Strength of Function Order

[Crispy]

What is the order of functions from strongest to weakest?
I would assume (for INTj) it would be:


Is this the general pattern or did I mess something up?

[Joy]

depends on the person

[squark]

depends on the person

Sure it does. . . if there's no point whatsoever to socionics. Come on, that's the whole idea of socionics. We process information differently, and how we think is what determines type. If anyone could use any function in any way there would be no type.

[tcaudilllg]

Se PoLR means that you always find an excuse either not to make contact or to exert personal will. Young LIIs/EIIs think the consequences could be disasterous, while adults find it irresponsible. ("Should I make contact with this person? Am I prepared to offer something meaningful to their life?") Typically the EM PoLR will be cited as the reason to avoid it.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Se PoLR means that you always find an excuse either not to make contact or to exert personal will. Young LIIs/EIIs think the consequences could be disasterous, while adults find it irresponsible. ("Should I make contact with this person? Am I prepared to offer something meaningful to their life?") Typically the EM PoLR will be cited as the reason to avoid it.

I don't think INFjs have problems of this kind (they are generally quite sociable). There is also no interpretation of Se in existance under which it would be linked to social behavior such as making contact.

[Beautiful sky]

I don't think INFjs have problems of this kind (they are generally quite sociable). There is also no interpretation of Se in existance under which it would be linked to social behavior such as making contact.

We are very sociable, except with people we sense to violate our values (like lazy people, or people who freeload and don't care about the concerns of other individuals around them).

INTj's have a bigger problem with making social contacts then we do.

Se PoLR means that you always find an excuse either not to make contact or to exert personal will. Young LIIs/EIIs think the consequences could be disasterous, while adults find it irresponsible. ("Should I make contact with this person? Am I prepared to offer something meaningful to their life?") Typically the EM PoLR will be cited as the reason to avoid it.

Every type will find an excuse not to make contact or exert personal will...it's called mood. I've noticed a particular pattern with introverted types more often then E's.

I think your "PoLR" is just a kind of information content you ignore (and that technically your brain isn't wired for it, so you couldn't not ignore it even if you tried). Being blind to it has nothing to do with facilitating any inherent weaknesses in you or your life, it's merely a difference in information metabolism. For instance, I don't give a shit about . It isn't a priority, desire, or anything I feel I'm necessitated to contend with in any way, shape, or form whatsoever. So I don't. The only time ever has any relevant effects is in trying to communicate with valuers. But beyond that, it's never going to have any bearing on me.

That is true; I consciously ignor looking at objects or trying to figure their shape and looks out because it stresses me out emensely. People cursing at me stresses me out, but that's not Se related, that's human ignorance related.

Se people are wonderful people; I like them a lot, they don't stress me out. What stresses me out is that they "force" or get me to look at objects because that's what they see and focus on...that's all.

By their natural inclination of looking at objects and seeing or talking about them or getting objects and having lots of stuff around, I am constantly stressed out because objects create clutter and the more colors there are the more my mind stresses out, it's like it can not be released from all of these choice and can not make a choice about what to wear from a closet full of so many wearable things....I need minimal things that are functional...hence opposite of Se value, which is more things of veriaty.

[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.

[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. (>.<)

[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.

[Mattie]

I don't think there's an order really, just the idea that some are strong and weak.

[Crispy]

Well the average whatever type must have a tendency for stronger and weaker functions. To say this is not true is to say all types have equal strength with all functions, which is blatantly false.

Or do you think the average INTj has a set of equally strong functions () and a set of equally weak functions ()? This would make some sense as it leaves room for subtype interpretations.

[Krig the Viking]

According to Bukalov's Dimensionality of Functions, an LII's functions are arranged like so:

4-Dimensional: ,
3-Dimensional: ,
2-Dimensional: ,
1-Dimensional: ,

[Crispy]

Interesting, that seems close enough to what I was asking. No wonder Quasi's look similiar. Thanks!

EDIT: So does that mean if I find someone absolutely terrible at math, my first guess should be ESFx?

[MatthewZ]

Interesting, that seems close enough to what I was asking. No wonder Quasi's look similiar. Thanks!

EDIT: So does that mean if I find someone absolutely terrible at math, my first guess should be ESFx?

If being good at math was correlated with either or , then yes. However, there are many people on this forum that would argue math aptitude is not type-related.

