Functional Blocks

[Gilly]

I've been ruminating on this for a while now.

So I'm thinking to myself, "Everyone uses each function; without this being true, people would be unable to function in reality because of an inability to cope with some kind of information." And this is definitely true. But my common sense says to me, "Now wait, each one of these functions is an abstraction and, unless it's paired with something, doesn't really refer to anything specific in reality."

Take Si. There are many things that we can relate to Si: tracking moving objects, health, evaluation of physical pleasure or pain, taste, bodily awareness, etc. But all of these, in some way, imply that there is either a human or nonhuman element to what is being observed; thus, a logical or ethical component. Can we fairly say that anything is applicable to Sensation without being also applicable to Ethics or Logic? Can the same not be said of Intuition? Can we evaluate the Ne properties, the "essences," of anything, without picking either a nonhuman or human, that is, Logical or Ethical, "thing" to analyze? And, being fair, must we not also claim the same of both Logic and Ethics? Take Fi. Can we evaluate our relationship with someone without referring either to the essence of our relationship with someone (NeFi: "I am close with this person; I have this opinion of him/her"), or some particular characteristic of our relationship with them (SeFi: "I have a duty to this person; I always behave this way with regards to him/her")?

My conclusion is thus: If the reason we need access to each function is in order to assure that we are capable of dealing with each aspect of reality, then, assuming that each instance of one function also indicates the use of one of its two possible paired functions, do we not also need access to each possible pairing functions in order to ensure that we can properly assimilate reality and all of its aspects?

Proposal for a new model:

Function #: (I)LE / I(L)E

Function 1: NeTi / NeTi
Function 2: FiNe / TiSe
Function 3: SeTi / NeFi
Function 4: FiSe / FiSe
Function 5: SiFe / SiFe
Function 6: TeSi / FeNi
Function 7: NiFe / SiTe
Function 8: TeNi / TeNi

Or, alternately:

Function #: (I)LE / I(L)E

Function 1: NeTi / NeTi
Function 2: NeFi / TiSe
Function 3: TiSe / NeFi
Function 4: FiSe / FiSe
Function 5: SiFe / SiFe
Function 6: SiTe / FeNi
Function 7: FeNi / SiTe
Function 8: TeNi / TeNi

Or something like that. Anyways, my real point here is that I don't think a function should, or really can, be thought of in a concrete example without regards to a paired function, and thus all types should be assigned each and every functional block in some position, with some thought given to subtype when we're considering relative "strengths" of these blocks.

Just a thought.

[Gilly]

No replies still? Come on people, this is good stuff!

[Rubicon]

Interesting Gilly. The concept of the pairing of functions makes sense to me. Just curious as to the order of your functions though - e.g. TiSe as Function 2. I mean being that Se is a weak function for ILEs, wouldn't that render the information as evaluated by Ti rather questionable?

[Gilly]

If the Ti is being used with Se, then yes, it would definitely be questionable, and unhealthy to boot. Something else I've been thinking about is that there are both healthy and unhealthy uses of any function for a person. TiSe in an ILE would be an "unhealthy" function; "good Ti," so to speak, from an ILE, would come in the form of NeTi, while healthy Se would be paired with Fi. The functional blocks (Ego, Super-Ego, Super-Id, and Id) that exist in the normal Socionics theory would be the "healthy" ones, where strong functions are blocked with other strong functions, and weak ones with other weak functions.

Look at it this way: if a person is trying to use a function he/she is "strong" in, but paired with one he/she is "weak" in, it's almost like denying the self; if an ILE is using TiSe, he/she is "pretending" to be confident in Se by using it with Ti, which IS a strong and confident function. If, however, Se is used with regards to Fi, the ILE is accepting the fact that he/she is weak in both of those; the ILE is neither denying strength in Ti by using it with a weak function, nor "faking" strength in Se by pairing it with a stronger one.

Again this is all completely hypothetical (obviously )

[Expat]

I agree with Gilly generally, in fact, I'm not sure it needed to be posted in this sub-forum.

