no.
no.
What am I to make of an answer like that?Originally Posted by labocat
it's a simple and straightforward empirical fact that the function we currently know as the 4th is the vulnerable one, whereas the 3rd is not.
I am proposing that this might be wrong for something along the lines of mathematical reasons. I don't know how it could be established convincingly either way without a solid study. And I'm not a skeptic of Model A (which wasn't exactly your claim). I'm just thinking critically...
mathematics and formal structures are the terms in which empirical claims are expressed. they can not themselves serve as "reasons" for anything.
Seems kind of odd that a introverted-rational would be so against another introverted-rational function. To me, said function is more of a "there's that way (Role) to think of it, but there's also this way (Dominant). And I prefer the latter." That is, they're both based on some type of static system, but they source of them is different. Extroverted-irrational functions, on the other hand, are more related to objects in themselves, their potential or their state. That is why they make more sense (to me) as a Polr-function: they are not about understanding how things relate to each other, or a system, but about how things are. That is, Se or Ne are contrary to the concept of a system, to which Ti or Fi are related.
Warm Regards,
Clowns & Entropy
That's why our second function is opposite temperament
The 4th is vulnerable because people deliberately choose to ignore it when making decisions. It always seems to be getting in the way. Your conflictor will do more than chide you for this: they will call foul and warn others of the "danger" you pose. All of a sudden everyone is against you and although you couldn't care less what they think, you are nonetheless anxious and afraid. Your dual may call foul if you disregard the suggestive function, but they will also forgive you if you "see the light" and convert. Your conflictor, however, will be very suspicious from that point forward.
Not to mention that your supervisor will unceremoniously kick your ass over it.
The 4th is in a constant state of flux because valuers of it are always responding to the use of your creative function. For example, LIIs like to test and pry. This is often thought of as an invasion of others' privacy. Did you have the right to experiment with the materials in your test? ESEs probably won't give a damn, and SEIs will probably appreciate knowing the results... but ILEs might be a bit unreliable in your defense, because respect for others' property is important to them.
And the EM identical to your conflictor will NEVER let it go... ugh. I deal with that myself. Lots.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 01-22-2012 at 08:55 PM.
Although that makes the relationship seem rather unsymmetrical. Technically, you should both have an advantage over the other.
I do, but only if I have a specific goal in mind as to what to offer. However, politics generally gets in the way. It's a long road back to equilibrium, usually.
Regarding the work of Model A, I don't think that I normally follow that flow. I do sometimes, but not normally. Seems like Labocat does though. I'm less of an experimentalist and more of an inferrer (Se fear being the main reason). I think I follow the reverse flow most often, with a strong Ne predominance (not dominance... not an extrovert).
Anyone else who feels that way?
Fact aha, big word there.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
