Confidence & strong functions

[Exodus]

Strong vs. weak is largely a matter of confidence. Sometimes the strong functions can get too confident. For instance, the other day I had to go get some vaccines. I didn't make any preparation until the actual day of the appointment, scheduled for 10:30am. With only 4 hours of sleep I get up an hour and a half before the appointment and

-look up the directions to the clinic
-call my friend to get his university password so I could use his printing pages
-run/walk to a university computer to print off the insurance information
-go to the bus stop (ended up waiting for 15 min as the bus was late)
-get off at the right stop, never having taken the bus route before
-get on another bus
-again get off at the right stop and walk a block or two to the clinic

I ended up getting there with only a couple minutes to spare. Any one of a number of tiny things could have gone wrong - I could have slept through my alarm, the bus could have been too late to make the transfer, etc. Someone with weaker might have prepared for these a little beforehand, but I think the fact that I have strong makes me especially likely to trust myself to do everything super-last-minute and just assume that everything will go according to plan. It also probably has something to do with not valuing .

Another thing about confidence is that often one may appear to be admitting weakness in a certain area. types seem especially likely to admit being afraid of something - but I think this is not an admission of weakness given the right mentality. Often in an argument I'll say "I don't understand." From my point of view, I am not admitting fault, I am criticizing the other person's clarity of expression ().

[EyeSeeCold]

Lol . confidence is at once believing you'll be on time, and also that everything will work out even if you aren't.

It backfires, but in the end it all just blows over.

I have a pretty stubborn Ego when I'm in an argument.

[DirectorAbbie]

I'm confident that I can handle anything. What's that related to?

[Korpsy Knievel]

I'm confident that I can handle anything. What's that related to?

Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Trevor]

I'm confident that I can handle anything. What's that related to?

Given your type; . In other words: Creative-Si > Base-Te.

[Creepy-male]

Another thing about confidence is that often one may appear to be admitting weakness in a certain area. types seem especially likely to admit being afraid of something - but I think this is not an admission of weakness given the right mentality. Often in an argument I'll say "I don't understand." From my point of view, I am not admitting fault, I am criticizing the other person's clarity of expression ().

Yea that affect is interesting, I've also noticed that being around someone who is confident at something and helps you out tends to transfer that confidence to the other person whether or not they have that skill, because the other person makes it look easy.

Secondarily being around someone who is unconfident at something can have the reverse effect, making people doubt themselves and their "helper".

I especially find this interesting because to a certain level this effect in certain situations can lead to people who lack competence following a confident idiot over a skeptical pro.

I guess this kind of ties in to a certain degree because at a certain level as confidence begins to grow, it exceeds a critical point where it no longer is just about demonstrating confidence explicitly but having it implicitly.

Instead of constantly agreeing with what you understand in a demonstrative way, you begin to start questioning what doesn't make sense or is inconsistent, most of that understanding is already implicit rather than explicit.

I'm talking a lot about teacher-student... but I think it works internally as well, one in the lower stages of confidence always seeks to take in as much information on a subject as possible to develop competence, but once again after they exceed a critical threshold, this competence becomes ingrained and the process of validation begins where one attempts to measure their knowledge against reality and reality against their knowledge and it becomes more about validation of that knowledge rapidly acquired in the early stages.

My rambling isn't necessarily socionics related, at least I'm not intending to make any connections at this time, but I find it interesting, what you said... I think as confidence progresses upwards it passes a critical threshold in which expertise in the given confident area becomes implicit as opposed to explicit and begins to take on a less demonstrative quality and instead a quality which seek validation with that which is already implicit.

Finally it tends to be that people unaware of this trend place emphasis on the outwardly observable characteristics of confidence -- i.e. the demonstrative behavior, rather than the implicit characteristics of confidence which are more subtle as it looks very similar to the early stages of competency when one is first learning -- however their are subtle differences.

Someone validating something can explain clearly what they understand and what they are looking to see. Someone who is taking in knowledge for the first time is unable to explain what they understand on the subject and what they are looking to see.

