Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: Defining "Strong" Functions

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    57
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Defining "Strong" Functions

    I've been thinking about why people have so much trouble typing themselves and why socionics seems so ambiguous. I think part of the problem is that we don't have a clear definition of how to tell whether a function's in the ego block. So I wanna go back to the basics and get some perspectives on this. What does it mean for a function to be in the ego block?

    The simplest answer is that it means we're good at using this function. But this way of looking at it won't necessarily work for unhealthy representatives of types -- the people who have the most to gain by discovering their socionics types!

    The same goes for trying to define function order in reference to external behavior. Plus, the "outside-in" way of looking for type dismisses the fact that different people do the same things for wildly divergent reasons.

    Some people say we should just pay attention to which functions people use most often. But again, this is a problem for unhealthy types -- different environments can repress or exaggerate certain functions.

    I know there was an old test that defined ego functions as the ones you're most "attentive" too. But there's a lot of different ways you can be attentive to something. In the case of a function, maybe you revel in the use of that function, or maybe you're scared shitless by it and can't stop thinking about it. Either way, you're attentive to it.

    I'd propose another way of looking at functions: which function energizes you the most when you use it? (And maybe, for weak but valued functions: which function energizes you the most when used by other people?)

    Or maybe a more abstract definition like... in the context of which function do you evaluate the other functions? Hmm, I hope that makes sense - it probably wouldn't be an effective basis of determining type without some good concrete examples.

    So - what's the best criteria for determining function placement? How d'you tell whether a function is "strong" -- and conversely, whether it's weak or just repressed by an individual's environment?
    EIE-Ni

  2. #2
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,418
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nilv View Post
    I've been thinking about why people have so much trouble typing themselves and why socionics seems so ambiguous.
    Because people try to use information elements to type themselves. Your solution involves again information elements and is therefor part of the problem instead of a solution.

    If you want to look at strong functions, then you just have to use the 4 jungian dichotomies.

    Because: an Intuitive person, has both Ne and Ni as his strong functions. (one is counscious and the other is uncounscious). But they are both strong, so you don't have to look seperately at them and you can simply look at Intuition vs Sensing.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Use the dichotomies to type yourself. Use IM elements to understand yourself.

  4. #4
    oh man, greed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    alabamer
    Posts
    111
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Use the dichotomies to type yourself. Use IM elements to understand yourself.
    Yeah, this. For some people, it might be an iterative process, where you'll type yourself and then read further and adjust your understanding of yourself and maybe shift to a different type. In any case, I don't think the functions should be dealt with first; rather, a surface-level understanding through the dichotomies is probably a better place to start for those who are completely new to this stuff.

    To answer the question of what it means for a function to be in the ego, I've heard it described as the primary lens through which we see the world--it's the set of glasses you wear. Thus, I think it colors any of your assumptions, biases, ideas, and behaviors.
    IEE-Ne | ENFP | 4w3-6w7-9w1 so/sp/sx | sCoA|I| | Sanguine/Choleric | Benevolent Inventor

    birthday frog wishes you a happy birthday
    birthday frog will give you presents and a card on your birthday
    birthday frog is Fe incarnate

  5. #5
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Your ego functions are the ones you rely on to filter and interpret information directly, all the time. So yeah it's not really surprising that some people have a hard time typing themselves, especially extroverts; it's sort of like being in a room with no windows painted in a really bright color and trying to guess that it's any time but the middle of the day.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Saugerties,NY
    TIM
    ENFj-fe
    Posts
    946
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    Your ego functions are the ones you rely on to filter and interpret information directly, all the time. So yeah it's not really surprising that some people have a hard time typing themselves, especially extroverts; it's sort of like being in a room with no windows painted in a really bright color and trying to guess that it's any time but the middle of the day.
    Haha, good way of putting it.
    EIE tritype 5w4, 4w5, 9w1


    As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being.
    Carl Jung, "Memories, Dreams, Reflections", 1962

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    57
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IME, using exclusively dichotomies isn't any more helpful than taking a purely functional approach -- functions and dichotomies need to inform each other. And I've seen enough people type themselves as INTj instead of INTp, INFp instead of ENFp, ENFp instead of ENFj, etc. to know that if you're new to socionics, typing yourself only with reference to dichotomies is often very misleading, maybe even more so than typing yourself using functions. Not necessarily because dichotomies are "wrong," but because there's lots of misconceptions floating around about them and if you don't understand functions, quadras, etc. it's easy to fall back on misleading stereotypes. (Of course, the same can be true for functions -- hence this thread.)

    Quote Originally Posted by greed
    To answer the question of what it means for a function to be in the ego, I've heard it described as the primary lens through which we see the world--it's the set of glasses you wear. Thus, I think it colors any of your assumptions, biases, ideas, and behaviors.
    Nice. This is a really clear definition. And I've never thought about socionics in relation to the assumptions we make -- can you think of any examples off the top of your head of how it colors our assumptions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    Your ego functions are the ones you rely on to filter and interpret information directly, all the time. So yeah it's not really surprising that some people have a hard time typing themselves, especially extroverts; it's sort of like being in a room with no windows painted in a really bright color and trying to guess that it's any time but the middle of the day.
    Suddenly socionics seems very depressing. But this is a cool analogy. And I'm curious why you say extroverts have a harder time typing themselves?

    This analogy is also related to what I was trying to get at when I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by me
    Or maybe a more abstract definition like... in the context of which function do you evaluate the other functions?

    I've been thinking about designing a functional test, which is one of the reasons I started this thread. A lot of people here are probably skeptical about the worth of functional tests, but what the hell.

