Setting it Straight

[Steve]

this is called FRIENDSHIP. fuck, why do people think that traits are functions? Fi types may go about this stuff in a specific way, but those traits are not Fi.

Right.

[Gilly]

this is called FRIENDSHIP. fuck, why do people think that traits are functions? Fi types may go about this stuff in a specific way, but those traits are not Fi.

In Socionics terms, "friendship" is related to Fi: a continuous (static) relationship (fields) based on things that are not necessarily measurable (internal).

[strrrng]

In Socionics terms, "friendship" is related to Fi: a continuous (static) relationship (fields) based on things that are not necessarily measurable (internal).

dude, don't skew the context by saying "in socionics." Functions are functions - that's it. btw, how is a continuous thing static? I agree about the definitions of internal and fields, but that doesn't mean Fi is all those traits.

[Steve]

Just a few quick comments on this.
Augusta was inspired by Kepinski, but it isn't clear to what extent you can say that Socionics really blended these two theories. It seems to me it's mostly from Jung, with some terms and interpretation based on Kepinski. I would be interested about anything you can point to that shows that some substantive part of the model was from Kepinski.

Augusta came up with Model A, and also apparently said (independently of talking specifically about Model A) that everybody uses each of the IM elements enough to take care of his/her basic personal needs, but focuses more on the ego block. You're saying that she contradicted herself because Kepinski's model was about more complete oppositions. Well, Augusta got to choose who much of Kepinski's ideas she wanted to take, and apparently she chose to take less of them than you might have...but that does not mean that she contradicted herself.

This is the crux of your argument, but it makes little sense to me because Augusta got to choose which elements of Kepinski's model she wanted to use. It was up to her what the "fundamentals of socionics" were. Socionics continued to evolve of course, but if anything the evolution has been toward considering that people use a greater diversity of IM elements, rather than less.

It doesn't really matter to me how much of the model was taken from Kepinski - if she chose to not consider Kepinski's idea of information metabolism and selecting relevant information while rejecting others, then I believe she was ignoring a critical phenomenon that takes place in reality. I think she was wise to use Kepinski and Jung, since both seemed to describe very real and legitimate phenomenon - it would be a shame if it is true that she did not actually incorporate the aspects of Kepinski I that I noted, because then Model A would seem even more baseless than it already does.

I think just about everyone on the forum believes they're talking from an information element perspective (with the exception perhaps of a few people who believe that information elements aren't so important, but that would be quite a minority). So, it seems perhaps a little patronizing to say that your views are superior because you're basing your ideas on IM elements and others aren't. Rather, the differences are probably based on the fact that your ideas of the IM elements are different from other peoples'.

Ok sure, lets phrase it that way: the way I look at information elements does differ from the way others look at them. I view them as abstract phenomenon while others seem to describe them much more concretely and overt. I tend to think that way of viewing them leads to inconsistencies you'll observe in people's behavior. I do think that the way I view them corresponds most accurately and consistently with reality

This argument comes up every once in awhile. It's kind of like saying that black is opposed to white..and deducing therefore that gray does not exist.

Surely, if you wanted to make everything black, then you would be completely opposed to making everything white. Someone who is driven to make everything white would be working completely at cross-purposes with you. However, despite this, gray still exists, and it's a useful color for certain things.

Similarly, yellow and purple are complete opposites on the color wheel. If you make something more yellow, it will be less purple, and if you make it more purple, it will be less yellow. Something that is trying to be yellow will naturally need to be less purple. Now, if you combine these colors in various combinations, you'll probably get brown.

Well, I happen to like brown.

I would liken the black/white dichotomy to complementary functions, such as Ti and Fe, opposed to conflicting functions. If you wanna make it more precise, imagine that everyone needs white and black, and also that everyone needs a triangle and a circle. Say a person has a black triangle and a white circle, and someone presents them with a white triangle. The white triangle will be competing with the black triangle for the "triangle space" and also compete with the white circle for the "white space".

But using your original analogy: It's more like a person needs black to survive, and anything that deviates from black is less than optimal. Sure gray isn't as bad as white, but it's still not as good as black.

But you might say that if you're trying to concentrate on something, you want a very pure kind of thought. You don't want to be thinking about feelings and social kinds of things while doing a math test. Of course people need to concentrate sometimes. But that's only one aspect of life. It seems to me pretty narrow to only focus on the ego block.

Since when am I focused only on the ego block? I'm basically saying that the "super-id" functions are strong in addition to the "ego" bloc and that the "super-ego" and "id" functions are weak.

And the truth is, F doesn't equal emotion and T doesn't equal logic - while the two very closely resemble (in how they operate) emotion and logic respectively, there are "emotions" associated with all of a person's functions and how their functions work together. I used to think that T=logic and F=emotion, but the more I've observed it the more I've realized that those functions aren't that limited. There are many Ti/Te ego types that are quite illogical and many Fe/Fi ego types that would school them at logic.

As to the idea that people are only able to interact successfully within a certain quadra....well, that may be nice in theory, but in practice people are just a lot more complex.

I also want to note though that I can get along fine with people who have opposite functions than me, as long as we're all open minded and not too quick to make short-sighted judgments.

[Wynch]

Tomorrow I hope to put together a more detailed version of my thoughts on this subject, but for now I'd like to summarize the point I believe Steve is trying to make that seems to be missed:

Socionics is not about how people act, it's about how they take in and work with the world around them. It's about how an individual experiences the world. Where people's actions and tastes come in is how they choose to apply what they are experiencing, which is why sweeping stereotypes and superficial identities are not always true.

The point that Steve (I believe) is trying to make, is that if socionics is about how we're perceiving the world, how we naturally interpret our environment and experiences then it shouldn't be possible to be naturally inclined to opposed information elements. That doesn't mean that we can't learn to mimic these qualities, but it will never be something that we experience in a genuine sense. Because Se is not a part of my Ego or Super-ID, I won't experience it, it's opposed to the way in which I see the world (Ne). That doesn't mean that I can't mimic what I perceive as and Se way of reasoning and understand an Se individual, but I won't view the world through that lens because it doesn't fit my camera. Even when I'm projecting out to my environment in a supposedly Se sense, I'm really channeling my own functions into my own way of dealing with it. I will never use Se. That's foreign to me. If I can see things through all 8 lenses, then what's the point of typing me? I may as well be an Ne-valuing ISTj.

I have a lot more to say on this subject. I will be back tomorrow.

[Steve]

this leads me to... from the model A perspective, the LIE is the IEI's supervisor because they have the IEI's PoLR, a "weak" function (Te), and the IEI's base, a "strong" function (Ni), as their own base and creative, respectively (TeNi.) in your model, there are no PoLRs (?), or "strong/weak" functions, etc. so why do the intertype relations (including duality) still "work" in your model? how are they determined?

I haven't mentioned any issues I have with the inter-type relations. For the most part they're accurate from what I've observed.

Fwiw I never actually mentioned a "model" that I use. I'm pretty much just conveying an understanding that refines aspects discussed in model A. I certainly believe in the idea of a PoLR and the "weak" role function. Where I disagree with model A is that the Super-Id functions are strong (meaning that the person has an awareness of them), but just not as honed as the ego functions (imagine looking out towards a vast super-id landscape through ego-glasses). The Super-Ego bloc and the Id bloc contain of course "weak" functions, but it's not really good to think of those four functions as "weak", but instead think of how aversely a person reacts to them.

So to explain supervision, which always involves the opposite temperament: An ENTj conveys and processes information with TeNi. An INFp's PoLR is Te, and processes information with NiFe. An ENTj by sharing Ni with the INFp, has a channel into the INFp's world, however with primary Te, the ENTj injects this substance into the INFp's whirlpool that totally messes it up and throws it off. Sure the ENTj doesn't like Fe, but Fe doesn't throw the ENTj off as much as Te throws the INFp off. So I guess the one who's less "damaged" is seen as having the edge.

And of course duality works. Duality involves a person who has a honed awareness of the functions you strongly value but aren't as precise with. Your dual embodies your super-id functions. Whereas when you experience your super-id functions, you're experiencing them through the lens of your ego functions. The ego defines who you are (if you're a static type, you have a static ego and a dynamic super-id). J & P duality is the way it is because J-types tend to control their states and J-types need to find someone who embodies their super-id functions, but still has the J-style of control, while P-types need someone who embodies their super-id functions, but has the more passive experiential nature regarding reality. I've always seen the P-duality as the EPs stagnating and floating around, while IPs are a river. EP logs need a river to float down

[Steve]

Tomorrow I hope to put together a more detailed version of my thoughts on this subject, but for now I'd like to summarize the point I believe Steve is trying to make that seems to be missed:

Socionics is not about how people act, it's about how they take in and work with the world around them. It's about how an individual experiences the world. Where people's actions and tastes come in is how they choose to apply what they are experiencing, which is why sweeping stereotypes and superficial identities are not always true.

The point that Steve (I believe) is trying to make, is that if socionics is about how we're perceiving the world, how we naturally interpret our environment and experiences then it shouldn't be possible to be naturally inclined to opposed information elements. That doesn't mean that we can't learn to mimic these qualities, but it will never be something that we experience in a genuine sense. Because Se is not a part of my Ego or Super-ID, I won't experience it, it's opposed to the way in which I see the world (Ne). That doesn't mean that I can't mimic what I perceive as and Se way of reasoning and understand an Se individual, but I won't view the world through that lens because it doesn't fit my camera. Even when I'm projecting out to my environment in a supposedly Se sense, I'm really channeling my own functions into my own way of dealing with it. I will never use Se. That's foreign to me. If I can see things through all 8 lenses, then what's the point of typing me? I may as well be an Ne-valuing ISTj.

I have a lot more to say on this subject. I will be back tomorrow.

Thanks so much Vero - you summed it up beautifully

[hellothere]

*edit - spoke too soon*

[hellothere]

If I can see things through all 8 lenses, then what's the point of typing me? I may as well be an Ne-valuing ISTj.

I don't disagree with the gist of your argument, but on this point - maybe the point of typing is to show which lenses you prefer using, which lenses you prefer others' using, and which lenses you are better at using?

[JuJu]

I don't disagree with the gist of your argument, but on this point - maybe the point of typing is to show which lenses you prefer using, which lenses you prefer others' using, and which lenses you are better at using?

Yeah ... So far, it seems that the theory presented by Steve, strrrng, etc is based on disregarding this information, which Model A explains/accounts for.

In Model A, there are 16 distinct types, all of which experience eight functions (every function) very differently and distinctly--some more strongly, some less, etc. mrn0good asks a question that cuts to the heart of this:

If I can see things through all 8 lenses, then what's the point of typing me? I may as well be an Ne-valuing ISTj.

This is the point: a Ne-ISTj experiences all eight functions differently than your type does (ILE, right?) If you’d like to learn how, I’d suggest reading the function-by-function type descriptions by Stratie, Filatova, etc, of both LSI and ILE... (They can be found at wikisocion.org.) They illuminate the differences of how both types experience/manifest the exact same functions. You'll note that they experience/manifest them VERY differently, and to widely varying extents.

Also, just to be clear: note that when I write "experience," I mean (to quote post #91) "how an individual experiences the world;" not "ppl's actions and tastes." I think I understand the reason for mrn0good's misinterpretation of how I used the word, i.e. I asked Steve to give concrete examples of how his theory would account for certain behavior... Note, however, though that I've always meant 'experience' how I mean it here... Just trying be clear. Sorry, lol

Steve, I'm wondering: do you believe that mrn0good's post #91 conveys an accurate assessment of Model A..? If yes, I'd argue that it sums up a very basic misunderstanding of it.

I'll wait to see if any more info is presented about your theory before writing a conclusion... I'm getting a clearer picture, definitely, of its strengths and weaknesses... Peace, -Ju

[strrrng]

models are poop. 99% of theories are dump. just observe shit and u see where it's at. i've had quite a bit of coffee, so pardon my randomness. but forrall, reality is there. stop bullshitting.

this thread should burn in hell.

[mikemex]

@Steve:

Logic, in the Ti fashion, is only a way to structure information, to make sure it doesn't contradict itself, etc. It doesn't make an statement true or false by itself, however, which is a common assumption I've observed among Ti types.

For any statement to be true or false, it must contain a valid structure but also be derived from a valid assumption. If you derive a logic argument from an invalid assumption, the result is a logical fallacy, much in the same trend as the medieval discussions about theology.

Now, I believe you're falling into this trap right now. What I see is that you're assuming that:

1.- What a person can do is determined solely by the type.
2.- A "type" is a static structure.
3.- The functions are mutually exclusive.
4.- A non preferred function plays no role in the psyche.

I have the impression that at least one of the assumptions above is false. For example, let's put an example of the ability to drive a car:

A) If everything is determined by the type, then driving must be linked to a function.
B) Those who drive use that function.
C) Both ILE and ESI can drive.

Thing is, C contradicts, in one way or another, pretty much all of the assumptions before. But it is the only verifiable statement (pretty much everyone can drive, despite of type).

I've already got an answer for that, if you want to listen.

[Gilly]

dude, don't skew the context by saying "in socionics." Functions are functions - that's it.

Functions are a lens through which to interpret human behavior; the functions are structured and defined such that any phenomena can be interpreted through them, whether they are related to the specific forms of human processing that constitute any specific category (strong, weak, conscious, unconscious) of the functions or not. I am trying to show you that Fi is not only relevant and meaningful to those in whom it is "valued" as explained by Socionics, but the way in which the information element can be interpreted is widely applicable, and if you are only looking at "valued Fi" when you look at Fi, you are missing two thirds of the picture.

