion of vulnerability to a function.

The reason the ESTp is the supervisor and not ISTj is because the ESTp has the strongest Se.

This is not the only interpretation. In my opinion the ESxps' Se is just quicker and less perfectionistic than that of ISxjs. Also where ESxps' have no vulnerability to Ne, ISxjs do. So you don't need a notion of differing function strength to explain the difference. You only need the notion of a Creative function being vulnerable to its opposite and a Base function not being vulnerable to its opposite.

[717495]

The irritating thing about the PoLR is that it doesn't exist. People have this notion that whenever you encounter a supervisor, your PoLR Se goes into battle with their Base Se or something. Its not like that. You just use Ne to understand the situation like you always do and it turns out to be badly suited to that situation! The notion of a PoLR function that is actively being used is redundant. It doesn't lend any extra explanatory power.

Well I still think the supervisor relation description, along with the other ones, fit the basic sense of the developing relationship between the two types. It describes things that are true or which sound true-ish from both types' perspective, as well as an outside perspective. Like obviously an ENFp-ESFp relation will be different from an INFj-ESFp. Look-a-likes vs supervisor/supervisee, seems like a pretty significant difference to me, even if it's still Ne used where Se should be used, or whatever. It don't think it's supposed to explain every single phenomenon though.

[xerx]

Why not? The definition of PoLR seems to be the "weakest point". Vulnerable and weak are pretty much synonyms.

I don't imagine my Se going against my supervisor's Se. I just imagine the vulnerability of my weakest point to his strongest without having a function that is good against his weakest point. The reason the ESTp is the supervisor and not ISTj is because the ESTp has the strongest Se.

I don't have experience to back it up, but I'd think you'd be aware of your PoLR around your benefactor. They need something from you that you know you can't supply very well. (You can only supply it mechanically and don't have any real confidence in it since it's 1-dimensional). And this makes you feel powerless around them.

Although you probably do have some control over your benefactor since they value your leading function, that control probably fades when the benefactor realizes it's being directed towards a goal they don't value (your creative, their ignoring).

[EDIT: and around your supervisor, but that was already mentioned].

[Crispy]

A giraffe is a physically strong animal, but is vulnerable to predators. Its the same with functions. Creative Ne is strong, but vulnerable to Se. Notice that I am opposed to seeing the PoLR as something active and agentive. I am not opposed to the notion of vulnerability to a function.

Oooh, I don't mean to say that "if/when INTjs use Se, it is in a weak and ineffective fashion". I mean "INTj's have weak/poor control over their Se use, and therefore choose to use it the least".

EDIT:

Although you probably do have some control over your benefactor since they value your leading function, that control probably fades when the benefactor realizes it's being directed towards a goal they don't value (your creative, their ignoring).

I thought the creative is the method that moves toward the dominant goal? Is it the other way around?

[Joy]

depends on the person

[squark]

depends on the person

Sure it does. . . if there's no point whatsoever to socionics. Come on, that's the whole idea of socionics. We process information differently, and how we think is what determines type. If anyone could use any function in any way there would be no type.

[tcaudilllg]

Se PoLR means that you always find an excuse either not to make contact or to exert personal will. Young LIIs/EIIs think the consequences could be disasterous, while adults find it irresponsible. ("Should I make contact with this person? Am I prepared to offer something meaningful to their life?") Typically the EM PoLR will be cited as the reason to avoid it.

[The Exception]

Combined with the already widespread (but false) theory that the Base function is "stronger" than the Creative function, and the similarly widespread (but false) theory that the PoLR is weaker than the Role function (vulnerable does not equal weaker), the only thing that remains to be established is which of the Strong/Unvalued functions is the "stronger". This is done by either equating the type with the Contrary, or with the Quasi Identical. Bukhalov rather arbitrarily chose the latter.

Where are you getting this information from?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Se PoLR means that you always find an excuse either not to make contact or to exert personal will. Young LIIs/EIIs think the consequences could be disasterous, while adults find it irresponsible. ("Should I make contact with this person? Am I prepared to offer something meaningful to their life?") Typically the EM PoLR will be cited as the reason to avoid it.

I don't think INFjs have problems of this kind (they are generally quite sociable). There is also no interpretation of Se in existance under which it would be linked to social behavior such as making contact.

[Trevor]

Strength of functions??

So functions can be relatively strong/weak, eh?

What's the scale we are talking about? Functions can be strong or weak in what? We need at least one scale for measuring that, you know.

[Beautiful sky]

I don't think INFjs have problems of this kind (they are generally quite sociable). There is also no interpretation of Se in existance under which it would be linked to social behavior such as making contact.

We are very sociable, except with people we sense to violate our values (like lazy people, or people who freeload and don't care about the concerns of other individuals around them).

INTj's have a bigger problem with making social contacts then we do.