A minor quibble, not really related to Gilly's general point:

Take Fi. Can we evaluate our relationship with someone without referring either to the essence of our relationship with someone (NeFi: "I am close with this person; I have this opinion of him/her"), or some particular characteristic of our relationship with them (SeFi: "I have a duty to this person; I always behave this way with regards to him/her")?

That's not really the difference between NeFi and SeFi, in my opinion.

I see the difference as:

"SeFi": "my relationship with that person is defined by what the person's real qualities, as it is plain to see"
"NeFi": "my relationship with that person is defined by qualities that perhaps not everyone can see, but I know they are there".

[Gilly]

I see the "I like/dislike/have this opinion" as a sort of Ne "summation" of the relationship, while the "I do/I am responsible for" are more specifics of how it actually works.

I can see the relevance of your descriptions to each function, but I can't really say I've observed either personally.

[Gilly]

Expat, how would you see these blocks manifesting themselves, if we are to assume that everyone has every potential blocking? This was really just a shot in the dark.

[misutii]

Gilly this is interesting stuff, I've actually thought something along these lines before but didn't know how to organize it inside my head like you did.

In fact I just tried to make some observations but backspaced them because they sounded dumb so I still can't organize it properly in my head lol

[Gilly]

Yeah, I definitely think it's an idea that needs addressing. Something I've been thinking about it in relation to is the Enneagram. My type, 3, which is usually thought of as FeNi disintegrates to 9, which is very much SiFe in nature (an argument can be made for SiTe as well, and I would definitely believe that some Si-SLIs could be 9w8, but I think the fact that "inner peace" points to something "internal" is a big push towards Ethics). I've been thinking about using this relationship as a starting point for what to call at least that particular block (an EIE's SiFe block, that is). Personally I think it's not quite my PoLR, but it's definitely something that bites me in the ass when I pay too much attention to it. When I try to feed that "inner sense of comfort" that type 9 talks about (which I relate to SiFe), I invariably become increasingly lazy and unproductive, not to mention generally dissatisfied. I think maybe "temptation" would be a good name for this block.

[strrrng]

I've been ruminating on this for a while now.

So I'm thinking to myself, "Everyone uses each function; without this being true, people would be unable to function in reality because of an inability to cope with some kind of information." And this is definitely true. But my common sense says to me, "Now wait, each one of these functions is an abstraction and, unless it's paired with something, doesn't really refer to anything specific in reality." functions can't exist as themselves? They very well do refer to things in reality by themselves

Take Si. There are many things that we can relate to Si: tracking moving objects, health, evaluation of physical pleasure or pain, taste, bodily awareness, etc. Si is none of those things. tracking moving objects? we're not fucking radars. health...oh yeah, forgot, everyone thinks this is Si, so I'll shut up. evaluation of pleasure or pain is not Si. taste is a sense - not a function. bodily awareness??? look, these are associations at best, and shouldn't be used to define Si.

But all of these, in some way, imply that there is either a human or nonhuman element to what is being observed; thus, a logical or ethical component. Can we fairly say that anything is applicable to Sensation without being also applicable to Ethics or Logic? Can the same not be said of Intuition? Can we evaluate the Ne properties, the "essences," of anything, without picking either a nonhuman or human, that is, Logical or Ethical, "thing" to analyze? And, being fair, must we not also claim the same of both Logic and Ethics? Take Fi. Can we evaluate our relationship with someone without referring either to the essence of our relationship with someone (NeFi: "I am close with this person; I have this opinion of him/her"), or some particular characteristic of our relationship with them (SeFi: "I have a duty to this person; I always behave this way with regards to him/her")?

My conclusion is thus: If the reason we need access to each function is in order to assure that we are capable of dealing with each aspect of reality, then, assuming that each instance of one function also indicates the use of one of its two possible paired functions, do we not also need access to each possible pairing functions in order to ensure that we can properly assimilate reality and all of its aspects?

