Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Nature of functions

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    95
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Nature of functions

    I noticed there generally seem to be two ways to look at functions.

    On the one hand you have those that see functions as some sort of process; it gets some input, does some processing and gives some output. For instance, Hitta sees Fi as some sort of evaluation, a judgement process (here). He gives the example of cheese where given certain characteristics of cheese, Fi can evaluate and come to the conclusion: "I like cheese". Another example is when people try to map functions to brain regions, assuming that the processing by each function must be visible somewhere when people are using it. Yet another example I think is when people talk about functions like Ti structures things or breaks things down or Fe manipulates the emotional atmosphere and so on. The idea here is that functions and type directly determine your behaviour and state of mind.

    The other way to see functions is only as "giving awareness". In a given context each function tells you these are the Ni aspects, these the Fi aspects, these Se and so on. And the position of each function in model A determines how you tend to deal with this information. So if you find yourself in a situation where you don't particularly value something, which could be an Fi aspect, then your type determines whether you actually care a lot about that fact or not, whether you actually trust yourself on seeing such aspects correctly, or would rather have someone assist you with it and so on. The idea here is that functions are only a socionics invention to describe how the brain might filter raw data into different information categories. Of course behaviour is then largely influenced by what information you are presented with, but also by mood, emotional state, personal knowledge, values, beliefs, history, experience and so on. Socionics attempts to model perception and awareness, not complete human reasoning and behaviour.

    I was wondering what you guys think about this, because it's a rather fundamental point.

  2. #2
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Wow, good job, you've recognized the basic difference between information aspects (these are the "parts" of things that we perceive in reality) and information elements (these are the mental processes). You're well on your way to a better understanding of Socionics than most people here.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    Wow, good job, you've recognized the basic difference between information aspects (these are the "parts" of things that we perceive in reality) and information elements (these are the mental processes). You're well on your way to a better understanding of Socionics than most people here.
    So is the relevant aspect the input to the function, or the output, or both?

  4. #4
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Absolutely both. If you can't separate them in your mind, you're going to get REALLY mixed up when you try to apply Socionics, especially with things like Se elements and Te aspects.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    so for example, the function could be defined as a function which perceives an -aspect of reality, processes it, and produces an -aspect of reality?

  6. #6
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hellothere View Post
    so for example, the function could be defined as a function which perceives an -aspect of reality, processes it, and produces an -aspect of reality?

    Well, a person's element processes aspects, but a person's exertion of aspects is not necessarily related to their use of the element. Elements perceive, aspects exist. What's left, what "creates" aspects, is just the existence of human emotion, just like what "creates," or, well, substantiates would be a better word, a aspect would be simply concrete material existence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •