On functions

[Creepy-]

It seems to me that the "strength" of functions isn't all that important, the role is much more important.

i.e. an IEI isn't an IEI because their is stronger than their etc., rather it is because is their base function (and is their role function, etc.)

So it follows that an IEI might have (or appear to have) weak /strong etc. etc., but because of their psyche's organisation they are still an IEI regardless.

What do you think?

[Tepa]

I don't know if it's right or not, but that's how I tend to see it.

[Rocky]

I've posted stuff like this on here before. I remember saying that sometimes I stress what will happen in terms of time than my ILI Dad does. I'm usually on time, but only becuase I worry about it. That's why the third function is called "neurosis", it makes you anxious. The difference is that your base is more like a "fall back" funciton. You feel more confident in it.

[schrödinger's cat]

This is interesting. I used to think that stronger function = 1st function. If that isn't true, how is it possible to tell whether a function is or isn't someone's base function? Are there any other criteria?

[niveK]

This is interesting. I used to think that stronger function = 1st function. If that isn't true, how is it possible to tell whether a function is or isn't someone's base function? Are there any other criteria?

A base function will be a person's primary accepting function (following model A). The base function will provide the majority of the information that will be manipulated by producing functions. Because of the confidence placed in the function and it's extensive use, it's effects should be most apparent in the subject's behavior. Therefore it should normally test stronger, though a producing subtype subject could possibly test higher on the producing function.

The thing about tests is they do not measure the "size" of a function, but rather, how much effect it has on the behaviour of the subject. A person's perceptions and socialization will affect test results. I'm not sure one could truly quantify functions anyway.

[Creepy-]

Could an unusually aggressive person test as a type from their opposing quadra? I had a thought that in that instance, their ID functions might test stronger than usual.

[Wavebury]

It seems to me that the "strength" of functions isn't all that important, the role is much more important.

i.e. an IEI isn't an IEI because their is stronger than their etc., rather it is because is their base function (and is their role function, etc.)

So it follows that an IEI might have (or appear to have) weak /strong etc. etc., but because of their psyche's organisation they are still an IEI regardless.

What do you think?

I agree with this theory.