Understanding Long-range and Short-range functions.
If we are to believe that + (short-range) and - (longe-range) functions exist, what's their point? Some people believe that + functions are somewhat more apparent than - functions. Take ISFP and ISTP. ISFP has + and ISTP has -. + is more geared towards beauty and asthetics, bodily sensations, etc... - can predict and cure discomfort and health and the like, but it is not as much into "beautifying" the surroundings.
Also, what about the subconcious funcitons? ISTP now has + and ISFP has -. Does this mean that ISTP prefers and ISFP prefers ? Is ISTP somewhat "stronger" than (though unconsious)? And vice versa for ISFP?
This would mean that if Sensory is coupled with Ethics, then Sensorika "dominants" (+), if Sensory is combined with Logics, then Logic dominats, if Intuition is combined with Ethics, Ethics dominant, and if Intuition is combined with Logics, Intuition dominants.
So, the most concious positive functions are found like this;
NT= most Intuitive
NF= most Ethical
ST= most Logical
SF= most Sensory
The "theory" about signs of socionic functions was born in the beginning of 1990s just in front of my eyes, so I can judge In my opinion, all these signs have nothing in common with reality. It was just a temporary patch to socionic issues discussed at that time.
Program functions of kindred types (e.g., Craftsman and Mediator , both having Introverted Sensing as the program function) manifest somewhat differently. However, it's not a mythological "sign", it's an effect of the secondary ("creative") function. Since The Craftsman is a logical type, his Introverted Sensing is directed more towards - functionality of things, efficiency, quality etc. The Mediator is an ethical type, and therefore his Introverted Sensing is directed more towards - aesthetics. That's it.
Moreover, introduction of these "signs" created a lot of myths about "positive" and "negative" attitudes of types etc. Nobody has proved it empirically. It's just speculation, nothing else.
Yeah, I have thought about that, but I don't think that discredits its usefulness. I think it is just a way to organize that idea in a more logically consistant way.
Originally Posted by Dmitri Lytov
Also, I was thinking it may be able to describe some other things (such as why conversion between MBTI-socionics can get complicated). LSI here is said to have + (subconcious), which could be why that could be confused for MBTI ISTJ Si, and so on.
It may even explain some of the attudes of certain types. For example, in socionics, both ILI and LSI can be very perdantic (INTP and ISTJ). Both ILI and LSI have their stonger + functions as introverted ones ( +/ + and +/ + respectively). This is in contrast to the SLI and LII (ISTP and INTJ) whose strong introverted functions are - ( -/ - and -/ -). So, maybe LSI and ILI are even *more* comfortable introverting on average than SLI and LII (also, IEE/ENFP is generally considered an "introverted" Extravert, SEE/ESFP is generally more needing of social contact than SLE/ESTP, etc...).
SEE more needs social contacts than SLE because he/she is an ethical type, focused on people, on their emotions etc. Absolutely the same is with IEE and ILE (some ILE may even look introverted just until they start a discussion - this is why MBTI guys consider Einstein an introvert).