Strength of Function Order

[Aiss]

I disagree with the concept of "function strength order" as being inherent to a certain type... You are not born strong at any function, but you are inclined to certain IEs more than others, which consequently make you "stronger" by prolonged focusing on them, if anything. I get the impression that people might be using socionics as a way to find an excuse to not develop their "weak" functions because it's just hard, and depend on types having inherent strength as part of their self-esteem and identity.

I would say that the strength meaning dimensionality exactly reflects the inborn preference you speak of. Dimensionality, to me, deals not so much with how good we are at something, but how good are we at learning in this area - at processing the related information. From one-dimensional functions illustrating experience - whose ability doesn't exceed avoiding past mistakes - to four-dimensional granting understanding allowing for hypothesis, it all shows a primal ability to adapt in these areas.

With time, these get stronger meaning better at dealing with information, but learning on case-by-case basis is always inferior, just as nothing will be as natural as what gives an immediate "feel" of the matter. In this way, we choose to focus on aspects of reality we are comfortable with, which are easy to grasp, further reinforcing three- and four-dimensional functions. So the ability to learn is unchangeable, inborn; in this way, there are arbitrarily determined stronger and weaker function. Ability to act out of it, however, is largely developed within these constraints.

[Erk]

You know Jung describes it not as being weak, but as being distorted, warped, and twisted. We all want to see the world through our base functions, but have to acknowledge to some degree the existence of non valued functions.

[xerx]

I thought the creative is the method that moves toward the dominant goal? Is it the other way around?

Well sort of, your base is responsible for primary motivations and your field of interest. But your creative is what you use to generate products that everyone else interacts with. And since a typical human goal is to create something worthwhile for others to see...

The creative also influences how you use your base, and what sort of information it's willing to give more weight to.

[Krig the Viking]

The irritating thing about the PoLR is that it doesn't exist. People have this notion that whenever you encounter a supervisor, your PoLR Se goes into battle with their Base Se or something. Its not like that. You just use Ne to understand the situation like you always do and it turns out to be badly suited to that situation! The notion of a PoLR function that is actively being used is redundant. It doesn't lend any extra explanatory power.

A giraffe is a physically strong animal, but is vulnerable to predators. Its the same with functions. Creative Ne is strong, but vulnerable to Se. Notice that I am opposed to seeing the PoLR as something active and agentive. I am not opposed to the notion of vulnerability to a function.

I'm not sure I understand your conception of Information Elements here. As I understand it, Ne and Se are non-overlapping magisteria; they pertain to entirely different areas of reality. When I want to understand ideas, options, and possibilities, I use my Creative Ne. When I want to understand the size, shape, and strength of objects, I use my Se. SLEs are much better at understanding the size, shape, and strength of objects, and are therefore much better at dealing with things related to that, and consequently I (as an LII) find them intimidating, because I'm not very good at that and am vulnerable in that area.

To say that Ne is vulnerable to Se makes about as much sense to me as (to use your example) saying a giraffe is vulnerable to adjectives. Or that math is vulnerable to garlic.

I would say that the strength meaning dimensionality exactly reflects the inborn preference you speak of. Dimensionality, to me, deals not so much with how good we are at something, but how good are we at learning in this area - at processing the related information. From one-dimensional functions illustrating experience - whose ability doesn't exceed avoiding past mistakes - to four-dimensional granting understanding allowing for hypothesis, it all shows a primal ability to adapt in these areas.

With time, these get stronger meaning better at dealing with information, but learning on case-by-case basis is always inferior, just as nothing will be as natural as what gives an immediate "feel" of the matter. In this way, we choose to focus on aspects of reality we are comfortable with, which are easy to grasp, further reinforcing three- and four-dimensional functions. So the ability to learn is unchangeable, inborn; in this way, there are arbitrarily determined stronger and weaker function. Ability to act out of it, however, is largely developed within these constraints.

Very well put; this is exactly how I think of it too.

[krieger]

I'm not sure I understand your conception of Information Elements here. As I understand it, Ne and Se are non-overlapping magisteria; they pertain to entirely different areas of reality. When I want to understand ideas, options, and possibilities, I use my Creative Ne. When I want to understand the size, shape, and strength of objects, I use my Se. SLEs are much better at understanding the size, shape, and strength of objects, and are therefore much better at dealing with things related to that, and consequently I (as an LII) find them intimidating, because I'm not very good at that and am vulnerable in that area.

To say that Ne is vulnerable to Se makes about as much sense to me as (to use your example) saying a giraffe is vulnerable to adjectives. Or that math is vulnerable to garlic.

They are both functions, and extrovert irrational static ones at that. There is no catagory error in here except your own. I do not carry the responsibility for your way of interpreting things if it happens to be wrong.