A good example is someone first learning Newtonian Physics and it has just begun to make sense to them may find themselves skeptical of a Modern Physicists claims as it seems to be off from their recent efforts to make sense of Newtonian Physics.... however to an expert at Newtonian Physics, Modern Physics would seem to require some validation for its existence, which could be established by evidence and experimental validation. This evidence and experimental validation to the person first understanding Newtonian physics is rather useless though as they don't have the sufficient foundation to determine whether or not the Modern Physicist is lying or he is more correct.

Many people would seem to make the logical error of projecting their ambiguity onto the expert and projecting the confidence of a charlatan onto themselves.

[Ave]

Lol . confidence is at once believing you'll be on time, and also that everything will work out even if you aren't.

It backfires, but in the end it all just blows over.

I have a pretty stubborn Ego when I'm in an argument.

Actually I think confidence means not being sure about how things will work out and then trying to foresee how they will so as to make it work out. But maybe thats more creative , than dominance.

I do know however that polrs expect everything to go according to plan, and are surpirised when they dont. My dad always foresees what could go wrong in a way noone else can see, and he dominant, so I dunno how confidence can be about "knowing" evereything will go accoring to plan, more like the opposite.

[golden]

Actually I think confidence means not being sure about how things will work out and then trying to foresee how they will so as to make it work out. But maybe thats more creative , than dominance.

I do know however that polrs expect everything to go according to plan, and are surpirised when they dont. My dad always foresees what could go wrong in a way noone else can see, and he dominant, so I dunno how confidence can be about "knowing" evereything will go accoring to plan, more like the opposite.

I tend to agree with this, although I'm just based it on personal observations. My mother is Ni leading and is great at forecasting where things will go wrong. I do the same, just to a lesser extent. I look for how problems will develop and work to avoid those problems. I can't exactly say I make plans--it's more like I cast an ideal situation in mind, followed up by endless backup plans based on everything that can go awry.

And yeah, my Ni PoLR ex was very into planning in a way that seemed, from my perspective, to be overoptimistic. There was some idea that as long as you make a plan, foist it on others, and stick to it like mad, things will turn out as intended. But ... they rarely did. Super annoying!

[FDG]

Dunning-Kruger effect.

rotfl

[krieger]

i'm pretty good with Se.

[Airman]

Confidence is related to the use of both Ego and Id functions, because you grasp both pairs with a good hand. But I think that, in the end, confidence itself as a quality, if you mean courage and strength, is about strong or , but Se first.

[Lobo]

I don't really agree that a type will necessarily have strong vs. weak functions, unless by "strong" you mean "aptitude." There's a difference between aptitude and actual strength, which imo depends on experience and knowledge. For example, someone who is capable of foreseeing certain events in the future probably has a basis for that prediction based on what they have experienced and seen beforehand.

I think people show greater confidence and strength in those functions that they don't have some kind of attachment too... The leading function might actually be used with reservation, considering that self-confidence/self-image seems to depend on it; there's a lot more at stake. This creates an innate limitation in the development of the leading function, by becoming susceptible to "misuse" of it for survival, instinctually resorting to it for self-defense rather than for its own sake (that seems to be the creative function) or putting too much focus on it and missing other sides of reality. I've seen this first-hand with my INFj boss. You can tell that he is confident with Fi, but it's use is directly connected to his personal problems or issues with his subordinates to "protect" himself (if that makes sense). He has this ever-changing unspoken morality system that he applies to his subordinates in order to find someone to blame or to escape uncomfortable situations, using themes of disappointment to try and make people feel bad for what they did (break his inconsistent and ridiculous moral code). I find it to be sick, but I can't say I haven't done that before when I'm under a lot of stress.

Unlike the leading function, I see the Id functions to be seen from a more dettached/"unbiased" pov, especially the 8th. Maybe that's why those tend to become strong, because there are no apparent restrictions to their use and development... Not really sure about this yet though.

[krieger]

under my personalized interpretation of Supervision, the Base function is at the same time the source of a person's sanity and strength AND a weakness capable of being preyed upon. it is the Creating function of the Supervisor that attacks the Supervisee's Base function; not just the Base attacking the "PoLR".

[Airman]

I don't really agree that a type will necessarily have strong vs. weak functions, unless by "strong" you mean "aptitude." There's a difference between aptitude and actual strength, which imo depends on experience and knowledge. For example, someone who is capable of foreseeing certain events in the future probably has a basis for that prediction based on what they have experienced and seen beforehand.