It might be more helpful for you to look at it this way.

Everyone uses Fi. Everyone experiences Fi. However, the context that Socionics places on "valued" Fi is such that the approach to matters relating to the "internal statics of fields" value those components of the interaction more than they value the "internal dynamics of objects." An Fi "relationship" can be focused on either Fi OR Fe, but regardless, we all experience Fi and appreciate it in one form or another.

It probably would have been more effective of me to point out that steve seemed to be referencing his dislike of valued Fi>Fe behavior without properly indicating what he meant, rather than passing an overly harsh judgment on his statement.

btw, how is a continuous thing static? I agree about the definitions of internal and fields, but that doesn't mean Fi is all those traits.

Static implies that there is continuity in the structure or nature (subject or object, respectively) of a thing that is constant throughout at least some period of time; it is static, ie doesn't change, for some period of time. Dynamic functions focus rather on what is impermanent, what is actively changing, without regards to what is consistent through time.

[Khola aka Bee]

NO YOU ARE!!

[Wynch]

Now, I believe you're falling into this trap right now. What I see is that you're assuming that:

1.- What a person can do is determined solely by the type.

It's not about what, it's about how. How do people do things. How do people see things. How do people process things. Claiming that one type is physically incapable of something another type can physically do is absolutely ridiculous. We're discussing how they will approach individual tasks.

2.- A "type" is a static structure.

Yes, of course we're going to look at it from static observations and interpretation, we can't help that, it's who we are. Still, I think Steve has done a pretty good job of demonstrating that socionics should be considered as a static application to a dynamic body.

3.- The functions are mutually exclusive.

How can functions that are in complete opposition of each other and the way in which they process not be mutually exclusive? It's like running on a treadmill, you're doing something, but you're not going anywhere.

4.- A non preferred function plays no role in the psyche.

Yup, that's a very generalized view of what we're trying to say.

I have the impression that at least one of the assumptions above is false. For example, let's put an example of the ability to drive a car:

A) If everything is determined by the type, then driving must be linked to a function.
B) Those who drive use that function.
C) Both ILE and ESI can drive.

This is where you completely miss the point. Functions are not a matter of who can physically do what. Everything is determined by type in that the ways we approach the world as individuals will change from type to type. Because we're seeing it differently. That has absolutely nothing to do with linking individual actions to types, nor has it anything to do with linking individual actions to functions. For your driving example, it just means that I will be seeing things and doing things in a different way (maybe not physically, but internally, certainly) from ESI.

[Wynch]

This is the point: a Ne-ISTj experiences all eight functions differently than your type does (ILE, right?) If you’d like to learn how, I’d suggest reading the function-by-function type descriptions by Stratie, Filatova, etc, of both LSI and ILE... (They can be found at wikisocion.org.) They illuminate the differences of how both types experience/manifest the exact same functions. You'll note that they experience/manifest them VERY differently, and to widely varying extents.

This is precisely what we're trying to say. Except that instead of trying to claim that we're experiencing all these functions in ways that are completely different from what those functions are in someone who values them, we're saying that it is misdefined. We are NOT experiencing those functions, we're creating a similar process using our own functions. It's like...If I was born without hearing I need to find a new way to communicate with people. So I learn to read lips. In a sense, I'm hearing them, but in reality I'm applying completely different skills in order to communicate. It looks like I hear you, but I'm not actually hearing anything.

Also, just to be clear: note that when I write "experience," I mean (to quote post #91) "how an individual experiences the world;" not "ppl's actions and tastes." I think I understand the reason for mrn0good's misinterpretation of how I used the word, i.e. I asked Steve to give concrete examples of how his theory would account for certain behavior... Note, however, though that I've always meant 'experience' how I mean it here... Just trying be clear. Sorry, lol

Steve, I'm wondering: do you believe that mrn0good's post #91 conveys an accurate assessment of Model A..? If yes, I'd argue that it sums up a very basic misunderstanding of it.

I'll wait to see if any more info is presented about your theory before writing a conclusion... I'm getting a clearer picture, definitely, of its strengths and weaknesses... Peace, -Ju

What Steve has been trying to say for the last 3 or 4 posts is that he's not trying to suggest a new model at all. He's just explaining that he believes that the way people are understanding the model is wrong, thus leading to some misapplications of typing methods. It's not so much that Model A is wrong so much as it is misleading. It is poorly defined and therefore frequently misused. Additionally, so long as Model A functions on the premise that people are actually experiencing true forms of all 8 functions, it is working on what we see as a logical fallacy.

