...might better be called "function clarity".
In technospeak, "perceptual acuity". It's the degree of subtlety in an information aspect that an individual is capable of reading.
Thoughts?
Function strength...
...might better be called "function clarity".
In technospeak, "perceptual acuity". It's the degree of subtlety in an information aspect that an individual is capable of reading.
Thoughts?
being strong in Ne means my Ne can beat up your Ne
Is this the same as being able to perceive and work with higher dimensions of information?
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
I'm not a fan of the notion that there exist degrees of function strength. I prefer to think of "strength" as an absolute polarity, i.e. a yes-or-no thing.
I think it makes a lot of sense to think of the non-ego functions as things that are imitated rather than used.
Strong blocks have a clear perception of their elements. Weak blocks have a murky perception.Originally Posted by labcoat
Valued blocks are frequently engaged for their own sake.
I think subtle variances in detail can better be accounted for by extraverted/introverted. Extravert functions are better at picking up spreads of signals, while Introverted functions explore one thing in-depth.
Additionally, due to the super-id being valued, in the absence of social pressure to use the super-ego, super-id functions might wind up looking "stronger" than super-ego functions.
These are my impromptu thoughts on why I am presently inclined to agree that looking at "strength" as anything other than a binary is not very useful.
Anyway, @IC, it may be, by coincidence. It wasn't what I had in mind. I don't think I really "get" dimensionality.
bleh stop being serious, cause now I'm going to have to join in on this topic seriously....
Basically my understanding is like bandwidth
Each of the 8 functions are lines into the psyche
For every person we assume they have all 8 lines
Function strength is essentially the bandwidth and clarity of information that is flowing in one of those lines.
So your ego functions are taking in a lot of information and its very clear.
your weaker functions are not, and its a little fuzzy.
Here is the thing though, with weaker functions, the net information that flows in is comparable to the strong functions, except at some point it gets placed into the subconscious, whereas with the strong functions it does not.
This makes the ego in a way, a mechanism for bringing certain information into the conscious from the subconscious. Hence its somewhat coherent with what freud meant when he said ego.
Its not so ridiculous, I've been reading Jung's psychological types and he talks to great length with how emphasis on certain functions leaves the subconscious focused on other functions.
I'm relatively sure this is a valid interpretation, I just haven't worked out what value/unvalue means.
They're the radio stations or TV channels that you enjoy tuning into so go out of your way to do so.
You could expand this analogy... your ego block channels give you lots of ideas, so when you're not tuning into them you're going out and actively engaging them in some way. your super-id you happily just leave it as vegging out on the sofa and having the magic box talk to you and flash pretty colours (not perfect though... HA might be like cooking along to a chef show; you want some support in doing it for yourself for the pleasure factor.)*
Weak functions you just get really bad reception for. The signal-to-noise ratio is a lot lower, so there's lots of static making it difficult for you to get a clear picture of what's being said or done on the tube/radio.
EDIT
Sorry, have two concurrent analogies running there. One for weak/strong, one for valued/unvalued.
This is a good description:
This is good too. But remember that since they are unconscious there's the matter of active attention and strength/clarity. You can pay attention to a weak function but you'd still have a fuzzy understanding. So weak functions/elements/aspects usually factor in as having subconscious impacts.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
Yea exactly, because most of that information is in the subconscious and your conscious reception is static.
You beautiful genius.
^ my ego
Haha, consider it inspiration.
lol I'm far too cynical to be intellectually inspired by a compliment, but thanks anyways.
I was thinking more behaviourally, but on reflecting, you're pretty much about screw-it-all as one can get.
Dont hurt the ISTjs this way!
I find 'focus' a better word, but I guess that's just personal preference.
It's compatible with the subelement hypothesis, so I find no reason to disagree with anything said so far in this thread.
Though if I might opine, it seems to me that the superid block, being essentially valued/non-partisan, integrates the id more smoothly than does unvalued functions. Maybe that's what Augusta meant by "super-id", that the id carries more weight than the superego with respect to these functions?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