    So here's what I'm thinking: most of the functional tests in existence are ineffective becomes they try to describe the functions "objectively." As a result, either the descriptions are irreparably "colored" (borrowing from greed here:wink by author's function or they're so abstract and objective that no one can relate to them, since everyone sees the functions through the context of their own strong functions (ie. subjectively).

    So what about a test that had descriptions of different functions from the viewpoint of other functions -- as opposed to the traditional functional tests that try to place each function in a vacuum and thus base typings off of falsely objectified, hyper-abstract descriptions that no one relates to, or ambiguous behavioral traits?
    EIE-Ni

  8. #8
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,072
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Use the dichotomies to type yourself. Use IM elements to understand yourself.
    Hmmmm... props + agreement. At least in general. I think one should use the dichotomies for initial typing, then use the IM elements for understanding + confirmation.

    I'd propose another way of looking at functions: which function energizes you the most when you use it? (And maybe, for weak but valued functions: which function energizes you the most when used by other people?)

    Or maybe a more abstract definition like... in the context of which function do you evaluate the other functions? Hmm, I hope that makes sense - it probably wouldn't be an effective basis of determining type without some good concrete examples.
    Both of these seem like decent methods. To me, the leading function is like the water you swim in; it's what feels 100% natural no effort no motion no energy. Maybe efficiency of energy use is a good criteria for strength (remembering that both valued and unvalued functions can be strong): leading function has 1J of output for 1J of input, creative has .8J of output for 1J of input, role .5, polr .1, etc. It's about the efficiency of your engine. It's also about comfort, but as you said, comfort is problematic.

    I tend to think about IMs based on feel: Te feels unpleasant, Se feels great. Using Fe feels fine, but not as natural as using Ni, so I get sick of it after a while. Using Fi is doable, but not at all enjoyable and not something I would do (consciously) for an extremely long period of time or make a big deal of in my life.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  9. #9
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,200
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think dichotomies can get you any farther than NT/NF/SF/ST. Understanding temperament requires a pretty thorough understanding of the system beyond simple dichotomies.

    I think typing by how energized an element makes you seems like an interesting idea. I like it, but it would require a strong understanding of the way elements manifest so that you can put actions to elements. There is a lot of dispute over what that is for some elements. What are you doing when using X element, and when you do that is it always X element? How do you know for sure that you are doing what you think you're doing, or using the element you think you're using?
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  10. #10
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nilv View Post
    I'd propose another way of looking at functions: which function energizes you the most when you use it?
    Yep I've heard that reasoning before, thinking in terms of what energizes you is the way people define introversion and extroversion commonly... but my problem with this is its still a bit ambiguous, honestly I don't know if typing is so much a precise science as it is an art in some ways.

    At any rate I'd say doesn't really energize me, and does cause well using both of those functions feels good and natural.

    Thinking for me is less about being energized or getting energized so much as it is a compulsive habit I do, I like to analyze everything that stirs up confusion, I like to have a mental portrait of the way everything works. I am always just analyzing stuff, I'll even explore topics that other people would consider not worthy of there time, to me analyzing stuff is like a sport and may not have to be done for a industrial productive reason.

    I'd say its less about an immediate feedback of being energized, its more like the enneagram 5 motivation for me, it makes me feel empowered to be able to claim that I know the way something works, that I have a mental insight into the workings of things, without it I feel anxious and ill-equipped. Without it if something breaks or goes wrong you have no ability to mentally deal with the problem, your just powerless and baffled.

    But I wouldn't call using or thinking really like a "passion" (something you desire heavily to do) or an activity which energizes and re-vitalizes me when I am exhausted. Usually for whatever reason when I am exhausted I fall back on stuff until I have the energy to think again, probably passionate about stuff. I think the role matches me, I like to think I am competent in and can be, but using it prevents me from access to and being blunt and saying what I naturally think.

    Also...

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Use the dichotomies to type yourself. Use IM elements to understand yourself.
    +1 QFT

  11. #11
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    636
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nilv View Post
    I've been thinking about why people have so much trouble typing themselves and why socionics seems so ambiguous. I think part of the problem is that we don't have a clear definition of how to tell whether a function's in the ego block.
    We have a clear definition. Valued functions are in the ego, unvalued functions in the id. But people often find it difficult to determine if they value an information element or not...

    Quote Originally Posted by nilv View Post
    I'd propose another way of looking at functions: which function energizes you the most when you use it? (And maybe, for weak but valued functions: which function energizes you the most when used by other people?)
    Correct. The question is: Do you like it or not? In other words: Do you value it or not.

    I'm LII so I value and . Nevertheless, I use very often, probably more often than . But I don't like it when people use too much.

    Quote Originally Posted by nilv View Post
    So - what's the best criteria for determining function placement? How d'you tell whether a function is "strong" -- and conversely, whether it's weak or just repressed by an individual's environment?
    function is strong (ego or id) <-> you are good at using it
    function is valued (ego or super-id) <-> you like people who use it
    Last edited by JohnDo; 01-19-2010 at 11:44 AM.

  12. #12
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,418
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nilv View Post

    So - what's the best criteria for determining function placement? How d'you tell whether a function is "strong" -- and conversely, whether it's weak or just repressed by an individual's environment?
    maybe I misunderstood, but this is a strange question. Model A already sais that 1,2,7,8 are the strong functions, and 3,4,5,6 are the weak functions...

  13. #13
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    maybe I misunderstood, but this is a strange question. Model A already sais that 1,2,7,8 are the strong functions, and 3,4,5,6 are the weak functions...
    I think they are asking what in reality/observation entails a "strong" function, rather than simply saying a function is strong because model A says so. Model A defines which functions are strong but I believe they are asking what does it mean to have a strong function.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •