What do the functions encompass?

[MysticSonic]

What sort of behaviors, beliefs, ideas, emotions---everything relating to or touching upon human psychology and sociology, do the functions relate to? What are their limits? What are we really positing when we say these 8 functions are the 8 modes of information or some shit like that? Are we saying that these 8 functions encompass and color every sort of information that is conceivable, or are we merely saying that they simply color human interaction? Apparently we define them, at the very least, as things which can control psychological reactions to social stimulus(like the relationship between a group with out-pouring Se that contains an individual with an Se-PolR.) This, then, means that we at least accept that the functions have some influence upon our emotions, our reactions to things, and the like. What is the extent of this?

I ask this questions because it seems to be a central issue and leads to a very popular sort of question: is x related to socionic thing y. The issue seems to draw attention from several different sorts of mindsets that characterize the Socionic community: those whom seem to wish to increase the level of range at which functions can influence things on an observable level(at high levels of social structures and individual psyche,) and those whom seem to adopt a more skeptical and negative approach on the matter, casting derision upon those whom attempt to specify such matters. Thus, it seems like an important issue to resolve. I don't expect to come to a conclusion on this matter, but I do hope to achieve a more sophisticated opinion on it. So...

...what sorts of things are related to Socionics and what aren't?

[cracka]

I like the sweet Bread and Butter pickles more than I like Dill pickles. <- Not related to type.

[Dioklecian]

What sort of behaviors, beliefs, ideas, emotions---everything relating to or touching upon human psychology and sociology, do the functions relate to? What are their limits? What are we really positing when we say these 8 functions are the 8 modes of information or some shit like that? Are we saying that these 8 functions encompass and color every sort of information that is conceivable, or are we merely saying that they simply color human interaction? Apparently we define them, at the very least, as things which can control psychological reactions to social stimulus(like the relationship between a group with out-pouring Se that contains an individual with an Se-PolR.) This, then, means that we at least accept that the functions have some influence upon our emotions, our reactions to things, and the like. What is the extent of this?

I ask this questions because it seems to be a central issue and leads to a very popular sort of question: is x related to socionic thing y. The issue seems to draw attention from several different sorts of mindsets that characterize the Socionic community: those whom seem to wish to increase the level of range at which functions can influence things on an observable level(at high levels of social structures and individual psyche,) and those whom seem to adopt a more skeptical and negative approach on the matter, casting derision upon those whom attempt to specify such matters. Thus, it seems like an important issue to resolve. I don't expect to come to a conclusion on this matter, but I do hope to achieve a more sophisticated opinion on it. So...

...what sorts of things are related to Socionics and what aren't?

This is the crucial question that socionists in Russia should have answered a long long time ago when they decided to create socionics.

Unfortunately there is no such answer readily available anywhere as far as I can see.

Personally I think of socionics as the ENTP contribution to psychological type theory. As such its strengths are in Ne and Ti and weknesses in things like Fi, Ni, etc. The main contribution os socionics in my opinion is the discovery that all functions are present in every type. Jung seems to think that only one or two functions are effectively present in each type.

[tcaudilllg]

here is a tendency in this forum to attempt to associate type with specific behaviors rather than specifying how type is manifested in behavior.

Type exists independently of behavior. Behavior exists to service type.

Socionics elements = our means of processing the world around us and what behaviors we must go through to conduct that processing.

Socionics functions = the roles we attribute elements to in our process of experiencing the world.

[Joy]

The manifestation of functions is almost entirely related to environmental influences and biology, and the process of learning to communicate is shaped by the way those around us communicate.

I would tend to think that everything we do and think is in some way a manifestation of a function, but there are way too many variables involved and it's too abstract a process to be able to recognize how various things relate to Socionics. That is why it's important to keep in mind that type descriptions focus on the author's perspective and understanding of what (s)he believes to be common manifestations of the 16 different functional arrangements in his/her culture and era.

[tcaudilllg]

My views: Behavior is learned. Types just represent differences in how we coordinate endogenous activities with the world around us.

endogenous?

[Shazaam]

Type is intrinsic and biological. It's not learned whatsoever. You pretty much have the same base personality you did when you were a baby. How can anybody deny that? People don't change much, just our circumstances. That's why people say 'don't be a victim to circumstances.' I'd say society kinda filters in and such, and certain types are going to be happier and more successful than others depending on a lot of things.... but you can't really change the base building block of something, and why would you want to? Genes are naturally diverse for a good reason.

When I was a baby I just sat on my ass and kept to myself and I didn't cry much or show my feelings. And now, I just sit on my ass and I don't cry much or show my feelings. Nothing changed, just evolved...and matured. I'm still me, just an older me. Not really zany and pure as I was a kid, but it's the same inherent make-up...just bigger me (compared to mini-me)

You're a victim to genes and nature and instincts, even if you think you can overcome them you can't. There's a reason most of you were interested in socionics and nerdy things instead of being like normal boys and playing football. Come on now. Who are you trying to kid?

[BLauritson]

I figure if type is something you learn to be, rather than something you naturally are, then nobody would ever have their ego functions suppressed as a child. By extension, there'd be no logical reason for people to grow up in an environment opposite to their quadra. But both of those happen. It's not complete proof either way of course, but something worth considering at any rate.

[Minde]

What sort of behaviors, beliefs, ideas, emotions---everything relating to or touching upon human psychology and sociology, do the functions relate to? What are their limits? What are we really positing when we say these 8 functions are the 8 modes of information or some shit like that? Are we saying that these 8 functions encompass and color every sort of information that is conceivable, or are we merely saying that they simply color human interaction? Apparently we define them, at the very least, as things which can control psychological reactions to social stimulus(like the relationship between a group with out-pouring Se that contains an individual with an Se-PolR.) This, then, means that we at least accept that the functions have some influence upon our emotions, our reactions to things, and the like. What is the extent of this?

I ask this questions because it seems to be a central issue and leads to a very popular sort of question: is x related to socionic thing y. The issue seems to draw attention from several different sorts of mindsets that characterize the Socionic community: those whom seem to wish to increase the level of range at which functions can influence things on an observable level(at high levels of social structures and individual psyche,) and those whom seem to adopt a more skeptical and negative approach on the matter, casting derision upon those whom attempt to specify such matters. Thus, it seems like an important issue to resolve. I don't expect to come to a conclusion on this matter, but I do hope to achieve a more sophisticated opinion on it. So...

...what sorts of things are related to Socionics and what aren't?

Very Good Question. I have wondered myself about that. Been wondering, actually, for quite a long time.


Quick, somebody - answer the question simply and understandably! Please.

The answers thus far have been only slightly helpful - and by "helpful" I mean they've only demonstrated variety of opinion.

[Hitta]

The Functions and Information Elements(as well as the aspects) make up everything. All forms of interpretation, all forms of thinking, all forms of objects. One who sees a block as a block would be demonstrating several functions, especially Se. We see the shape, the outline, the formation which would mean Se. When we notice the behavior of objects, we notice Te. When we start comparing it to other objects as far as the systematic information, we use Ti. When we think about the potential of an object, we think of Ne. All the functions could be broken down like this. When we look at the intuitive people, which are people that do not use + or - Se in their ego function, they aren't in touch with the physical word directly so to speak. They don't notice the outward traits of things. All functions can be viewed like this.

[Joy]

What kind of answer wouldn't be an opinion?

[Minde]

What kind of answer wouldn't be an opinion?

That's another good question. And one I have been pondering, as well.