I think people show greater confidence and strength in those functions that they don't have some kind of attachment too... The leading function might actually be used with reservation, considering that self-confidence/self-image seems to depend on it; there's a lot more at stake. This creates an innate limitation in the development of the leading function, by becoming susceptible to "misuse" of it for survival, instinctually resorting to it for self-defense rather than for its own sake (that seems to be the creative function) or putting too much focus on it and missing other sides of reality. I've seen this first-hand with my INFj boss. You can tell that he is confident with Fi, but it's use is directly connected to his personal problems or issues with his subordinates to "protect" himself (if that makes sense). He has this ever-changing unspoken morality system that he applies to his subordinates in order to find someone to blame or to escape uncomfortable situations, using themes of disappointment to try and make people feel bad for what they did (break his inconsistent and ridiculous moral code). I find it to be sick, but I can't say I haven't done that before when I'm under a lot of stress.

Unlike the leading function, I see the Id functions to be seen from a more dettached/"unbiased" pov, especially the 8th. Maybe that's why those tend to become strong, because there are no apparent restrictions to their use and development... Not really sure about this yet though.

I agree, Id functions are very strong, maybe stronger than Ego functions, but not preferred. I have very strong Ti and Se but I don't like these functions. I prefer to use Si than Se.

under my personalized interpretation of Supervision, the Base function is at the same time the source of a person's sanity and strength AND a weakness capable of being preyed upon. it is the Creating function of the Supervisor that attacks the Supervisee's Base function; not just the Base attacking the "PoLR".

this is something to be thought about, makes a lot of sense since the base function is the center of the Ego.

that's something very interesting which I think is deserved some thought on.

[pianosinger]

under my personalized interpretation of Supervision, the Base function is at the same time the source of a person's sanity and strength AND a weakness capable of being preyed upon. it is the Creating function of the Supervisor that attacks the Supervisee's Base function; not just the Base attacking the "PoLR".

Mirror can do this, too, can it not? Only in the case of Mirror relations, everything is equal. The reason Supervision is bad is that the Supervisor can effectively attack the Supervisee's Base, but the Supervisee is powerless against the Supervisor.

[silverchris9]

Lol . confidence is at once believing you'll be on time, and also that everything will work out even if you aren't.

It backfires, but in the end it all just blows over.

I certainly feel that way. I assume I won't make an error, and once the error occurs, I feel like, well, can't change the past, now do I need to do anything to make sure that it still goes on fine, or will it just work itself out? Very historical/time-y, really: what do I have to do to affect the evolution of this process? Will it just happen the way I want on its own? Se helps out with an awareness of how much impact you have or can have on the situation, how extreme your action needs to be, whether the force you're up against is too large for you to really make a difference. On the other hand, Ni can often find the exact location the butterfly should flap its wings in order to send Dorothy to Oz.

I can't exactly say I make plans--it's more like I cast an ideal situation in mind, followed up by endless backup plans based on everything that can go awry.

And yeah, my Ni PoLR ex was very into planning in a way that seemed, from my perspective, to be overoptimistic. There was some idea that as long as you make a plan, foist it on others, and stick to it like mad, things will turn out as intended. But ... they rarely did. Super annoying!

YES YES YES YES YES. The only way you can fail is if you never adjust your plan, or if you adjust your plan too late. Everything can be handled if you catch it in time. (I mean, not everything, but you know what I mean)

[Morcheeba]

Mirror can do this, too, can it not? Only in the case of Mirror relations, everything is equal. The reason Supervision is bad is that the Supervisor can effectively attack the Supervisee's Base, but the Supervisee is powerless against the Supervisor.

I'm in complete disagreement on your point of view in relation to a supervisor attacking their supervisee's base function. Why on earth, first of all, would you want to attack a function that is in your ego? Attacking a function would only be sensible if someone was demonstrating a function that you devalue. I just don't understand your reasoning for this one. Supervision works well because you both have one ego function that is alike, so you can work well together given the fact that your supervisee respects the use of said function. But, ofcourse, the main objective for supervision is helping the supervisee in the use of supervisors base, which the supervisee is generally grateful for and welcomes attention to this area.

