Setting it Straight

[Steve]

There seems to be an issue as to how some people here view functions. But the issue is that regardless of what model is used, all definitions of the functions are supposedly based off of the same fundamental concepts - the information elements. These information elements as they relate to the functions were originally put together by Aushra, who blended Carl Jung's functions and Antoni Kepinski's information metabolism. The functions are ways of experiencing reality - this is something that are supposed to remain the same no-matter what model you use.

Strrrng, I and a few others who supposedly have "different" understandings than the majority of the 16types, speak from an information element perspective - the essence of socionics itself. Aushra, the founder of so called "classical socionics" devised these information elements herself. Unfortuantely Model A has a lot of shortcomings, including the idea that a person can/will directly experience functions outside of their quadra. This is a total contradiction with the fundamentals of socionics, because Aushra herself incorporated the idea of information metabolism from Kepinsky, who discussed the idea of metabolism as it related to cells. One of the most fundamental principles was that there were certain elements that were beneficial to the cell and promoted healthy functioning, while others interfered and slowed down healthy normal functioning. This is exactly the case with socionics information elements.

Augusta viewed the psyche as a structure that continually perceives and selects relevant information from its environment and conveys information back to its environment at the same time.

For each type there are certain information elements that provide healthy feedback cycles and normal functioning (the "relevant" information), while other elements/information directly interfere and put strain on the person's natural information processing. Saying that I, as an ENTp use Te is like trying to put diesel fuel in a car that is designed for unleaded premium. It just doesn't work. It causes the engine to strain and function poorly and unhealthily. Te to me lacks inherent structure and seems to have no base whatsoever - it's ungrounded to me. Whenever I encounter Te expression, I always need to translate it into my own language and find an inherent link between the nodes of Te strolling on the edge.

A person can/will never experience non-quadra functions directly because they simply are detrimental to a person's natural information processing - the person will only react to them.

That's it - end of story. That is a fundamental principle of socionics that Aushra herself incorporated from Kepinski - so I'd be entertained to see it called "non-classical". If Model A actually believes that you "work to get better at" some non-quadra functions, or that you can actually experience and perform your "Id" functions or whatever, then it needs to be trashed. It just doesn't work.

[Exodus]

Are you able to remember your own age without somebody telling you? If so, you are using Te.

[Steve]

lol tell me ur not serious

[strrrng]

Are you able to remember your own age without somebody telling you? If so, you are using Te.

wow lol. So, Te is remembering facts? NO. Functions aren't about the actions which a person performs; they are about the method by which they perform the act. Show a fact to a Ti person and he will incorporate it into his internal structure.

[Exodus]

wow lol. So, Te is remembering facts? NO. Functions aren't about the actions which a person performs; they are about the method by which they perform the act.

You're right, functions are about this, but information elements are not.

Show a fact to a Ti person and he will incorporate it into his internal structure.

Again, everybody has a belief system, whether they "are" Ti or not.

[Creepy-bg]

Te is about what works
Si is about working as little as possible

[Steve]

Te is about what works
Si is about working as little as possible

lol

[xyz]

Te is about what works
Si is about working as little as possible

give this man a prize!

[JuJu]

There seems to be an issue as to how some people here view functions. But the issue is that regardless of what model is used, all definitions of the functions are supposedly based off of the same fundamental concepts - the information elements.

I appreciate you explaining this. I always thought that you placed emphasis on subtypes to help you type people more accurately...

If what you posted is your understanding of Socionics, I have a critique of it, which I hope you'll take in the spirit that it's intended, (constructive.)

To me, it seems that you're placing an awful lot of emphasis on the most obtuse, most theoretically weak (pseudo-science-y) characteristic of Socionics, i.e. the theoretical modeling of information elements.

The most compelling, useful characteristic of Socionics is this: there are identifiable types of people, (who can be described as XXXx and the relationships between these types of people can be identified as a type of interaction (intertype relations,) which can be accurately described and even to a degree, understood.

The theoretical modeling of information elements should serve the aim of Socionics' most compelling, useful characteristics... And this is not a huge bone of contention, but nonetheless: your post seems to place unnecessary emphasis/attention on the Info elements (which are models,) to the detriment of reality. For example, let's examine a quote:

"Unfortuantely Model A has a lot of shortcomings, including the idea that a person can/will directly experience functions outside of their quadra."

I'm not sure whether this came out the way that you intended, so I guess I'll just ask that you clarify it before I address it thoroughly... In brief though, this connotes (actually, at the end of your post, you straight-up denote,) that one cannot receive positive benefits from IM elements other than those valued by one's quadra... In other words, only four elements can potentially benefit each individual, whereas the other four will reap effects that are always somehow negative.

This understanding ignores reality in favor of a too literal interpretation of a theoretical model that is, at very best, flawed... As a ENFp, Fe is not one of my quadra values--to say that Fe cannot somehow benefit a ENFp is pretty inaccurate, I believe... Beyond that, your understanding isn't a hell of a lot different--it just places what some, I imagine, would consider to be unnecessary emphasis on the IM elements, to the detriment of the gestalt of the theory

No personal offense intended at all... I like you dude. Peace.

[strrrng]

Te is about what works
Si is about working as little as possible

loll

[Steve]

I appreciate you explaining this. I always thought that you placed emphasis on subtypes to help you type people more accurately...

If what you posted is your understanding of Socionics, I have a critique of it, which I hope you'll take in the spirit that it's intended, (constructive.)

To me, it seems that you're placing an awful lot of emphasis on the most obtuse, most theoretically weak (pseudo-science-y) characteristic of Socionics, i.e. the theoretical modeling of information elements.

The most compelling, useful characteristic of Socionics is this: there are identifiable types of people, (who can be described as XXXx and the relationships between these types of people can be identified as a type of interaction (intertype relations,) which can be accurately described and even to a degree, understood.

The theoretical modeling of information elements should serve the aim of Socionics' most compelling, useful characteristics... And this is not a huge bone of contention, but nonetheless: your post seems to place unnecessary emphasis/attention on the Info elements (which are models,) to the detriment of reality. For example, let's examine a quote:



I'm not sure whether this came out the way that you intended, so I guess I'll just ask that you clarify it before I address it thoroughly... In brief though, this connotes (actually, at the end of your post, you straight-up denote,) that one cannot receive positive benefits from IM elements other than those valued by one's quadra... In other words, only four elements can potentially benefit each individual, whereas the other four will reap effects that are always somehow negative.

This understanding ignores reality in favor of a too literal interpretation of a theoretical model that is, at very best, flawed... As a ENFp, Fe is not one of my quadra values--to say that Fe cannot somehow benefit a ENFp is pretty inaccurate, I believe... Beyond that, your understanding isn't a hell of a lot different--it just places what some, I imagine, would consider to be unnecessary emphasis on the IM elements, to the detriment of the gestalt of the theory

No personal offense intended at all... I like you dude. Peace.

None taken - it's all good bro

Yes, the argument/logic I presented was based on theory, but that's because there really isn't a real justification as to why the information elements are the way they are concretely.

I do only believe that there are four aspects to SOCIONICS reality - T, N, S, F. Each person has one of each, and a specific pair of either Ti/Fe or Te/Fi, and Ne/Si or Ni/Se. Each functional pair is the way it is because Ti is the opposite of Fe (External field statics vs Internal Object Dynamics), and Ne the opposite of Si (Internal Static Objects vs External Field Dynamics) etc. Things in the universe come in pairs, in dual-opposites. Just like magnets, opposites attract (and generally the case with most living creatures and gender attraction).

Things that are too similar get rejected and there are repulsive forces. With me, I look at static objects internally (Ne), and when there's Se thrown at me (external static objects), it's like trying to fill the same static object space in my mind with something that doesn't belong - and it feels foreign and I have a natural repulsion to it.

I place so much emphasis on the information elements because they are not simply a theoretical concept; they are very real and observable in people. For example, even in your own writing you can see a Te way of processing and articulating T-ish stuff:

I'm not sure whether this came out the way that you intended, so I guess I'll just ask that you clarify it before I address it thoroughly... In brief though, this connotes (actually, at the end of your post, you straight-up denote,) that one cannot receive positive benefits from IM elements other than those valued by one's quadra... In other words, only four elements can potentially benefit each individual, whereas the other four will reap effects that are always somehow negative.

The way you make a point takes an idea and rolls it along forward, extracting and evolving, and that's the way Te works (External Dynamic Objects - rolling from point to point kind of in a moving line). This is particularly evident in Expat's writing.

Whereas my writing has a much more outward expansive quality to it:

There seems to be an issue as to how some people here view functions. But the issue is that regardless of what model is used, all definitions of the functions are supposedly based off of the same fundamental concepts - the information elements. These information elements as they relate to the functions were originally put together by Aushra, who blended Carl Jung's functions and Antoni Kepinski's information metabolism. The functions are ways of experiencing reality - this is something that are supposed to remain the same no-matter what model you use.

