self-growth=bad?

[liveandletlive]

ok so obviously self-growth and development is a good thing, so just hear me out for a second. as we age, we supposedly become more developed and grow within our type (think of convergence) through life experience and the learning and mastering of life lessons. however, socionics tells us that when you are using one element, you cannot be using it's complement at the same time since their definitions are each other's respective opposites (so you can't use Se and Ni at the same time for example). So as our other weaker IM elements grow and develop, this is therefore at the expense of our stronger IM elements. So i guess my question is: do you view this as a good thing or a bad thing? i mean, obviously it's not good to be unbalanced in anything, but it seems to me your strong functions become so strong to overcompensate for your weaker ones. IMO, for the individual it's better to be balanced, but for anything dealing with other people in terms of intertype relations or contributing in some way to society, it's actually worse. so then continuing with this line of thinking are young, less-developed types more apt to better society? could self-growth and development actually be a bad thing?

[aestrivex]

however, socionics tells us that when you are using one element, you cannot be using it's complement at the same time since their definitions are each other's respective opposites (so you can't use Se and Ni at the same time for example).

this is unfounded. it's not clear what the significance of "opposites" would be in socionics. (you could call, for example, Se and Ne opposites). the relationship is different, but there's no reason why Se and Ni couldn't be used in any kind of complementary fashion. they are merely used by an individual in different ways (ie, think about how an LIE might use Se and Ni).

[liveandletlive]

this is unfounded. it's not clear what the significance of "opposites" would be in socionics. (you could call, for example, Se and Ne opposites). the relationship is different, but there's no reason why Se and Ni couldn't be used in any kind of complementary fashion. they are merely used by an individual in different ways (ie, think about how an LIE might use Se and Ni).

ok but u still cannot use them both AT THE SAME TIME. by definition, if you are using Se then you cannot and are not using Ni at the same time.

[MysticSonic]

This is why I hate this supposedly unavoidable limited amount of mental energy available to put towards certain functions aspect of Socionics. That we can't become strong in all of the functions, that we can't better ourselves as a person. Even if that is the rational thing to do, I refuse to believe it. Generally accepted Socionic knowledge is very easy to discard on a practical basis for more important things, such as self-development.

[dr. michael]

ok so obviously self-growth and development is a good thing, so just hear me out for a second. as we age, we supposedly become more developed and grow within our type (think of convergence) through life experience and the learning and mastering of life lessons. however, socionics tells us that when you are using one element, you cannot be using it's complement at the same time since their definitions are each other's respective opposites (so you can't use Se and Ni at the same time for example). So as our other weaker IM elements grow and develop, this is therefore at the expense of our stronger IM elements. So i guess my question is: do you view this as a good thing or a bad thing? i mean, obviously it's not good to be unbalanced in anything, but it seems to me your strong functions become so strong to overcompensate for your weaker ones. IMO, for the individual it's better to be balanced, but for anything dealing with other people in terms of intertype relations or contributing in some way to society, it's actually worse. so then continuing with this line of thinking are young, less-developed types more apt to better society? could self-growth and development actually be a bad thing?

This is an interesting idea seeing as most personality theories highly value the concept of convergence and self-growth. I guess it all boils down to personal preference- would you rather have no weaknesses or no strengths? I think I'd rather go for the strengths. This therefore further supports and fosters the significance of duality relations.

[Exodus]

niffweed is right. It's possible to become generally more well-developed, and you can only do it by using each element in the *way* Model A prescribes, not by using one more than another - whatever that means. The fact that people can and do actively and healthily "use" their subdued elements (albeit in very different ways from their valued elements) is often not recognized, and I think it's something that deserves to be described in more detail.

[liveandletlive]

consider multitasking between them. a period of time Ni-ing. a period of time Se-ing. consider making the duration of each period smaller and smaller. you might as well be doing both at the same time then. maybe like the "time slices" a computer uses to multi-task.

why can't you do both at the same time anyway, more explicitly? it's known that the brain does a lot of processing in parallel. i'm conscious of the Thinking concepts i'm typing into my posts but at the same time i can Sense my fingertips tapping the keyboard.

socionics is just a model. and a model overwhelmingly more simple than what it models. and its specifics aren't even very reserached empirically. and much of the empirical research that has been done is anecdotal. i wouldn't take the functions at such face-value. maybe they are at best averaged approximations of what's going on.

check out the opposites section:
http://books.google.com/books?id=twt...SY13aA#PPA3,M1


perhaps i am relying too much on Jung, but as far as I'm concerned Ne/Si, Se/Ni, Fe/Ti, and Fi/Te are defined by their absence of its complement. so if u are using Ne, you cannot also be using Si at the same time.

anyways, answer the post!

[aestrivex]

ok but u still cannot use them both AT THE SAME TIME. by definition, if you are using Se then you cannot and are not using Ni at the same time.

i cannot see why not.

[liveandletlive]

i cannot see why not.

it could be that i'm relying too much on jung, but check out that link i posted above and read the "Opposites" section.

[Creepy-pokeball]

This is why I hate this supposedly unavoidable limited amount of mental energy available to put towards certain functions aspect of Socionics. That we can't become strong in all of the functions, that we can't better ourselves as a person. Even if that is the rational thing to do, I refuse to believe it. Generally accepted Socionic knowledge is very easy to discard on a practical basis for more important things, such as self-development.