[MatthewZ]

There's a concept of dimensionality of the IMs. By the traditional dimensionality, quasis have an as sophisticated grasp of each function as each other.

These dimensions being:

4D functions: 1, 8 (LII )
3D functions: 2, 7 (LII )
2D functions: 3, 6 (LII: )
1D functions: 4, 5 (LII )

It plays on the idea of duality. Duals have a strong understanding of each other's DS (for maximal psychological comfort) and PoLR. (to soften each other's weak point) It also supports the notion that dual relations are more optimal than activity relations. (which have the same strong/weak functions and value matchups as duals)

EDIT: Darn you, Krig.

[The Exception]

There's a concept of dimensionality of the IMs. By the traditional dimensionality, quasis have an as sophisticated grasp of each function as each other.

These dimensions being:

4D functions: 1, 8 (LII )
3D functions: 2, 7 (LII )
2D functions: 3, 6 (LII: )
1D functions: 4, 5 (LII )

It plays on the idea of duality. Duals have a strong understanding of each other's DS (for maximal psychological comfort) and PoLR. (to soften each other's weak point) It also supports the notion that dual relations are more optimal than activity relations. (which have the same strong/weak functions and value matchups as duals)

EDIT: Darn you, Krig.

If you put all 8 in order without ties, keeping functions of the same dimensionality adjacent, I think it goes like this:

1 > 8 > 2 > 7 > 3 > 6 > 5 > 4

The PoLR is the weakest and the demonstrative is the second strongest.

I may have 2 and 7 and 3 and 6 switched around.

[JohnDo]

If you put all 8 in order without ties, keeping functions of the same dimensionality adjacent, I think it goes like this:

1 > 8 > 2 > 7 > 3 > 6 > 5 > 4

The PoLR is the weakest and the demonstrative is the second strongest.

I may have 2 and 7 and 3 and 6 switched around.

Yes, it certainly depends on subtype. As my self-typing is INTj-INFp my Ni(8), Fe(5) and Fi(3) are certainly stronger than those of an average INTj.

8 > 1 > 2 > 3 > 7 > 5 > 6 > 4 should be the correct order for me.

might be an unusual order of function strength for an INTj - but subtypes play an important role...

[krieger]

Is there proof of this?

Until its proven that the russians found out about those numbers by empirical (~ scientific) means, we should expect them to have been defined the way anything else gets defined in socionics: conveniently in a way that fits with what is observed so as to explain these observations after the fact rather than prior to it.

The burden of proof is on them, not on me. Anything less would be dogmatism and religious faith.

[MatthewZ]

Until its proven that the russians found out about those numbers by empirical (~ scientific) means, we should expect them to have been defined the way anything else gets defined in socionics: conveniently in a way that fits with what is observed so as to explain these observations after the fact rather than prior to it.

The burden of proof is on them, not on me. Anything less would be dogmatism and religious faith.

There are 16 intertype relationships in the Socion. I see no reason why they would necessarily have examined Quasi-Identicals to get the idea for function dimensionality. The reason for differences between mirror pairs is more than enough to require a theory to explain it.

The burden of proof for the statement "the dimensionality numbers were defined based on the fact that quasi identicals look similar, NOT the other way around" is indeed on the person making it. The statement is neither true nor false by default; it is merely unknown.

[krieger]

There are 16 intertype relationships in the Socion. I see no reason why they would necessarily have examined Quasi-Identicals to get the idea for function dimensionality. The reason for differences between mirror pairs is more than enough to require a theory to explain it.

Combined with the already widespread (but false) theory that the Base function is "stronger" than the Creative function, and the similarly widespread (but false) theory that the PoLR is weaker than the Role function (vulnerable does not equal weaker), the only thing that remains to be established is which of the Strong/Unvalued functions is the "stronger". This is done by either equating the type with the Contrary, or with the Quasi Identical. Bukhalov rather arbitrarily chose the latter.

The burden of proof for the statement "the dimensionality numbers were defined based on the fact that quasi identicals look similar, NOT the other way around" is indeed on the person making it. The statement is neither true nor false by default; it is merely unknown.

People had been claiming the opposite without justification before I did. The counteractive claim had to be made to balance the equation. All things being equal, my version is the more plausible, as socionical claims have a history of being made in the way I described. In regard to the issue as a whole, I am not on the apologists' side.