I see what Steve was saying about your need for proof now. It's not a matter of what is written. Written word does not mean fact. Type theory is partially observed and partially a construct built on an abstract foundation. It's built because people saw a system, wondered at the how logical it was, observed and considered other aspects, and adjusted it from there. If everyone followed what was simply written we would all take these types at face value like MBTI and say that I, an ENTP, am an outgoing, instinctively intelligent, abstract thinker, which is only partially true. What we're saying is Model A is partially true, but people are missing an essential point. No one is saying that we're 100% without a doubt right, but we've observed something that we believe is a flaw and are trying to adjust for it. We (and by we I really mean I've joined the camp of Steve and Strrrng and decided that their arguments encompass my own thoughts on the matter) just want people to give us a logically valid argument as to how we can experience 8 functions when half of them will always be opposed to the ones we value most. Things that are too similar yet dissimilar will always run parallel and if they get too close, the combination will repel. To say that we can experience all eight functions together, genuinely, with any kind of harmony more or less undermines the idea of quadras, dualization and most of intertype relation as well. We just want to people to recognize our argument and give us a logically cohesive argument that is not based on quoting the people we're calling into question. Think for yourself.

[strrrng]

FUCK THIS THREAD I HATE IT

[Expat]

FUCK THIS THREAD I HATE IT

Then, um, I don't know -- what about, "don't read it?"

[strrrng]

Then, um, I don't know -- what about, "don't read it?"

The problem is that I'm blindly idealistic (omfg he's SUCH a beta NF!!!). Whenever I see that an addition has been made to this thread, a surge of energy ripples throughout me and I get all happy and hopeful! But then I open up the page, only to see that it is either a fabrication/misconception or something entirely unrelated to the idea at hand.

Not only that, but I feel EXTREMELY bad for Steve. He is far more genuine than me in his approach of conveying ideas and creating harmony with people. This was a completely altruistic effort on his part, albeit with a touch of knowingness, that was answered (surprisingly) with people hiding behind stupid, externally-defined standards such as "classical" socionics and mentioning names of "respected" socionists.

What this comes down to is how much people are willing to free themselves from their a prioris about how they think the functions "are" in "reality." As I told Gilligan earlier, one must start with observation within experience, THEN create concepts to model that experience, all-the-while remembering that these concepts will continually be redefined as more observations are gained. Steve is illustrating concepts that he has consistently observed in reality, yet people don't want to accept it because it doesn't agree with some bullshit ad hypotheses they have memorized.


THE BAY AREA BITCH!

[Expat]

I suppose you don't even consider the possibility that some people's own experiences, and observations, have confirmed the validity of those bullshit hypotheses, and that's why they don't see the need to be "freed" from them?

[strrrng]

I suppose you don't even consider the possibility that some people's own experiences, and observations, have confirmed the validity of those bullshit hypotheses, and that's why they don't see the need to be "freed" from them?

Did I say that? NO. I was referring to an attitude I saw manifesting specifically in this thread.

[Steve]

This is precisely what we're trying to say. Except that instead of trying to claim that we're experiencing all these functions in ways that are completely different from what those functions are in someone who values them, we're saying that it is misdefined. We are NOT experiencing those functions, we're creating a similar process using our own functions. It's like...If I was born without hearing I need to find a new way to communicate with people. So I learn to read lips. In a sense, I'm hearing them, but in reality I'm applying completely different skills in order to communicate. It looks like I hear you, but I'm not actually hearing anything.

Perfect analogy - I would add that in this case hearing also takes away from our ability to perceive the senses that are vital to us.

What Steve has been trying to say for the last 3 or 4 posts is that he's not trying to suggest a new model at all. He's just explaining that he believes that the way people are understanding the model is wrong, thus leading to some misapplications of typing methods. It's not so much that Model A is wrong so much as it is misleading. It is poorly defined and therefore frequently misused. Additionally, so long as Model A functions on the premise that people are actually experiencing true forms of all 8 functions, it is working on what we see as a logical fallacy.

Yes, and it's not only a logical fallacy in theory - it smacks people in the face in reality all the time.

What we're saying is Model A is partially true, but people are missing an essential point. No one is saying that we're 100% without a doubt right, but we've observed something that we believe is a flaw and are trying to adjust for it. We (and by we I really mean I've joined the camp of Steve and Strrrng and decided that their arguments encompass my own thoughts on the matter) just want people to give us a logically valid argument as to how we can experience 8 functions when half of them will always be opposed to the ones we value most. Things that are too similar yet dissimilar will always run parallel and if they get too close, the combination will repel. To say that we can experience all eight functions together, genuinely, with any kind of harmony more or less undermines the idea of quadras, dualization and most of intertype relation as well.

Right.