I agree with the sentiment, but I have never cared for the weak/strong terminology over functions. It just seems like blatantly bad form, and feels somewhat misleading.

[Exodus]

I agree with the sentiment, but I have never cared for the weak/strong terminology over functions. It just seems like blatantly bad form, and feels somewhat misleading.

What would you call it?

[Ezra]

ok so obviously self-growth and development is a good thing, so just hear me out for a second. as we age, we supposedly become more developed and grow within our type (think of convergence) through life experience and the learning and mastering of life lessons. however, socionics tells us that when you are using one element, you cannot be using it's complement at the same time since their definitions are each other's respective opposites (so you can't use Se and Ni at the same time for example). So as our other weaker IM elements grow and develop, this is therefore at the expense of our stronger IM elements. So i guess my question is: do you view this as a good thing or a bad thing? i mean, obviously it's not good to be unbalanced in anything, but it seems to me your strong functions become so strong to overcompensate for your weaker ones. IMO, for the individual it's better to be balanced, but for anything dealing with other people in terms of intertype relations or contributing in some way to society, it's actually worse. so then continuing with this line of thinking are young, less-developed types more apt to better society? could self-growth and development actually be a bad thing?

My view is this; you will always be naturally inclined towards certain functions, and disinclined towards others. You'll naturally get on better with those who use and value the same functions as you, and will conflict with those who do the opposite. Nonetheless, you can exercise a bit of self-control. This is what I consider to be true growth and development. That's what I love about socionics as opposed to the Enneagram. Don't get me wrong; I love the E, but I think it often expects you to become like Buddha II or something, which I think for most if not all people is just not possible. However, learning to accept your weaknesses and show respect towards others regardless of how you feel about them is very important and it is this kind of behaviour and acceptance that is true strength.

[Blaze]

ok so obviously self-growth and development is a good thing, so just hear me out for a second. as we age, we supposedly become more developed and grow within our type (think of convergence) through life experience and the learning and mastering of life lessons. however, socionics tells us that when you are using one element, you cannot be using it's complement at the same time since their definitions are each other's respective opposites (so you can't use Se and Ni at the same time for example). So as our other weaker IM elements grow and develop, this is therefore at the expense of our stronger IM elements. So i guess my question is: do you view this as a good thing or a bad thing? i mean, obviously it's not good to be unbalanced in anything, but it seems to me your strong functions become so strong to overcompensate for your weaker ones. IMO, for the individual it's better to be balanced, but for anything dealing with other people in terms of intertype relations or contributing in some way to society, it's actually worse. so then continuing with this line of thinking are young, less-developed types more apt to better society? could self-growth and development actually be a bad thing?

these are great questions liveandletlive.

to me, it's less about developing weaker functions and more about minimizing the destructive impact of the weaker functions and getting oneself in line in those areas.

take for example my daughter, ESE. her polr is Ni. this manifests as terrible organization and she has a tendency to hoard all kinds of things she comes into contact with. example: she wanted to save all the bows from christmas presents. i could just picture them thrown into her desk drawer, never to return to the land of the living.

ok so she's young and hasn't figured out how to deal with this weakness yet. she really cannot continue to go on this way into adulthood or she'll never be able to find anything or get anything done. so she will have to learn some kind of way of dealing with her messes and tendency to be disorganized. she'll probably do this through being helped to develop systems. she could learn this from me, her activity partner, or from her dual LII or some other type who has some Ti to offer her.

but she's never going to develop her Ni. minimizing the destructive impact of this will come through the back door of her superid functions.

hopefully

[Jarno]

So as our other weaker IM elements grow and develop, this is therefore at the expense of our stronger IM elements.

Isn't it that our strong elements develop and our weak stay weak?

i mean, obviously it's not good to be unbalanced in anything,

You seem to emphasize on the fact that being balanced is good, I'm not sure, maybe being an expert is better. Look in nature, all animals are experts. e.g. A lion doesn't also eat vegetable's, his expertise is killing preys. Would he also be a vegetable eater, he might become to weak to hunt. etc etc.

but for anything dealing with other people in terms of intertype relations or contributing in some way to society, it's actually worse.

Nice one, I've once thought of this too. There are ofcourse different possible explanations. Maybe it's a natural selection thing. Society's with balanced people are all extinct? But I just don't know if the development of certain functions over others is just a limitation for us humans, or a winning strategy.

[liveandletlive]

Isn't it that our strong elements develop and our weak stay weak?



You seem to emphasize on the fact that being balanced is good, I'm not sure, maybe being an expert is better. Look in nature, all animals are experts. e.g. A lion doesn't also eat vegetable's, his expertise is killing preys. Would he also be a vegetable eater, he might become to weak to hunt. etc etc.

This brings up another good point. Do elements, both strong and weak, develop in relation to each other or do they develop at the expense of others?

[Jarno]

This brings up another good point. Do elements, both strong and weak, develop in relation to each other or do they develop at the expense of others?

I'm not sure what Socionics says about this, but in Jung's book he talks about "development at the expense of other functions"