concise explanation of functions

[Joy]

yes I know this is an almost criminal oversimplification, but here's what I was thinking...

Te: simplifies
Ti: explores

Se: does stuff
Si: feels good

Fe: displays emotions and manipulates other's emotions
Fi: internalizes stuff and cares about ethics and whatnot

Ne: sees endless possibilities
Ni: time and mysticism and whatnot

[niveK]

I might suggest putting Ni as "sees patterns".

[Joy]

but Ne sees patterns too

[niveK]

But I think the emphasis is on the patterns with Ni. Or rather, where the patterns lead.

[wym123]

I think Ni is sees possibilities and Ne is sees patterns.

[niveK]

I think Ni is sees possibilities and Ne is sees patterns.

And you would be mistaken.

Well, that depends on what you mean by possibilities.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Joy]

genius!!!

[Cone]

Especially this part:

Ne = Alternatives
Ni = Appropriateness

There, the debate has been resolved.

[discojoe]

I really see no benefit whatsoever in condensing the functions into single word abstractions.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[discojoe]

How do you know the functions can't do something for you? Do you really know that much about the human brain? We don't know what the functions actually are, other than that they are observation phenomena in human behavior. We don't know if they are connected in some way to processes, subconscious or whatever, that may actually alter our conscious thought without us realizing, or manipulate us for reasons we are not aware of.

This seems to be venturing into pseudo-philosophy or something...

[niveK]

It's just an approximation and terminology to explain observed behavior. The actual mechanics of it are still pretty mysterious. Personally, I see the functions as the "tools" we use to manipulate information.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[discojoe]

I just wanted to say that the functions were just created to describe things that happened. It was kinda directed at the folks who are constantly saying "oh wow, I Te'ed that" or "I Ni'ed this!" or "Ne sees patterns".

I find that actually more pseudo-philosophical then just saying that functions are just descriptions of what people do.

I mean, there may be certain things in the brain that correspond to each function, but until we find that out, I think that the whole "functions doing things for us" bit is kinda speculative and new-agey.

Hell, I could be wrong, but right now I don't think that either position is really backed up by any concrete evidence yet.

That's what I'm saying. We don't know either way, so holding an opinion at this point seems suspect.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[tempus]

More oversimplification:

Te: Facts (actions, events)
Ti: Analysis

Fe: Emotion
Fi: Ethic

Se: Vitality
Si: Aesthetics (comfort, health)

Ne: Possibility
Ni: Foresight

I tried to define the functions in such a way so that the introverted components could be seen as a subjective interpretation of their extraverted counterparts. If the definitions were to become even more precise I suppose one might consider things such as functional inhibition and support.

[Cone]

Ooh, this is fun! Here's my crappy interpretation:

Ti = subjective criticism
Fi = affective criticism

Si = self-preservation
Ni = self-direction

Se = societal force
Ne = societal change

Te = objective criticism
Fe = societal criticism

[Olga]

I enjoyed that. With a such clear understanding of functions we can move anywhere we want. Is it possible to consider not the separate functions but to describe the type? I haven't got time now but I am going to describe the functions using associations with the natural world.

[schrödinger's cat]

What about this?

F = subjectivity // T = objectivity

Fe = subjectivity in the outside world --> results of subjectivity (emotions, interactions)
Fi = subjectivity as seen from the inside --> what the world looks and feels like if seen through my own or someone else's eyes*

*this leads to conclusions about appropriate behaviour and ethics, but those conclusions are not what Fi is primarily about

[snegledmaca]

I always thought

Ni - intuition of answers
Ne – intuition of questions

Don't know the rest

[Creepy-]

How about...

- established logical constructs
- established ethical constructs

- tangible traits of the present
- intangible traits of the present

- personal logical constructs
- personal ethical constructs

- tangible traits in development
- intangible traits in development

[Cone]

What about this?

F = subjectivity // T = objectivity

Fe = subjectivity in the outside world --> results of subjectivity (emotions, interactions)
Fi = subjectivity as seen from the inside --> what the world looks and feels like if seen through my own or someone else's eyes*

*this leads to conclusions about appropriate behaviour and ethics, but those conclusions are not what Fi is primarily about

Yes, exactly! This is exactly what I based my list off of.

[Gilly]

No, extroversion is objectivity, and introversion subjectivity. sees emotions as a kind of cosmic whole with no real right or wrong; tries to define more clearly what is right and wrong. looks at the facts and balances them out to form a conclusion, uses facts as a means to a particular end. sees all possible conclusions, looks at how one develops over time. Still working on S in these terms, but I think it's that sees all of the qualities of a physical being and balances them out, while "analyzes" them to see what works best.

[schrödinger's cat]

What about this?

F = subjectivity // T = objectivity

Fe = subjectivity in the outside world --> results of subjectivity (emotions, interactions)
Fi = subjectivity as seen from the inside --> what the world looks and feels like if seen through my own or someone else's eyes*

*this leads to conclusions about appropriate behaviour and ethics, but those conclusions are not what Fi is primarily about

Yes, exactly! This is exactly what I based my list off of.

Yay!

[schrödinger's cat]

No, extroversion is objectivity, and introversion subjectivity. sees emotions as a kind of cosmic whole with no real right or wrong; tries to define more clearly what is right and wrong.

I was basing this on my own explanation of T and F.

T = taking a few steps back to see things from a distance, get an overview, see the objects or phenomena and how they interact. Detaching yourself in order to make decisions. Objectivity.
F = taking a few steps closer, trying to get into (become part of) a situation in order to make decisions about it. Attaching yourself in order to make decisions. Subjectivity.

I see what you mean, though.

[Cone]

No, extroversion is objectivity, and introversion subjectivity.

It is both. The functions are a combination of three elements, so that you end up with obj/obj/J (Te), obj/obj/P (Se), obj/sub/J (Fe), obj/sub/P (Ne), sub/obj/J (Ti), sub/obj/P (Si), sub/sub/J (Fi), and sub/sub/P (Ni). But this is non-standard Socionics.

[discojoe]

No, extroversion is objectivity, and introversion subjectivity.

It is both. The functions are a combination of three elements, so that you end up with obj/obj/J (Te), obj/obj/P (Se), obj/sub/J (Fe), obj/sub/P (Ne), sub/obj/J (Ti), sub/obj/P (Si), sub/sub/J (Fi), and sub/sub/P (Ni). But this is non-standard Socionics.

Yeah, you're really going to revolutionize socionics.

"To understand the functions, one must consider J/P scale [accepting]*E*Ti but remember to substitute (Te > Fi) * (obj/thi/Re/76c799[Ni-Ne production]) for the order of the function preferential data (Te>Te>Te<Ti<Ti<Fi<Fe<) which can be objectively measured when considering the irr/irr/sub/obj (Fe). This proves my theory about Plt/GWB/obj/obj/sub/intp/(Fe accepting*producing*Ni quadration)."

[discojoe]

Here is how the functions break down:

Ne: Godmode
Ni: Gothmode

Te: Dr Phil's penis
Ti: Comprehension

Fe: ROFLCOPTER
Fi: Homosexuality

Se: Tripping toddlers
Si: Tripping

[Olga]

To Cone,

I did not understand how did you come to this conclusions, why only three elements?

No, extroversion is objectivity, and introversion subjectivity.


It is both. The functions are a combination of three elements, so that you end up with obj/obj/J (Te), obj/obj/P (Se), obj/sub/J (Fe), obj/sub/P (Ne), sub/obj/J (Ti), sub/obj/P (Si), sub/sub/J (Fi), and sub/sub/P (Ni). But this is non-standard Socionics.
_________________

[Olga]

It would be a good idea for people to summarise their topics at some stage and to put it on the article site. I think the concise explanations of functions should definetly be there!

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Smilingeyes]

To Cone,

I did not understand how did you come to this conclusions, why only three elements?

There are 8 = 2 to 3rd power functions. For this reason it's impossible to have more than three deciding elements for functions. Any elements in addition to the three would either create more functions or themselves be aspects of the three first elements, derivatives if you will.

No, extroversion is objectivity, and introversion subjectivity.

It is both. The functions are a combination of three elements, so that you end up with obj/obj/J (Te), obj/obj/P (Se), obj/sub/J (Fe), obj/sub/P (Ne), sub/obj/J (Ti), sub/obj/P (Si), sub/sub/J (Fi), and sub/sub/P (Ni). But this is non-standard Socionics.
_________________

Very good, carry on.

[Olga]

I have got a question. What functions do you think are involved in associative knowlege?
I think I have come to understand why letters and numbers for me are associated with colours. To see letters and numbers in colours or associate music with the material world seems to be irrational phenomenon but it looks like it is not that rare as we may think.
I assume it may be to do with some sort of "irrational" perception. I am not sure what is it about: sound of a letter or its' shape or both which defines the clolour. I would assume that and is involved and it is not something you are consciously aware until you put your attention to it. I don't know why I do not see other things in colours. Could it be that letters and numbers are the product of human rational mind, a concept. Abstarct logical thinking is hard for me and association abstract shapes with colours suppose to help me with logic. It would be interesting to know what parts of brain involved. I might be able to find out more about it soon as I have got a name for a contact.