[xerx]

To say that Ne is vulnerable to Se makes about as much sense to me as (to use your example) saying a giraffe is vulnerable to adjectives. Or that math is vulnerable to garlic.

I'll let him explain his view,

but an interpretation I find helpful is that the creative can do its work on the PoLR's turf, but without the same tools of the PoLR.

ILIs study people's behavior, say by investigating the roles they frequently take on, which helps them to predict what they'll do next. They might try to create predictive models based on what people are physically doing (among other palpable external behaviors, since Te is about external processes).

IEIs look at where people choose to focus their energy, what sort of inputs they like to transmit and are receptive to, what sort of social context activates or passivates a person, all of which are internal processes. This allows them to understand others' tastes and to predict what they might do or the social role they've chosen or will choose for themselves.

Te and Fe aren't similar and evoke completely different experiences in the person using them, but the motivation to understand and predict others' actions and motives is the same, which is Ni applied to people. The focus on people's roles is also Ni.

Another example is socionics itself. An ILE created the logical structure of socionics to get a better grasp of why people are attracted to each other or hate each others' guts, which was up till then an Fi domain that was inaccessible to her (without her making a ton of mistakes anyway).

Even with the help of socionics I still don't completely get why everyone refuses to talk to me.

[krieger]

I'm not sure I understand your conception of Information Elements here. As I understand it, Ne and Se are non-overlapping magisteria; they pertain to entirely different areas of reality. When I want to understand ideas, options, and possibilities, I use my Creative Ne. When I want to understand the size, shape, and strength of objects, I use my Se. SLEs are much better at understanding the size, shape, and strength of objects, and are therefore much better at dealing with things related to that, and consequently I (as an LII) find them intimidating, because I'm not very good at that and am vulnerable in that area.

It is possible to deduce the spatial properties of things using Ne; its just a slower and less efficient process than the more "prejudiced" Se way. When you see a circle, Ne reasons that you may be looking at either a cylinder or a sphere, but Se just looks at the context and decides cylinders have no place on a football field.

[Aiss]

I'll let him explain his view,

but an interpretation I find helpful is that the creative can do its work on the PoLR's turf, but without the same tools of the PoLR.

(...)

I've observed it before - though your examples are better - but I think there are also times when HA clearly takes over. I suspect it's that creative replaces PoLR in "producing" way, and mobilizing in "accepting" (since all functions accept information, though not all are accepting as in dichotomy). Your examples relate to the former, to what actually would have been a creating use of it, whereas 'vulnerable' also refers to attacks and criticisms, which I think is handled by mobilizing function - at least that's something I've observed in ILIs and IEIs, it's less clear to me in other types, though PoLR is often obvious enough.

[Krig the Viking]

I'll let him explain his view,

but an interpretation I find helpful is that the creative can do its work on the PoLR's turf, but without the same tools of the PoLR.

ILIs study people's behavior, say by investigating the roles they frequently take on, which helps them to predict what they'll do next. They might try to create predictive models based on what people are physically doing (among other palpable external behaviors, since Te is about external processes).

IEIs look at where people choose to focus their energy, what sort of inputs they like to transmit and are receptive to, what sort of social context activates or passivates a person, all of which are internal processes. This allows them to understand others' tastes and to predict what they might do or the social role they've chosen or will choose for themselves.

Te and Fe aren't similar and evoke completely different experiences in the person using them, but the motivation to understand and predict others' actions and motives is the same, which is Ni applied to people. The focus on people's roles is also Ni.

I agree that these are accurate examples of how IEI and ILI work, but the only overlap I see here is the Ni. Te is external behaviour, while Fe is internal behaviour; by definition the two categories deal with mutually exclusive forms of behaviour. An IEI is "at the mercy" of an LIE because the LIE is very skilled at processing information in an area (Te) that the IEI is very unskilled at processing. Te and Fe themselves are mutually exclusive and consequently never directly interact.

Another example is socionics itself. An ILE created the logical structure of socionics to get a better grasp of why people are attracted to each other or hate each others' guts, which was up till then an Fi domain that was inaccessible to her (without her making a ton of mistakes anyway).

It is possible to deduce the spatial properties of things using Ne; its just a slower and less efficient process than the more "prejudiced" Se way.

Again, I agree: Augusta's Ti was compensating for a lack of Fi, and likewise, Ne can slowly generate Se information. Information travels through Model A in a cycle, from one function to the next; an LII processes the various possibilities of what an object could be, and once he comes to a conclusion as to its Se nature, he sends that information to his 4th function to be processed as regular Se. By definition, the Se function processes Se information.

When you see a circle, Ne reasons that you may be looking at either a cylinder or a sphere, but Se just looks at the context and decides cylinders have no place on a football field.