As I told Gilligan earlier, one must start with observation within experience, THEN create concepts to model that experience, all-the-while remembering that these concepts will continually be redefined as more observations are gained.

That's exactly it. Socionics was created to describe reality and needs to be open to revision as more observations are made. Revision based on new observation is not a new concept. It happens in science all the time, such as with Einstein's general relativity for example, which resolved some of the inconsistencies in previous theories of gravity. And now there are theories that seek to resolve inconsistencies in situations such as black holes where the laws of general relativity break down, and of course there's quantum mechanics.

[Jonathan]

Since when am I focused only on the ego block? I'm basically saying that the "super-id" functions are strong in addition to the "ego" bloc and that the "super-ego" and "id" functions are weak.

So it seems what you're rejecting, then, is the idea that the "ego" and "id" functions are strong, the "ego" and "super-ego" functions are to some extent more in one's conscious awareness, and the "ego" and "super-ego" functions are in a certain sense "valued."

But how can you be sure? One of the most fundamental concepts in Socionics is that the super-id functions are both "weak" and "valued," meaning that one isn't confident in them but finds them highly relevant to one's agenda (and therefore seeks out people who are strong in that area).

But you're saying that super-id is "strong." Maybe you mean something different by "strong" than what Augusta meant. But if not, how do you know that she was wrong about this?

[Jonathan]

What I mean by translate is to take information from a non-valued function and try to make sense of it using your valued functions. In this attempted translation, much meaning is lost. The best that can happen is that a person interprets the information into something that vaguely resembles the information from the non-quadra functions, a lot of time missing the actual point.

As to translation...that's a very useful concept, and one of the few aspects of Socionics that really hasn't gotten much airtime on the forum. I can see lots of examples....For example, a person with ego-block Fe may "imitate" Te by acting "serious" or "hard." Or a person with ego-block Ti may "imitate" Fi through a set of rules. Personally, I think this is more than just translation...I think that in viewing some IM elements through other ones, there are real insights, even some degree of connection.

But anyhow, this leads to another question, which is: is the fact that people translate the super-ego functions into their own ego block functions caused because people can't experience the super-ego functions directly, or because they don't want to?

See, I take the position that it's because people don't want to and would have difficulty doing it (most of the time), but at certain strange moments people are able to act outside of their "normal" mode.

[Steve]

But how can you be sure? One of the most fundamental concepts in Socionics is that the super-id functions are both "weak" and "valued," meaning that one isn't confident in them but finds them highly relevant to one's agenda (and therefore seeks out people who are strong in that area).

But you're saying that super-id is "strong." Maybe you mean something different by "strong" than what Augusta meant. But if not, how do you know that she was wrong about this?

Maybe I do use a different definition of the word strong than she did. I'm defining a "strong" function as anything a person has an awareness of. What differentiates the way I view the Ego bloc vs the Super-Id bloc is that a person's awareness of the ego functions is more honed and precise while their awareness of the Super-Id bloc is more spread out (see my analogy about looking out at your super-id broad landscape through the ego lens). A person looks to their dual to have the precision with those Super-Id functions that they themselves have with their Ego functions.

For example I am very aware of Si phenomenon and can comment on them at great length, but ISFps and ESFjs seem to focus it and bring it down to something more well-defined and precise for me.

Think of each quadra having a "quadra energy" whizzing throughout a room with four corners. Each type leans towards one of the four corners (Ep, Ip, Ij, Ej), but is still experiencing and is connected to that gestalt quadra energy flow.

[strrrng]

that's fine, but they're still Steve's own conceptions of reality, not everybody else's. it seems like what you're saying is, everybody is ignoring the "truth" and stubbornly holding onto something that is blatantly wrong in you and Steve's eyes, and you and Steve have the "truth"... I don't think that's really fair of you to say. it's just that what you and Steve are saying isn't consistent with their own perceptions/observations/etc., that's why they're not accepting it. why criticize them for that?

If the main critics on this thread (you know who you are) were speaking primarily from observation, we wouldn't have had stupid shit thrown around about how this idea doesn't agree with "classical" socionics, how we should ask Rick or Filatova what they thing, etc.

[JuJu]

It's not only a logical fallacy in theory - it smacks people in the face in reality all the time.

I suppose you don't even consider the possibility that some people's own experiences, and observations, have confirmed the validity of those bullshit hypotheses, and that's why they don't see the need to be "freed" from them?

First, I want to say that I’m genuinely sorry if I came across as a jerk to you guys at any point in this thread… I didn’t mean to come across that way… (I might just naturally be a jerk, lol—that’d suck!) In parts, the tone of this argument has made be kinda uncomfortable, definitely—I was hoping it wouldn’t go that route, but yeah... It is what it is. (hi babe! Love you.)