Proposal for a new model:

Function #: (I)LE / I(L)E

Function 1: NeTi / NeTi
Function 2: FiNe / TiSe
Function 3: SeTi / NeFi
Function 4: FiSe / FiSe
Function 5: SiFe / SiFe
Function 6: TeSi / FeNi
Function 7: NiFe / SiTe
Function 8: TeNi / TeNi

Or, alternately:

Function #: (I)LE / I(L)E

Function 1: NeTi / NeTi
Function 2: NeFi / TiSe
Function 3: TiSe / NeFi
Function 4: FiSe / FiSe
Function 5: SiFe / SiFe
Function 6: SiTe / FeNi
Function 7: FeNi / SiTe
Function 8: TeNi / TeNi

Or something like that. Anyways, my real point here is that I don't think a function should, or really can, be thought of in a concrete example without regards to a paired function, and thus all types should be assigned each and every functional block in some position, with some thought given to subtype when we're considering relative "strengths" of these blocks.

Just a thought.

It's an interesting idea, generally....we'll see how it develops

[Gilly]

I'd be interested in any example you might give as proof that a function can observe part of reality without being paired with another function.

That was not intended to be a definition of Si. Senses are, actually, in Socionics theory, at least, the medium through which Sensory functions operate; all of those examples are relevant, and not intended in any way as an all-encompassing definition.

[strrrng]

I'd be interested in any example you might give as proof that a function can observe part of reality without being paired with another function.

That was not intended to be a definition of Si. Senses are, actually, in Socionics theory, at least, the medium through which Sensory functions operate; all of those examples are relevant, and not intended in any way as an all-encompassing definition.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at, but functions observe information aspects. Why does Si need to be paired with Te or Fe in order to observe what it is meant to do (external dynamics of fields)?

The purpose of functional pairing is to fully interact in reality.

"Now wait, each one of these functions is an abstraction and, unless it's paired with something, doesn't really refer to anything specific in reality."

they each refer to specific aspects of reality...

[strrrng]

Take Si. There are many things that we can relate to Si: tracking moving objects, health, evaluation of physical pleasure or pain, taste, bodily awareness, etc. But all of these, in some way, imply that there is either a human or nonhuman element to what is being observed; thus, a logical or ethical component. Can we fairly say that anything is applicable to Sensation without being also applicable to Ethics or Logic?

I reread this, and I get the gist of what you're saying, and it makes sense intuitively...

logic and ethics does not = non human and human...

[Gilly]

I reread this, and I get the gist of what you're saying, and it makes sense intuitively...

logic and ethics does not = non human and human...

It's a vague definition. Would "living and nonliving" suit you better? The strict definitions are there, obviously, but these are verbal approximations for practical use.

[Gilly]

The purpose of functional pairing is to fully interact in reality.

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean. Obviously I can group this and that together as having "introverted sensing" aspects, but when you want to nail something down specifically, you can always attatch internal or external dynamics of objects to what's going on in order to get a more complete picture of exactly what you're observing.

[strrrng]

It's a vague definition. Would "living and nonliving" suit you better? The strict definitions are there, obviously, but these are verbal approximations for practical use.

yeah, it's not so much the definition that matters, but relating logic and ethics to sensing and intuition to prove that they work together. but I get the point.

[Gilly]

Oki dokie.

[strrrng]

by the way, is your signature a joke or are you serious? cause, no offense, but there is no way you're any of those types.

[Gilly]

I'm in a big confusion about my Socionics type, as usual, but 3w4 is one of the more likely options I have for Enneagram, along with 6w7 and 7w6, although my 5ish tendencies are more unhealthy, if anything. 3 could easily be my disintegration type. 9 is possible for integration, I guess.


As for the Oldham types, those are definitely the ones that fit me best. Inventive Oldham Style fits me better than any other type of any kind that I've found yet. I also have Artistic-like mood swings and generaly volatility, my judgments are usually governed by feelings that I reinforce with logic, and I am pretty impulsive...just about everything here: http://www.geocities.com/lifexplore/oldham.htm fits me. As for Idiosyncratic, I claim it mostly because my worldview is an amalgamation of strange, obscure theories and subjects, I have a strong distaste for "normalcy," and I am always looking for ways to change my perspective, perception, or worldview.


And yes, I am an MBTI ENFP/ENTP.