I think your assessment of Ne here is accurate, but when Se looks at a circle, it just says "That's a circle". Your Se example is actually an abbreviated description of Ne+Ti: "It could be either a cylinder or a sphere" (Ne) + "There are no games played on football fields with cylinders, therefore it is a sphere" (Ti).

[xerx]

I agree that these are accurate examples of how IEI and ILI work, but the only overlap I see here is the Ni. Te is external behaviour, while Fe is internal behaviour; by definition the two categories deal with mutually exclusive forms of behaviour. An IEI is "at the mercy" of an LIE because the LIE is very skilled at processing information in an area (Te) that the IEI is very unskilled at processing. Te and Fe themselves are mutually exclusive and consequently never directly interact.

I actually completely agree with you here. I was just using "people" in a loose sense to refer to an aspect more closely associated with ethical functions. That's all I meant. I'm sure we could further split "people" into external and internal aspects too, related to Te and Fe, respectively.

Come to think of it, the latter is how aspectonics are treated in classical socionics.
Well I'm embarrassed. (>.<)

[Krig the Viking]

I actually completely agree with you here. I was just using "people" in a loose sense to refer to an aspect more closely associated with ethical functions. That's all I meant. I'm sure we could further split "people" into external and internal aspects too, related to Te and Fe, respectively.

Come to think of it, the latter is how aspectonics are treated in classical socionics.
Well I'm embarrassed. (>.<)

[krieger]

I think your assessment of Ne here is accurate, but when Se looks at a circle, it just says "That's a circle".

Wrong. You are contradicting yourself as you say this as you previously called Se the function that has an interest in the shape and size of things, aka its spatial properties. The way you describe things here, Se would be the function that ignores spatiality and suffices itself with a flat view. Spatial properties can not be acknowledged as they are given at face value, because they are simply not directly given. It can only be done with flat impressions (~ images; sense data) of spatial objects. Spatial properties can only be inferred from these flat impressions, by consolidating such impressions as views of the object from different perspectives. This is exactly what I mean when I say Si is immediately Focal when Accepting, whereas Se is only ever Focal after going through the compositional process of a Creating function.

In our example, the flat, phenomenal impression of a circle is the flat impression and the cylinder and sphere are possble results of combining this impression with other such images.

[Beautiful sky]

Wrong. You are contradicting yourself as you say this as you previously called Se the function that has an interest in the shape and size of things, aka its spatial properties. The way you describe things here, Se would be the function that ignores spatiality and suffices itself with a flat view. Spatial properties can not be acknowledged as they are given at face value, because they are simply not directly given. It can only be done with flat impressions (~ images; sense data) of spatial objects. Spatial properties can only be inferred from these flat impressions, by consolidating such impressions as views of the object from different perspectives. This is exactly what I mean when I say Si is immediately Focal when Accepting, whereas Se is only ever Focal after going through the compositional process of a Creating function.

In our example, the flat, phenomenal impression of a circle is the flat impression and the cylinder and sphere are possble results of combining this impression with other such images.

King is right.

[krieger]

King is right. I have not observed you to make accurate observations of socionics at work.

His name is Krig and you have long forfeited your chance to speak with credibility on any socionics related topic.

[Beautiful sky]

His name is Krig and you have long forfeited your chance to speak with credibility on any socionics related topic.

You have long forbade any accuracy of reporting with regards to topics on socionics.

[krieger]

no u

[Beautiful sky]

no u

I should expect that you would engage in a fruitless discussion with me. Bottom line is "my school" of Socionics, completely agrees with King...you can have your own.

[krieger]

Your comments are pointless filler in this thread even if there was any substance or relevance to your agreeing with him. I'd rather have him adress my last post himself and not dismiss the point without trying to learn from it. Of course that is a lot to ask for around here.

[Beautiful sky]

Your comments are pointless filler in this thread even if there was any substance or relevance to your agreeing with him. I'd rather have him adress my last post himself and not dismiss the point without trying to learn from it. Of course that is a lot to ask for around here.

Perhapse if you'd think about it a little bit, it would make sense what he says...

I have, in several instances, here on the forum, seen people point out Se ego types saying exactly that. One such example is when Discojoe observed Joy saying "That window has wires throughout it" -or something to that nature. That's Se observation of an object in static (fixed, stationary) position

[krieger]

I have, in several instances, here on the forum, seen people point out Se ego types saying exactly that. One such example is when Discojoe observed Joy saying "That window has wires throughout it" -or something to that nature. That's Se observation of an object in static (fixed, stationary) position

There is a difference between expressing the properties of a thing in definite form and inferring nothing from given information beyond what whas given in the first place. We were talking about the latter.

[Beautiful sky]

Are you saying that Se does inferr nothing from given information beyond what was given in the first place?

What are you saying about Se?

[krieger]

Are you saying that Se does inferr nothing from given information beyond what was given in the first place?

What are you saying about Se?