What I haven’t expressed really is that I’m mostly in agreement with Steve, strrrng, etc. The reason I’ve pursued this ‘argument’ is because I’ve wanted to see if the idea could explain/account for my only reservation with it, i.e. a person’s incapability of using/experiencing ‘genuinely’ the non-quadra functions—even to the slightest degree, even under unusual circumstances, etc. I kept asking essentially the same question because I really wanted to know, haha—not to show up anyone, or anything like that, which is how it seems it was interpreted.

I agree with Steve, strrrng, etc, that we convert most of our understanding/experience/whatever anyone wants to call it to our quadra functions—that has been my experience. Also, as to Socionics’ shortcomings and Model A’s shortcomings—Steve and strrrng’s critique is a valid one… And an important one for Socionics. People—and here it’s up to those of us who care about this stuff—could do a better job of explaining/defining how each type experiences the functions. (I kinda suspect that there’s a lot of Russian material that hasn’t been translated well, which has contributed to this… At least here in the non-Russian speaking world anyway—maybe the material there is poorly defined as well.)

My reservation has been this—it’d be easiest to tell it in a story, I guess, (I’ll make it short, lol.) During my life, in many situations, non-quadra values have been very important, even dominant, I’d say. For example, my family and living situation at boarding school placed a lot of emphasis on Se… My graduate program in the History of Science placed a lot of emphasis on Ti, as did certain courses as an undergrad, one of which I talked about in this thread… Someone said about experiencing non-quadra functions (I’m paraphrasing) “it looks like I hear you, but I don’t really hear you.” What I found is, with repeat exposure to those experiences, I began to ‘hear’ them. My experience of them literally changed... They’re not my natural way of doing things, for sure, and yeah, now I mostly convert Ti and Se—now that I’m out of those situations I’m experiencing things more like Steve and strrrng would expect… But yeah, during those times I did not convert those experiences—I was right there with em, if you know what I mean, they were natural.

That might be an exceptional case; what they’re saying might be true for 99%. (It’s pretty close to accurate for me these days, definitely.)For me though, the idea doesn’t seem to explain those situations… Despite all of its flaws, Model A can account for it.

So in conclusion, I don’t believe Steve or strrrng to be lying, i.e. I believe that what they’re writing reflects their experiences in their lives… What they see as a logical fallacy though (I almost spelled fallacy with a ph, lol,) I regard as something possible. Maybe it’s something very unlikely... But I wouldn’t be being honest if I didn’t say I experienced it how I’ve written.

I’m hoping that maybe the idea takes experiences like mine into account… If it does, and the definitions of how one experiences functions make sense, I can lend my support to it... Not that that matters or should to any of you though. Peace, -Justin

[Steve]

it's just that what you and Steve are saying isn't consistent with their own perceptions/observations/etc., that's why they're not accepting it. why criticize them for that?

No one has discussed any of their own observations/perceptions about the functions at all. I've been asking people to do so from the beginning. I warmly welcome them. No one has actually given any specific experiential evidence to oppose my observations (Justin gave a general example from his physics class and I analyzed it and he didn't discuss it further - other than that, there's been nothing).

[Steve]

First, I want to say that I’m genuinely sorry if I came across as a jerk to you guys at any point in this thread… I didn’t mean to come across that way… (I might just naturally be a jerk, lol—that’d suck!) In parts, the tone of this argument has made be kinda uncomfortable, definitely—I was hoping it wouldn’t go that route, but yeah... It is what it is. (hi babe! Love you.)

What I haven’t expressed really is that I’m mostly in agreement with Steve, strrrng, etc. The reason I’ve pursued this ‘argument’ is because I’ve wanted to see if the idea could explain/account for my only reservation with it, i.e. a person’s incapability of using/experiencing ‘genuinely’ the non-quadra functions—even to the slightest degree, even under unusual circumstances, etc. I kept asking essentially the same question because I really wanted to know, haha—not to show up anyone, or anything like that, which is how it seems it was interpreted.

Justin I appreciate you clarifying this. I'm sorry if I came across the same way. Basically the reason I kept probing to try to get you for your experience with the functions is because that's the only way to figure out how you actually view the functions, and to see if you actually view the functions the same way I do, otherwise we'd be comparing apples and oranges. In this latest post you gave some experiential stuff, which I'm glad about, and I'll address that below.

I agree with Steve, strrrng, etc, that we convert most of our understanding/experience/whatever anyone wants to call it to our quadra functions—that has been my experience. Also, as to Socionics’ shortcomings and Model A’s shortcomings—Steve and strrrng’s critique is a valid one… And an important one for Socionics. People—and here it’s up to those of us who care about this stuff—could do a better job of explaining/defining how each type experiences the functions. (I kinda suspect that there’s a lot of Russian material that hasn’t been translated well, which has contributed to this… At least here in the non-Russian speaking world anyway—maybe the material there is poorly defined as well.)

Right - good points.

My reservation has been this—it’d be easiest to tell it in a story, I guess, (I’ll make it short, lol.) During my life, in many situations, non-quadra values have been very important, even dominant, I’d say. For example, my family and living situation at boarding school placed a lot of emphasis on Se… My graduate program in the History of Science placed a lot of emphasis on Ti, as did certain courses as an undergrad, one of which I talked about in this thread… Someone said about experiencing non-quadra functions (I’m paraphrasing) “it looks like I hear you, but I don’t really hear you.” What I found is, with repeat exposure to those experiences, I began to ‘hear’ them. My experience of them literally changed... They’re not my natural way of doing things, for sure, and yeah, now I mostly convert Ti and Se—now that I’m out of those situations I’m experiencing things more like Steve and strrrng would expect… But yeah, during those times I did not convert those experiences—I was right there with em, if you know what I mean, they were natural.

That might be an exceptional case; what they’re saying might be true for 99%. (It’s pretty close to accurate for me these days, definitely.)For me though, the idea doesn’t seem to explain those situations… Despite all of its flaws, Model A can account for it.

So in conclusion, I don’t believe Steve or strrrng to be lying, i.e. I believe that what they’re writing reflects their experiences in their lives… What they see as a logical fallacy though (I almost spelled fallacy with a ph, lol,) I regard as something possible. Maybe it’s something very unlikely... But I wouldn’t be being honest if I didn’t say I experienced it how I’ve written.

Okay NOW we can actually have a discussion, because we have experience to talk about.

For example, my family and living situation at boarding school placed a lot of emphasis on Se… My graduate program in the History of Science placed a lot of emphasis on Ti, as did certain courses as an undergrad, one of which I talked about in this thread…

Could you describe the situations a bit more? (I understand if you don't want to reveal personal details, that's fine). I'm just interested to get a sense of the situations. What seemed Se and Ti about them in your opinion?

Thanks for this post and for clarifying your position. Peace.

[strrrng]

I find Justin's situation entirely plausible. Humans are adaptable creatures.

[Steve]

I find Justin's situation entirely plausible. Humans are adaptable creatures.

Yeah people are definitely capable of adapting to different things. And even if you notice between two friends that when they get to know each other and get close, they take on some characteristics of each other.

In this case I don't know if functions themselves can rub off on people, or if instead the social-context and mindset can allow people to open up and understand that the situation (using the unvalued functions) isn't as bad as they originally thought it was. I'm thinking that it's not the functions themselves that transfer over but instead that the person gets used to the environment and context created by people using the unvalued functions. I'm not positive yet - it's a potentially very interesting area to explore further.

Strrrng though even with you and me, some of your things/ways of looking things have rubbed off on me, but I still process things with my own functions, so that's the way I'm leaning right now. I feel like Justin could've gotten the sense of the "Si" of those situations and find harmony with it by reconciling external factors, making it seem like he's adopted the functions. I've experienced that before too with Betas and Gammas, but then something will happen and that "harmony" will be shaken and I end up realizing that it was a temporary harmony based on some external things and not actually changing the core functions.

[Jonathan]

Yeah people are definitely capable of adapting to different things. And even if you notice between two friends that when they get to know each other and get close, they take on some characteristics of each other.

In this case I don't know if functions themselves can rub off on people, or if instead the social-context and mindset can allow people to open up and understand that the situation (using the unvalued functions) isn't as bad as they originally thought it was. I'm thinking that it's not the functions themselves that transfer over but instead that the person gets used to the environment and context created by people using the unvalued functions. I'm not positive yet - it's a potentially very interesting area to explore further.

Strrrng though even with you and me, some of your things/ways of looking things have rubbed off on me, but I still process things with my own functions, so that's the way I'm leaning right now. I feel like Justin could've gotten the sense of the "Si" of those situations and find harmony with it by reconciling external factors, making it seem like he's adopted the functions. I've experienced that before too with Betas and Gammas, but then something will happen and that "harmony" will be shaken and I end up realizing that it was a temporary harmony based on some external things and not actually changing the core functions.

If it's not the functions that "transfer over," then by what mechanism would the person get "used to the environment"? Everything you've observed here seems perfectly consistent with the idea that one may make use of the unvalued functions a little bit for short intervals, but that you greatly prefer to use your valued functions instead.