The problem with functional descriptions

[Hugo]

The problem I have realized with functional socionic type descriptions is that they don't make connections between each combination of functions. Therefore there should be descriptions of the following combinations (even if just one sentence):

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+


Here are examples for an INTj

+
They express their love, in words or actions, to people that matter to them.

+
They inappropriately use logical reasoning in matters concerning personal relationships.

+
They daydream when someone speaks to them, and so they ask questions to keeps up with the conversation.

+
They are lazy.

[Hugo]

hmm

[oyburger]

I like this idea, but I'm not good with function descriptions, so I couldn't help. I would like to see it done though.

[Rocky]

Hugo, you have INTJs and INFJs both having the same problems with logical reasoning when dealing with people. That's one problem to start.

[Hugo]

So what's the difference between INTj and INFj ?

[Expat]

INFjs often use to try to logically justify conclusions they had already arrived at via .

[Hugo]

INFjs often use to try to logically justify conclusions they had already arrived at via .

...and what do INTjs try to do?

[Expat]

I think they use to interpret interactions and use that to get at a system of what relationships should be like - like "this is how a good friend/husband/etc behaves" etc. Yes that makes them sound robot-like but this is all relative.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[MysticSonic]

That sort of pairing leaves out the variable of functional position.

As in, Ti(Program)+Fi(Role) is different, by definition, from Ti(role)+Fi(program.)

[Expat]

INFjs often use to try to logically justify conclusions they had already arrived at via .

...and what do INTjs try to do?

I realize I haven't answered Hugo's question with regards to for INTjs.

The differences I see as follows (and it's how it's described in functional profiles).

dominants reach conclusions primarily through criteria. However - and perhaps especially when having to defend them before a logical type - they try to justify those conclusions using logical arguments. Such arguments then are often visibly inconsistent, since it's a use of role having to reach the already-set conclusions. A logical type may then think that the dominant is lying, but that is not necessarily (or even usually) the case from the point of view of the dominant. They are using , they "should not" have to use to justify themselves.

dominants reach conclusions primarily through criteria (duh). So they will be consistent from a logical point of view -- at least according to their own internal logic, in the sense that they will not be contradictory. They may be incorrect in their assumptions and data, but not internally contradictory.

That is perhaps one way of spotting weak -- the use of arguments that are logically contradictory even within their own self-established framework.

[aestrivex]

as to this suggestion of combinational functional descriptions...

i think its a critical part of socionics which is not often described. that, i think, is why most description are somewhat incomplete; very few do anything to describe functions in combination with each other.

[Tov]

There really isn't much to say about all those combinations in and of themselves. Now to say how and combine to do something in the INTj personality is another story. They may be manipulated, or well maybe not manipulated as much as push to the side or covered up by the stronger functions. Remember these functions would be of little understanding to an INTj. Same goes for all other combos in all of the types.

[aestrivex]

of course; presumably weak functions as well as strong would be covered in any such description.

[XoX]

INFjs often use to try to logically justify conclusions they had already arrived at via .

...and what do INTjs try to do?

Heh yes. INFjs try to explain how submitting to their ethics would be the most logical thing to do. INTjs try to explain how submitting to their logic would be the most ethical thing to do.

[UDP]

Different layers of understanding are good things. Keep it up

[Slava]

The way I see the combinations based on how I see the world is like this...

Because I am Ti I see implicational vectors, because I am Ne and have wide mental focus I see a wide temporal implicational vector field. This would mean than ENFps and INFjs would see a wide temporal relational field.