The concept of Ti (External Field Statics) fits my expression perfectly. I start with a foundation, then build on top of it and expand outward, usually referring back to the original base.

Also check out some of Thomas Jefferson's (Ti) writing versus that of George Washington (Te). You'll notice a clear difference and I think one will seem easier to read and more natural to you while the other seems foreign and requires more effort to process.

[Steve]

Here's a letter of Thomas Jefferson's:

MONTICELLO, February 14, 1824.

DEAR SIR, -- I have to thank you for the copy of Colonel Taylor's New Views of the Constitution and shall read them with the satisfaction and edification which I have ever derived from whatever he has written. But I fear it is the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Those who formerly usurped the name of federalists, which, in fact, they never were, have now openly abandoned it, and are as openly marching by the road of construction, in a direct line to that consolidation which was always their real object. They, almost to a man, are in possession of one branch of the government, and appear to be very strong in yours. The three great questions of amendment now before you, will give the measure of their strength. I mean, 1st, the limitation of the term of the Presidential service; 2d, the placing the choice of President effectually in the hands of the people; 3d, the giving to Congress the power of internal improvement, on condition that each State's federal proportion of the moneys so expended, shall be employed within the State. The friends of consolidation would rather take these powers by construction than accept them by direct investiture from the States.

Yet, as to internal improvement particularly, there is probably not a State in the Union which would not grant the power on the condition proposed, or which would grant it without that. The best general key for the solution of questions of power between our governments, is the fact that "every foreign and federal power is given to the federal government, and to the States every power purely domestic." I recollect but one instance of control vested in the federal, over the State authorities, in a matter purely domestic, which is that of metallic tenders. The federal is, in truth, our foreign government, which department alone is taken from the sovereignty of the separate States.

The real friends of the Constitution in its federal form, if they wish it to be immortal, should be attentive, by amendments, to make it keep pace with the advance of the age in science and experience. Instead of this, the European governments have resisted reformation, until the people, seeing no other resource, undertake it themselves by force, their only weapon, and work it out through blood, desolation and long-continued anarchy. Here it will be by large fragments breaking off, and refusing re-union but on condition of amendment, or perhaps permanently. If I can see these three great amendments prevail, I shall consider it as a renewed extension of the term of our lease, shall live in more confidence, and die in more hope. And I do trust that the republican mass, which Colonel Taylor justly says is the real federal one, is still strong enough to carry these truly federo- republican amendments. With my prayers for the issue, accept my friendly and respectful salutations.

Here's one of Washington's Letters:

To Governor George Clinton
Head Quarters, Valley Forge, February 16, 1778

Dear Sir: It is with great reluctance, I trouble you on a subject, which does not fall within your province; but it is a subject that occasions me more distress, than I have felt, since the commencement of the war; and which loudly demands the most zealous exertions of every person of weight and authority, who is interested in the success of our affairs. I mean the present dreadful situation of the army for want of provisions, and the miserable prospects before us, with respect to futurity. It is more alarming than you will probably conceive, for, to form a just idea, it were necessary to be on the spot. For some days past, there has been little less, than a famine in camp. A part of the army has been a week, without any kind of flesh, and the rest for three or four days. Naked and starving as they are, we cannot enough admire the incomparable patience and fidelity of the soldiery, that they have not been ere this excited by their sufferings, to a general mutiny or dispersion. Strong symptoms, however, discontent have appeared in particular instances; and nothing but the most acitive efforts every where can long avert so shocking a catastrophe.

Our present sufferings are not all. There is no foundation laid for any adequate relief hereafter. All the magazines provided in the States of New Jersey, Pensylvania, Delaware and Maryland, and all the immediate additional supplies they seem capable of affording, will not be sufficient to support the army more than a month longer, if so long. Very little has been done to the Eastward, and as little to the Southward; and whatever we have a right to expect from those quarters, must necessarily be very remote; and is indeed more precarious, than could be wished. When the forementioned supplies are exhausted, what a terrible crisis must ensue, unless all the energy of the Continent is exerted to provide a timely remedy?

