Last edited by tereg; 05-07-2010 at 10:14 PM. Reason: Edited by user request
Because apparently two functions is all you need to indicate which type you mean. The rest mostly comes from JungOriginally Posted by Diana
It was supposedly derived from Carl Jung's work; however, I've seen very little real evidence of this, past the attitude/function type theory that Rocky has linked to several times.
I haven't actually seen the development process of the theory myself. All I know is that it originated in Russia somewhere.
I think most of it relies on common sense; but of course, the crosstypes control that. (?)
I could say the same about my crosstype extensions to the theory. People ask me, "where is your proof?" Well, I don't see much "proof" coming from the "official" socionics side either. Certainly there is no mathematics available with which to describe it. I mean, someone can explain to you that "under socionics this function modifies this function this way, etc.", but that really doesn't prove the theory past people's desire to believe in it.
I can't give you the how's, wherefore, the what-for's, etc. but I can point you to two things that might help. Jung's original Psychological Types from Chapter 9 onward presents his reasoning for the interplay between the functions. You'll notice that Jung does not develop his functions individually, but in the context of a continuum and opposing entities <- extroverted functions vs. introverted function, intuition vs. sensing, thinking vs. feeling. Also, take a look at the symmetry of model-A and how the extroverted and introverted functions are arranged.Originally Posted by Diana
Jung was working off the premise that if this function works thusly, its extroverted equivalent must take such and such a role; As Jung was the one who developed the theory under the influence of Freud, we pretty much have to trust that he knew his own definitions well enough such that he understood what was possible and not possible under the system he created. Jung presents his own justification plus subjective observations in his writing, so that is definitely something to check out.
You don't necessarily have to believe in it - it is merely one representation of human nature and interaction, among many others. Russian Socionists will probably give you their own justifications, but then again, they ahve quite a bit to lose.
It originated in an ENTp mind. Thus it is impossible to trace the process backwards. It just is and you have to believe it. Resistance is futile.Originally Posted by Diana
Interesting topic, esp. since MBTI has a different order of functions. I remember reading that Te is supposed to be my third function and thinking "hey, this really makes sense". My 3d function in Socionics: Se. ...All I know is, if I say "I'm a socionics EN(F)p with an MBTI order of functions", then the Socionic Mussolinis will be out to get me.
I know the feeling. Yesterday I was TiSe, now I'm SiTe. It is a strange world.Originally Posted by schrödinger's cat
Actually I'm starting to believe in the socionics functions. They explain better the difference between ISTp and ESTp.
If the functional ordering of the human psyche did not follow a regular and definite pattern, there would be 40320 types instead of the 16 described by socionics and MBTI.
(This has nothing to do with anything...I just thought it was interesting.)
"Supposing the entity of the poet to be represented by the number 10, it is certain that a chemist, on analyzing it, would find it to be composed of one part interest and nine parts vanity." (Victor Hugo)
All of this is explained in Aushra's original works, which have not been translated.Why is it assumed that people who share the first 2 functions that make up their type, also share the other functions in the same order?
If a type is irrational, then all of its accepting functions are irrational and all producing functions are rational. Vice versa for rationals. This is what defines the nature of a rational or irrational person's psyche.
In other words, in every block of the psyche you get the same picture:
Certain words, actions, emotions, and judgments produce desired states of mind and body
Certain states of mind and body produce desired desired words, actions, emotions, and judgments.
That is the general idea.
With the above limiting factor, we can see that we've cut the 40320 possible combinations down quite a bit (someone else can do the math).
Next comes the rule that 'static' types have all static functions in their mental loop (the top 4 functions) and all dynamic in their vital loop (the bottom 4). This is what defines their perception.
Now we've cut the number down some more.
Next, there is the axiom (from Jung) that leading functions are followed by a second function of opposite "vert-ness," i.e. an extravert has an introverted element as his second function, and an introvert has an extraverted function.
Now, with these limitations, let's build a type:
First decision: which set of four elements shall we stick in the mental loop?
Second decision: which set of two of these four are going to be accepting functions?
Third decision: which of these two functions shall we make the leading function?
Fourth decision: which of the two remaining functions will become the second function?