[Ave]

I'm in complete disagreement on your point of view in relation to a supervisor attacking their supervisee's base function. Why on earth, first of all, would you want to attack a function that is in your ego? Attacking a function would only be sensible if someone was demonstrating a function that you devalue. I just don't understand your reasoning for this one. Supervision works well because you both have one ego function that is alike, so you can work well together given the fact that your supervisee respects the use of said function. But, ofcourse, the main objective for supervision is helping the supervisee in the use of supervisors base, which the supervisee is generally grateful for and welcomes attention to this area.

Maybe "attacking" isnt the right word. But usually when you dish out criticism it takes the form of the second creative function, so maybe not attacking , but criticising in that form.

[ashlesha]

I'm in complete disagreement on your point of view in relation to a supervisor attacking their supervisee's base function. Why on earth, first of all, would you want to attack a function that is in your ego? Attacking a function would only be sensible if someone was demonstrating a function that you devalue. I just don't understand your reasoning for this one. Supervision works well because you both have one ego function that is alike, so you can work well together given the fact that your supervisee respects the use of said function. But, ofcourse, the main objective for supervision is helping the supervisee in the use of supervisors base, which the supervisee is generally grateful for and welcomes attention to this area.

i've never before heard the idea that supervisees are happy and grateful for help from their supervisors and it doesn't make sense to me given that the polr is seen as the most unimportant function and the supervisor gives it top priority. how did you get this idea? afaik it works out better when your polr is in the other person's id so they can help you with it without shoving it in your face.

[redbaron]

I'm in complete disagreement on your point of view in relation to a supervisor attacking their supervisee's base function. Why on earth, first of all, would you want to attack a function that is in your ego? Attacking a function would only be sensible if someone was demonstrating a function that you devalue. I just don't understand your reasoning for this one. Supervision works well because you both have one ego function that is alike, so you can work well together given the fact that your supervisee respects the use of said function. But, ofcourse, the main objective for supervision is helping the supervisee in the use of supervisors base, which the supervisee is generally grateful for and welcomes attention to this area.

First part of this is right. I don't attack my supervisees base function. But I do withdraw my creative function when he's around because it's really not needed, given that it's already there so blatantly in him. Supervision doesn't work well over the long term because although the supervisee needs help with polr, it's the supervisor's base which means it's taken for granted and the supervisor grows weary of the utter cluelessness and de-valuation of it by the supervisee. In other words: the supervisee is NOT grateful for this "help" because over the long term it comes across as condescending and annoyed and supervisee doesn't want that sort of attention in their weak area.

[krieger]

i mostly like the idea because it perfectly matches my intuition that it is NOT a healthy way to behave to fanatically hold fast to a single set of cognitive principles that make sense to you and to disregard everything else. conventional socionics theory makes it sound like this IS a good thing to do, because the Base function can not be supervised. i think the whole reason we have Creative functions at all is because the Base function is not infallible. it is just a starting point. safety and certainty is only reached when a position is understood from the vantage point of multiple cognitive principles.

[Creepy-male]

Well, on that labcoat, wouldn't being rounded out through your super-id by picking up rules of thumb from your dual and activity be ideal over being "supervised"? I think through exposure to Alpha NTs I'm getting better at keeping a clear head and rational mind, and am gaining a greater awareness of what potential is and the confidence to pursue it. Sometimes. When it's safe

EDIT

Could just be my prefrontal cortex getting myelinated, but... I doubt that. I'm definitely a more substantial person than three years ago being totally socially isolated and repressed by my mum.

[Exodus]

i've never before heard the idea that supervisees are happy and grateful for help from their supervisors and it doesn't make sense to me given that the polr is seen as the most unimportant function and the supervisor gives it top priority. how did you get this idea? afaik it works out better when your polr is in the other person's id so they can help you with it without shoving it in your face.

Yeah what the heck? This is just wrong.

[Creepy-male]

Not really. I've gone to LSEs before for help. The problem is usually that they give advice in ways that aren't useful to me, or they wind up going the extra mile and belittling me over sensitive issues. Just by trying to "help".