Impressed with this idea, I am, on my part, putting every engine to work, that I can possibly think of, to prevent the fatal consequences, we have so great a reason to apprehend. I am calling upon all those, whose stations and influence enable them to contribute their aid upons so important an occasion; and from your well known zeal, I expect every thing within the compass of your power, and that the abilities and resources of the state over which you preside, will admit. I am sensible of the disadvantages it labours under, from having been so long the scene of war, and that it must be exceedingly drained by the great demands to which it has been subject. But, tho' you may not be able to contribute materially to our relief, you can perhaps do something towards it; and any assistance, however trifling in itself, will be of great moment at so critical a juncture, and will conduce to keeping the army together till the Commissary's department can be put upon a better footing, and effectual measures concerted to secure a permanent and competent supply. What methods you can take, you will be the best judge of; but, if you can devise any means to procure a quantity of cattle, or other kind of flesh, for the use of this army, to be at camp in the course of a month, you will render a most essential service to the common cause. I have the honor etc.

There's a clear difference. As I was reading it just now Washington's writing has a striking resemblance to Expat's. Jefferson's actually reminds me of Carl Jung's - they both may be Ni INFp, not positive though, but Jefferson is definitely Ti.

With Jefferson you can see his immersion within a field (try imagining that, and it'll make sense). He has this attachment and it's like the idea he's getting at is literally surrounding him, whereas with Washington things seem neatly wrapped up into trimmed idea balls that roll along, one into the next, as if he's looking AT what he's conveying, watching it evolve over time, as opposed to looking THROUGH something that grows outward.

The information elements are very real and observable in people, but of course they're abstract things. However just because it's abstract doesn't mean it's any less real. Is loving a person any less real than being able to tell that they're tall or have brown hair?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Steve]

Not this particular letter but others written by Jefferson gave me the strong impression of Fi writing, and I have thought he could have actually been INFj rather than INTj.

Hm, which letters are you referring to, the one's on natural rights and man, and what he says about God?

Just curious what you see as Fi about them.

[Exodus]

I do only believe that there are four aspects to SOCIONICS reality - T, N, S, F. Each person has one of each, and a specific pair of either Ti/Fe or Te/Fi, and Ne/Si or Ni/Se. Each functional pair is the way it is because Ti is the opposite of Fe (External field statics vs Internal Object Dynamics), and Ne the opposite of Si (Internal Static Objects vs External Field Dynamics) etc.

The existence of derived dichotomies makes this view untenable - any function can be seen as the "opposite" of any other. We could just as easily use Alpha/Gamma, Beta/Delta, and External/Internal as the basic dichotomies. Then Ti (Alpha Beta External) would be the opposite of Fi (Gamma Delta Internal).

Things that are too similar get rejected and there are repulsive forces. With me, I look at static objects internally (Ne), and when there's Se thrown at me (external static objects), it's like trying to fill the same static object space in my mind with something that doesn't belong - and it feels foreign and I have a natural repulsion to it.

Repulsion is not the same as absence; I agree that the two aspects repel each other, but that doesn't mean they're mutually exclusive - except in a strictly limited sense.

The way you make a point takes an idea and rolls it along forward, extracting and evolving, and that's the way Te works (External Dynamic Objects - rolling from point to point kind of in a moving line). This is particularly evident in Expat's writing.

I think this could have something to do with Ni too.

[Steve]

The existence of derived dichotomies makes this view untenable - any function can be seen as the "opposite" of any other. We could just as easily use Alpha/Gamma, Beta/Delta, and External/Internal as the basic dichotomies. Then Ti (Alpha Beta External) would be the opposite of Fi (Gamma Delta Internal).

No they're not opposites because Ti and Fi are both static fields. They resemble each other so closely that where they differ (external vs internal) causes them to "compete" for the same space.

Repulsion is not the same as absence; I agree that the two aspects repel each other, but that doesn't mean they're mutually exclusive - except in a strictly limited sense.

My point is that certain information element combinations (functions) repel other combinations, and that one will be healthy for a person's information processing and the other will not. It's like giving a person with AB- blood AB+ blood. The two are so similar but differ by the one antigen, and that makes the difference as to whether it will harm the person or if the body will reject it or not.

[Exodus]

No they're not opposites because Ti and Fi are both static fields. They resemble each other so closely that where they differ (external vs internal) causes them to "compete" for the same space.

Yeah, that makes sense.

[Suomea]

....

[Steve]

After meeting you, I would have probably typed you as an INTj. You specifically have pretty stable Ti and an extreme preference for it over Te. You also seem to have a Si HA compared with a Fe hidden agenda. These were just my observations in relation to myself though.

However, according to "Ashton"'s model, which you go by, you would attribute these characteristics to you being a Ti subtype of ENTp. It's a fair claim, and very well might be possible, but in any event your functions seem to be set up much more like a Model A INTj than a Model A ENTp. That being the case I wouldn't mind hearing you create a similar diesel fuel argument for your Ne and Ni.