Each of these decisions has two possible outcomes, producing 2x2x2x2=16 possible combinations.
There's a final rule I forgot to mention. The vital loop is a mirror image of the mental loop, but with functions of the opposite "vertness."
I find this interesting, do you think you could explain a little more?Originally Posted by Rick
Possibly ethical-intuitive introvert.
OK, I'll try to make this more concrete.
For irrational types words, actions, emotions, and judgments are the result of states of mind and body ( , , , ), which are quite flexible and receptive to the outside environment. It seems that irrational types have a greater range of mental states (including 'altered' states) and are constantly seeking the 'right' psychophysical states that will enable them to do what needs to be down. If they don't find the right state of mind, they often can't do anything. Rational signals (again - words, actions, emotions, and judgments) are seen as being situational and 'less important', while states of mind and body are seen as being more fundamental in life.
For rational types the opposite is true. States of mind and body are the result of words, actions, emotions, and judgments, which they demonstrate a greater diversity of. Rationals seem to attach more importance to the 'right' words, actions, emotions, and judgments and see states of mind and body as being situational and less important in life.
You can see how other traits of rationals and irrationals stem from this fundamental difference. I have a page on this dichotomy here:
Interesting. I read the page you linked and found that I related better to a few of the statements from the "wrong" column (if I am the type I think I am), but overall the "right" one fit better.
I should've phrased my question better. I'm looking for clarification on what you mean by "words, actions, emotions, and judgments" and "states of mind and body". It seems like it should be obvious, but isn't for whatever reason (at least not right now).
Possibly ethical-intuitive introvert.
Ooph... these are tough topics that are hard to get across in words, but they are at the heart of socionics theory and Jungian typology in general. Those were blanket statements describing all the rational and all the irrational information elements.I should've phrased my question better. I'm looking for clarification on what you mean by "words, actions, emotions, and judgments" and "states of mind and body". It seems like it should be obvious, but isn't for whatever reason (at least not right now).
Here's another way of looking at it. Think of the rational elements as involving discrete signals (like a dashed line), while irrational elements involve unbroken lines that rise and fall. A type's basic perception is based on one or the other kind of signals.
From an irrational's perspective, rational signals are often artificial, while from a rational's perspective, irrational signals are often unreliable.
Does that clear anything up?
heheOriginally Posted by Rick
Yes and no, just like what you originally wrote. It makes sense and in a way I get what you're saying, but it's like I just see it mirrored from behind a corner... I can *almost* see it, but not quite.
And it is difficult to get these things across in words.
Possibly ethical-intuitive introvert.
Do you mean irrational/rational is like analog/digital?Originally Posted by Rick
Rick, what's your type? LII?
MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!
Originally Posted by vague
I'd be really surpised if it isOriginally Posted by Rocky
Hm... there is definitely a connection, though I wouldn't try to take it too far and lose sight of the people whose perception we are trying to describe.Do you mean irrational/rational is like analog/digital?
Another approach would be to look at 'extreme' cases of rationality and irrationality. An 'extreme' rational might be someone who is blunt, edgy, and takes everything literally. An 'extreme' irrational might be someone who is so dependent on their internal state that they sit without any goal or direction until suddenly they are hit by inspiration OR they are simply forced to act.
Of course, most people are in between those two extremes, but I think if you take that and go look back at my descriptions so far, something might come together... I hope
My type is IEE. But I am often mistaken in writing for other types (usually ILE).
no wonder i liked the format of the information on your site so much.Originally Posted by Rick
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Another thing Aushra emphasized about being different about the two types is that while rationals seem to react directly and immediately to others' actions and words, irrationals have a moment of internal hesitation (sort of like an internal 'oscillation') where they wait for their internal state to react to the other person's actions/words, and then they react based on this internal state.
When irrationals speak they think less about the specific words they are using and think more about the image they are holding in their head. When rationals speak they seem to have more awareness of the words being said and attach greater meaning to them (again, this goes back to the previous things I've written).