No, it doesn't, because it concerns spatial properties of spatial objects, and only flat impressions of objects enter the mental system in the form of sense experience. Se can only reach certainty, can only really "focus" on a spatial object, by composing data from multiple viewpoints.

[Beautiful sky]

No, it doesn't, because it concerns spatial properties of spatial objects, and only flat impressions of objects enter the mental system in the form of sense experience. Se can only reach certainty, can only really "focus" on a spatial object, by composing data from multiple viewpoints.

Well, isn't that what Krig and I are saying that only flat impressions of objects enter the mental system hence the person says "That's a circle" or "The window has wires around it"

All I did was to reconcile your data with his....

Your data's aren't different from that of the other, just expressed differently.

[Krig the Viking]

Wrong. You are contradicting yourself as you say this as you previously called Se the function that has an interest in the shape and size of things, aka its spatial properties. The way you describe things here, Se would be the function that ignores spatiality and suffices itself with a flat view. Spatial properties can not be acknowledged as they are given at face value, because they are simply not directly given. It can only be done with flat impressions (~ images; sense data) of spatial objects. Spatial properties can only be inferred from these flat impressions, by consolidating such impressions as views of the object from different perspectives. This is exactly what I mean when I say Si is immediately Focal when Accepting, whereas Se is only ever Focal after going through the compositional process of a Creating function.

In our example, the flat, phenomenal impression of a circle is the flat impression and the cylinder and sphere are possble results of combining this impression with other such images.

Just to be clear, when we say that our subject is looking at "a circle", are we saying he's looking at an actual flat circle, like a child's drawing of a soccer ball, or are we saying he's looking at an actual soccer ball on an actual soccer field. I was assuming the former up until now.

Taking the example of an SLE looking at a child's drawing of a soccer ball on a soccer field, the circle is first perceived by Se, which registers an impression of a rounded line which connects back upon itself. Ti then takes that impression, and categorizes it as "a circle". Ne then considers the possibilities of what that circle might represent: "a sphere? a cylinder?" This range of possibilities is passed along to Fi, which tries to narrow it down: "cylinders don't belong on soccer fields, so it must be a sphere". This information may be passed along again to Se, and the cycle begins again. All of this, of course, happens in fractions of a second.

In the case of an actual soccer ball on an actual field, due to the subject's binocular vision, his Se directly receives the impression that this is a round object, his Ti categorizes it as "sphere" or "ball", and his Ne begins to consider what sort of ball it might be. As you can see, the process is much quicker and more direct with a real-world object; this is one reason why Se types prefer to live in "the real world" instead of the pictures and words and other symbolic "worlds" that Intuitive types enjoy -- processing what something "might be" is difficult and time consuming and "backwards" for them. An Ne type would have a much easier time of it.

[krieger]

Just to be clear, when we say that our subject is looking at "a circle", are we saying he's looking at an actual flat circle, like a child's drawing of a soccer ball, or are we saying he's looking at an actual soccer ball on an actual soccer field. I was assuming the former up until now.

I meant the latter, but the difference isn't all that essential.

Taking the example of an SLE looking at a child's drawing of a soccer ball on a soccer field, the circle is first perceived by Se, which registers an impression of a rounded line which connects back upon itself. Ti then takes that impression, and categorizes it as "a circle". Ne then considers the possibilities of what that circle might represent: "a sphere? a cylinder?" This range of possibilities is passed along to Fi, which tries to narrow it down: "cylinders don't belong on soccer fields, so it must be a sphere". This information may be passed along again to Se, and the cycle begins again. All of this, of course, happens in fractions of a second.

In the case of an actual soccer ball on an actual field, due to the subject's binocular vision, his Se directly receives the impression that this is a round object, his Ti categorizes it as "sphere" or "ball", and his Ne begins to consider what sort of ball it might be. As you can see, the process is much quicker and more direct with a real-world object; this is one reason why Se types prefer to live in "the real world" instead of the pictures and words and other symbolic "worlds" that Intuitive types enjoy -- processing what something "might be" is difficult and time consuming and "backwards" for them. An Ne type would have a much easier time of it.

I think its important to make a distinction between two things here:
- determining the property of roundness of the circular phenomenal impression at face value and engaging in pretty much no further processing whatsoever; a very unintensive mental transaction along the lines of "gee, circular shapes on my retina"
- inferring the roundness of the represented object - from the roundness of the impression - by means of some "prejudiced" assumption; a truly unprejudiced system would allow for the possiblity that the circularity of the impression is given rise to by the bending of light through a medium (for example a lens); my point is, leaping from a property of an impression to a property of an object is problematic, and we can not leave out of our description how this happens.

Also, if you're taking about the first of these, why should this kind of process be attributed to Se and not to Si? A phenomenal impression is something subjective. It is something distinct from the true "object" that Se is supposed to be interested in.