In terms of myself I don't feel like I have a problem with Te like you say you do. My Ni on the other hand very well may act similar to that.... on the day you weren't there for the Socionic's get together I was given a Ni task which I completely translated to Ne, and semi ignored the Ni purpose of it.

Regarding your impressions of me - an important thing to take into account is my being a 6w5 enneagram. 6w5s come off as much more introspective than do 6w7s or even 3s (It's important to take in all the factors that can affect a person, socionics is just one aspect). However even though I came across as reserved in one particular social context (meeting random people from an online forum lol), once you get to know me I'm much more outgoing and playfully engaging. I just need to form a connection. Also, my energy flow is extremely outwardly focused and am much more aware of what's going on outside of me than an introvert would be. Compare me to someone like Mysticsonic, Ms. Kensington, or Hitta who are Ti INTj and there's a clear difference. Also, INTjs are much more controlled and even somewhat rigid in the extreme, whereas I as a direction-less EP am searching for that dynamic flow I can ride on to guide me, and use my Ne and Ti to try to find and create that flow. Yes, I am probably more introspective than other Ti ENTps even, but that's a personality thing.

With Fe, I crave it and am extremely energized by it. I literally need it as a constant gauge as to where things stand, especially in interpersonal contexts, and of course I am readily aware of the moods that exist - I can recognize and pick up Fe quite adeptly, since I need it to truly feel alive.

In terms of my experience with Ni: When Ni people say things I don't personally have a huge issue with it, but I still can't really let it sit in it's raw form. I'm pretty much the way you described for yourself. When an Ni person gives an impression, it's very general and seemingly suspended to me. I always find myself trying to find an aspect of it to latch onto and find a context within my experience to draw parallels to. I do this a lot when I talk with Strrrng. He'll describe an impression he has, and I'll always try to find an external context to liken it to using Ne.

I think you'd have the same issue with Te, I just don't think you know exactly what Te is. Te /= practicality, business logic, etc.

While I don't know the exact "Ni task" you were referring to, I don't really think there are "Ni tasks" or "Ne tasks" or "Te tasks" etc. Certain tasks can however be geared to illustrate how someone would go about doing them differently, which can indicate their functional usage, which may be what you're talking about.

[Jonathan]

Just a few quick comments on this.

These information elements as they relate to the functions were originally put together by Aushra, who blended Carl Jung's functions and Antoni Kepinski's information metabolism.

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.

Strrrng, I and a few others who supposedly have "different" understandings than the majority of the 16types, speak from an information element perspective - the essence of socionics itself. Aushra, the founder of so called "classical socionics" devised these information elements herself.

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'.

Unfortuantely Model A has a lot of shortcomings, including the idea that a person can/will directly experience functions outside of their quadra. This is a total contradiction with the fundamentals of socionics, because Aushra herself incorporated the idea of information metabolism from Kepinsky, who discussed the idea of metabolism as it related to cells. One of the most fundamental principles was that there were certain elements that were beneficial to the cell and promoted healthy functioning, while others interfered and slowed down healthy normal functioning. This is exactly the case with socionics information elements.

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.

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.

Saying that I, as an ENTp use Te is like trying to put diesel fuel in a car that is designed for unleaded premium. It just doesn't work. It causes the engine to strain and function poorly and unhealthily. Te to me lacks inherent structure and seems to have no base whatsoever - it's ungrounded to me. Whenever I encounter Te expression, I always need to translate it into my own language and find an inherent link between the nodes of Te strolling on the edge.

A person can/will never experience non-quadra functions directly because they simply are detrimental to a person's natural information processing - the person will only react to them.

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.

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.

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.

[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]

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

[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?

[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.

[Steve]

I think you inject some words here that are fairly irrelevant.

"experience and perform"
"work to get better at"

I'm not sure these are used in the proper context or meaningfulness.

People on here have made the very claim that your "Role Function" is something you try to get better at, and have tried to cite examples of people supposedly using their id functions.

[strrrng]

I do only believe that there are four aspects to SOCIONICS reality - T, N, S, F. Each person has one of each, and a specific pair of either Ti/Fe or Te/Fi, and Ne/Si or Ni/Se. Each functional pair is the way it is because Ti is the opposite of Fe (External field statics vs Internal Object Dynamics), and Ne the opposite of Si (Internal Static Objects vs External Field Dynamics) etc. Things in the universe come in pairs, in dual-opposites. Just like magnets, opposites attract (and generally the case with most living creatures and gender attraction).

Exactly.