I think you can't really compare rationality/irrationality with digital/analog. Digital is either 1 or 0 , there is no middle, so it is in a way very extreme, and analog is like there is never definite 1 or 0 and lots in the middle so it is very laidback. It is almost as saying rational people see everything in black and white and irrational see millions shades of gray. What a lot of horseshit.Originally Posted by Rick
If that's what you meant by asking about digital/analog in the first place, then of course, no, that really has nothing to do with this dichotomy. Seeing things in black and white terms is a non-socionic trait that comes from background, upbringing, and most of all, age.
So according to you we become more or less extreme with the age?Originally Posted by Rick
Black and white thinking is most typical of adolescents and young adults (i.e. the "maximalism of youth"). When people are young and need to choose a path in life and their allegiance to various systems this kind of thinking helps them choose between their different options. However, as people age they usually take on a more rounded and relativistic worldview that allows them to be more accepting. But this is just a statistical tendency. Some old people don't fit this description.
Exactly, so this all means nothing because old people could be such extremists. There is no liniar dependency. Then what about young people with non-extreme views? Do they get more extreme later or do they get even more laidback? As I said this is tons of horseshit. However one thing I will agree upon is that you have to consider these extreme/laidback attitudes but also filter them out and avoid associating them with any type.Originally Posted by Rick
Was my comment a bit of .... --- .-. ... . ... .... .. - as well?
Wait... when we talk about subjective things like people and their views and psychological traits, there is never a 100% correlation (60% would be an awesome correlation in these areas, actually). It sounds like you want to throw out everything that doesn't have a 100% correlation with type (i.e. everything ). Indeed, when you read some things people write about socionics (and other typologies), it can sound like these people believe everything can be neatly described in terms of a single type. However, this comes from limited experience and understanding. Jung himself described everything in very relative terms, emphasizing that things were to be understood as "tendencies" and not taken too literally.
Are you claiming there's absolutely no correlation between age and the extremeness of one's views?
Not at all. This is the problem:Originally Posted by Rick
Dashed line signifies on and off principal, 1 and 0, black and white ie extreme perceprion and you're claiming that that is how rationality works. I'm saying it is a horseshit and it has nothing to do with rational types. I'm saying that extreme in views irrational type would likely score J and this is the only connection you can get between the rationality and extreme atitude. Besides you said yourself that extreme views change with age, which I tend to agree, does it mean that a persom changes his/her preference for J/P as well because you think there is a corelation?Originally Posted by Rick
You're the one that raised the issue of extreme (black-and-white) views, which I never implied correlate in any way to rationalism. Also, I never saw how the 'dashed line' metaphor somehow implies extremity of views. That's definitely not what I intended to say.
I don't know about J/P, but rationality/irrationality has nothing to do with extreme views, and even if a person's score on written tests of the preference change over time, that does not mean their type has changed. It only means we have an imperfect test of rat./irrat.
This interesting turn our discussion has taken is itself a demonstration of the kinds of differences between rationality and irrationality that I was talking about. I have been looking for images to try to get across to illustrate the differences between the two, and you have taken fault with the 'imperfections' of my verbal descriptions, showing that, if taken literally, they lead to various absurdities.
Images are nondiscrete, while words are discrete (have a start and a stop). There you have it again - irrationality and rationality
While this is not proof that you are a rational type, it does means that while you wrote these things one of your rational functions had kicked into gear.
or is that discrete or indiscrete. And do you mind to give the same evaluation to the rest of the functions?
Rational functions are , , , . The others are irrational. So if one of the ethical functions is your leading function, that makes you 'rational.'
Rational does not "equal" discrete. But "discrete" is one of the ways of describing how rational functions operate.
I always laugh a little in the inside when they say Fe is rational. I understand what is meant but Im sure many of you can see the humour with multiple meaning =)
Do I sound that stupid?Originally Posted by Rick
Originally Posted by Rick
So if my type's basic perception is based on discrete signal it makes me......?Originally Posted by Rick
Dunno. Can anyone else help nobrainer figure it out?
Good answer, you might just saved your lifeOriginally Posted by Rick
Is there a miswording here?Originally Posted by Rick
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Ouch, bad typo. That should read "If a type is irrational, then all of its accepting functions are irrational and all producing functions are rational"
I changed the original to avoid further confusion. Thanks!
Hey Rick are you sure you're not LIE
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
If you can introduce me to a few really hot ESI's, I'll reconsider...
(But what if they don't like me??)