8 functions in socionics

[Hugo]

Are there any functions or aspects of mental processing that Socionics have not given consideration to? Could there be 10 functions rather than just 8?

This I believe is an interesting question, because if there has been a neglect of some sort, then the whole thing would need to be re-evaluated.

[Rocky]

Based off of their broad defintions, it's impossible to have more than 8 functions, although I don't think the explainations of those functions are complete.

[Hugo]

But where they are not complete, is this where other functions lie?

[Rocky]

But where they are not complete, is this where other functions lie?

Not really, because the definitions of a function are so broad, which means that there *may* be two kinds of Ti based off of people using it differently, but you would still classify it under Ti is it is a)Drawn inwardly as oppossed to outwardly, b)reasoning something, and c)reasoning it logically as oppossed to ethically.

[Gilly]

I'm with rocky on this one. I think primary functions, for example, vary depending on the secondary function, i.e., ENTP Ne is different from ENFp Ne.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Of course they are. Perception has to be influenced by ego to even want to perceive what the ego may need/want. At least that is the way it feels like it happens...

[flower]

Are there not 8 functions by definition?

Socionics identifies the dichotomies S/N T/F, each of these 4 requires a category of cognitive thought to explain how they are different, we call these functions. There is also a 3rd dichotomy, E/I which splits each of these categories into 2, meaning that we now require 8 functions to include the E/I preference. But thats it, there are no more dichotomies that socionics identifies, therefore by definition all cognition must come under 1 of these categories. As all people use all types of cognitive thought, we have the idea described by model A, that all people use all the functions, they just do so with greater or weaker strengths etc, producing 16 types (j/p although not a dichotomy, in model A has the effect of changing the order of functions therefore doubling the number of types to 16) .

Now, socionics with subtypes essentially describe 32 individual types, they are just not as well understood as the 16 types we usually use. Is this because there is infact a 4th dichotomy that has not been identified very well and we only see the end product in people, hence why they are relitively poorly written and often people find it hard to identify with a subtype? quite possibly.

If you think about for example S/N, if you believe this is a discrete preference, same for T/F and E/I, then you will get 16 discrete types. If you believe that S/N etc are continuous preferences, then the 16 types will become points on a continuous line. If this is indeed the case, we could continue to find ways to divide people with finer and finer continuous dichotomies to get 32, 64, 128 ..... types, as all we would be doing is finding more accurately where someone belongs on this continuous line of type.

I hope this makes some sense

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Rocky]

Are there not 8 functions by definition?

Socionics identifies the dichotomies S/N T/F, each of these 4 requires a category of cognitive thought to explain how they are different, we call these functions. There is also a 3rd dichotomy, E/I which splits each of these categories into 2, meaning that we now require 8 functions to include the E/I preference. But thats it, there are no more dichotomies that socionics identifies, therefore by definition all cognition must come under 1 of these categories. As all people use all types of cognitive thought, we have the idea described by model A, that all people use all the functions, they just do so with greater or weaker strengths etc, producing 16 types (j/p although not a dichotomy, in model A has the effect of changing the order of functions therefore doubling the number of types to 16) .

Now, socionics with subtypes essentially describe 32 individual types, they are just not as well understood as the 16 types we usually use. Is this because there is infact a 4th dichotomy that has not been identified very well and we only see the end product in people, hence why they are relitively poorly written and often people find it hard to identify with a subtype? quite possibly.

If you think about for example S/N, if you believe this is a discrete preference, same for T/F and E/I, then you will get 16 discrete types. If you believe that S/N etc are continuous preferences, then the 16 types will become points on a continuous line. If this is indeed the case, we could continue to find ways to divide people with finer and finer continuous dichotomies to get 32, 64, 128 ..... types, as all we would be doing is finding more accurately where someone belongs on this continuous line of type.

I hope this makes some sense

Yeah, I don't fully believe in Model-A... but there are still the 8 basic functions. I think it's possible to, say, have an INTj who is an Ni "subtype", an ISTp, who is a Ti "subtype", etc... which would be differnt form what Model-A would say.

[flower]

I personally beleive that its a continuum, i picture it like this: if you draw a circle and put the type acronyms around the outside, people are somewhere on the circle but closer to one type than the others. Types like ISTp and INTp are next to each other, with ENFj ESFj opposite etc.

Remember that jung origonally described 8 types, as socionics developed we got 16 types, and subtypes try to describe 32 types. This appears to me to be refining the descriptions into finer groups, and the number of functions required by socionics to get 16 types is 8, so by definition there are 8 functions. As rocky above says, the function descriptions are broad, maybe as socionics develops further we will be able to define 16 categories of cognition, as the function descriptions get better, allowing us to break them down further into 16 functions, currently though we lump lots of cognition under 1 banner, eg Ni,Te etc

Most people seem to identify with a particular type but if your near a boundary it maybe hard to type yourself, when you get down to the subtypes most people find it hard to identify with a particular subtype, because its a finer distinction your looking for.

[Creepy-]

Are there any functions or aspects of mental processing that Socionics have not given consideration to? Could there be 10 functions rather than just 8?

This I believe is an interesting question, because if there has been a neglect of some sort, then the whole thing would need to be re-evaluated.

There are basic principles governing how we interact with each other and with our environment. We need to be able to maintain a consistent form. The 8 functions represent all that is necessary to do this.

There are other issues, but I cannot even begin to address them until I understand how each type strings the functions together.