Se PoLR means that you always find an excuse either not to make contact or to exert personal will. Young LIIs/EIIs think the consequences could be disasterous, while adults find it irresponsible. ("Should I make contact with this person? Am I prepared to offer something meaningful to their life?") Typically the EM PoLR will be cited as the reason to avoid it.

Every type will find an excuse not to make contact or exert personal will...it's called mood. I've noticed a particular pattern with introverted types more often then E's.

I think your "PoLR" is just a kind of information content you ignore (and that technically your brain isn't wired for it, so you couldn't not ignore it even if you tried). Being blind to it has nothing to do with facilitating any inherent weaknesses in you or your life, it's merely a difference in information metabolism. For instance, I don't give a shit about . It isn't a priority, desire, or anything I feel I'm necessitated to contend with in any way, shape, or form whatsoever. So I don't. The only time ever has any relevant effects is in trying to communicate with valuers. But beyond that, it's never going to have any bearing on me.

That is true; I consciously ignor looking at objects or trying to figure their shape and looks out because it stresses me out emensely. People cursing at me stresses me out, but that's not Se related, that's human ignorance related.

Se people are wonderful people; I like them a lot, they don't stress me out. What stresses me out is that they "force" or get me to look at objects because that's what they see and focus on...that's all.

By their natural inclination of looking at objects and seeing or talking about them or getting objects and having lots of stuff around, I am constantly stressed out because objects create clutter and the more colors there are the more my mind stresses out, it's like it can not be released from all of these choice and can not make a choice about what to wear from a closet full of so many wearable things....I need minimal things that are functional...hence opposite of Se value, which is more things of veriaty.

[JohnDo]

If you put all 8 in order without ties, keeping functions of the same dimensionality adjacent, I think it goes like this:

1 > 8 > 2 > 7 > 3 > 6 > 5 > 4

The PoLR is the weakest and the demonstrative is the second strongest.

I may have 2 and 7 and 3 and 6 switched around.

Yes, it certainly depends on subtype. As my self-typing is INTj-INFp my Ni(8), Fe(5) and Fi(3) are certainly stronger than those of an average INTj.

8 > 1 > 2 > 3 > 7 > 5 > 6 > 4 should be the correct order for me.

might be an unusual order of function strength for an INTj - but subtypes play an important role...

[Beautiful sky]

The irritating thing about the PoLR is that it doesn't exist. People have this notion that whenever you encounter a supervisor, your PoLR Se goes into battle with their Base Se or something. Its not like that. You just use Ne to understand the situation like you always do and it turns out to be badly suited to that situation! The notion of a PoLR function that is actively being used is redundant. It doesn't lend any extra explanatory power.

Absolutely true; it's used as an excuse to get people to stay away from each other, but one thing is true is that your Supervisor will be more like a supervisor.

The functions I would like to deal with for me are

I would like
Si

I don't want to deal with
Te matters

I don't want to talk to
Ti, I want to find a workable system that works for me not from other Ti people and follow what works for them

I find fascinating
Ni, but only for a short while

I relax completely and fully around
Si and Fe

I don't want anyone talking to me about my
Fi and Ne

I want to read more about
Ne

I like looking at pictures/ideas from
Se, but not for long

So strong functions: In that order
Fi, Ne, Ti, Si, Ni, Fe, Se, Te

[Lobo]

I disagree with the concept of "function strength order" as being inherent to a certain type... You are not born strong at any function, but you are inclined to certain IEs more than others, which consequently make you "stronger" by prolonged focusing on them, if anything. I get the impression that people might be using socionics as a way to find an excuse to not develop their "weak" functions because it's just hard, and depend on types having inherent strength as part of their self-esteem and identity.

[Beautiful sky]

You can't be weak in your primary, ego block IM functions. They are the nature of the mind...you can compare how much information they store to how much your identical kind's does but they will always be your strength/specialty and you will have natural inclination to do it whether you want to or not; it's not a choice.

[UDP]

This thread is unpleasant to read.

I do not agree with several things in it.

I'll write a response later today, although it might not be here. There is a lot of context either missing or misconstrued, and words being used in problematic ways.

"Strength" is, in particular, being used in ways that I don't believe are conducive to understanding socionics.


More later after lunch and work.

[Crispy]

I disagree with the concept of "function strength order" as being inherent to a certain type... You are not born strong at any function, but you are inclined to certain IEs more than others, which consequently make you "stronger" by prolonged focusing on them, if anything. I get the impression that people might be using socionics as a way to find an excuse to not develop their "weak" functions because it's just hard, and depend on types having inherent strength as part of their self-esteem and identity.

You are born with a natural inclination to use a function to make it strong. The results are the same. The functions you have used most (and therefore most inclined to have used) since birth will be stronger than the ones you have not used all that much. I agree strength might not be the best word, but it certainly fits for what I'm talking about. Finding your inherent strength in order to raise self-esteem is useless. It's much better used as a focus for your abilities.