Dimensionality Addendum

[Lao Tzunami]

Using the actual 4-dimensionality model, both the vulnerable and suggestive functions only can grow through experience. I think either one can become more competent, depending on the environment, but this does not make that function a higher dimension, since the typical potential is the same. An environment of criticism trains the vulnerable and an environment of exposure trains the suggestive. The more a person tries to change society, the more kickback will be directed at their vulnerable. By contrast, the more a person is involved with complementary people, like their dual, semi-dual, activator and benefit, the more they absorb their suggestive's side of life. Either one can be "stronger", in the conventional sense, depending on the individual's life and goals.

[Bertrand]

an environment that feels like you're being constantly criticized in is probably one that hits your polr. reaching the world gets you precisely the amount of "kickback" i.e.: feedback, as the world is composed of opposing information and the people it possesses. in other words, you don't get more feedback on your vulnerable by trying to reach the world, except in a relativistic sense if you've avoided a disproportionate amount of opposing information up front. in other words, if you grew up in a critical environment, exposing yourself to the world creates a relative effect of acceptance...

[Exodus]

@niffer you bring up an interesting point. The dual elements definitely do seem to be opposite in "strength" -- if you define strength appropriately, which is what this whole issue comes down to.

I agree with others that it would be much more of a mistake to rank the demonstrative over leading in strength, rather than vulnerable over suggestive. The leading function is the "most" in every sense of the word (up to consistency). Valued functions are somewhat easier to engage than unvalued ones which could account for the typically greater success in the suggestive function. Strength should be defined as something like innate awareness or consciousness - it seems plausible to say that the Vulnerable function is somewhat more conscious or aware than the suggestive function (which you could justify by appealing to the "conscious/unconscious" dichotomy but that interpretation seems completely wrong when you compare 6 and 4 for example), but that in practice it's something we don't derive any enjoyment from or care about, so it ends up doing its job less than the suggestive function.

tldr: I think there should (probably) be such an ordering but it's not totally clear how to define it. Will give it some more thought.

[niffer]

Thanks for the thoughts hotel.

@niffer you bring up an interesting point. The dual elements definitely do seem to be opposite in "strength" -- if you define strength appropriately, which is what this whole issue comes down to.

I agree with others that it would be much more of a mistake to rank the demonstrative over leading in strength, rather than vulnerable over suggestive. The leading function is the "most" in every sense of the word (up to consistency). Valued functions are somewhat easier to engage than unvalued ones which could account for the typically greater success in the suggestive function.

This could just as easily be applied to demonstrative vs. lead though, to justify lead's greater success over demonstrative.

Strength should be defined as something like innate awareness or consciousness - it seems plausible to say that the Vulnerable function is somewhat more conscious or aware than the suggestive function (which you could justify by appealing to the "conscious/unconscious" dichotomy but that interpretation seems completely wrong when you compare 6 and 4 for example), but that in practice it's something we don't derive any enjoyment from or care about, so it ends up doing its job less than the suggestive function.

I think it's meaningful that the PoLR is conscious and producing, yet it still sucks and is painful/difficult to use.

tldr: I think there should (probably) be such an ordering but it's not totally clear how to define it. Will give it some more thought.

Ok

[Singu]

I think this thread is a testament to how people are 1) Too afraid to point out that the Emperor has no clothes, and 2) Too embarrassed to admit that they've been talking total nonsense for all these years and produced absolutely nothing.

[niffer]

Using the actual 4-dimensionality model, both the vulnerable and suggestive functions only can grow through experience. I think either one can become more competent, depending on the environment, but this does not make that function a higher dimension, since the typical potential is the same. An environment of criticism trains the vulnerable and an environment of exposure trains the suggestive. The more a person tries to change society, the more kickback will be directed at their vulnerable. By contrast, the more a person is involved with complementary people, like their dual, semi-dual, activator and benefit, the more they absorb their suggestive's side of life. Either one can be "stronger", in the conventional sense, depending on the individual's life and goals.

an environment that feels like you're being constantly criticized in is probably one that hits your polr. reaching the world gets you precisely the amount of "kickback" i.e.: feedback, as the world is composed of opposing information and the people it possesses. in other words, you don't get more feedback on your vulnerable by trying to reach the world, except in a relativistic sense if you've avoided a disproportionate amount of opposing information up front. in other words, if you grew up in a critical environment, exposing yourself to the world creates a relative effect of acceptance...

I also think it's worth noting that there would be much more incentive / much more improvement would be channeled through the Hidden Agenda rather than the PoLR in situations where the domain of the PoLR/HA are involved. HA is engaged, so that PoLR doesn't have to be. That's why HA is considered the most limiting factor towards someone's success.

Whereas, between the Role and Suggestive, they're both accepting but Role is inherently slightly stronger than it. They can both be passively fed together more easily.

[niffer]

2) Too embarrassed to admit that they've been talking total nonsense for all these years and produced absolutely nothing.

Lol speak for yourself

[Pookie]

For a base subtype, PolR should be stronger than Dual Seeking.

[Bertrand]

I think that's right, suggestive will be more repressed by increased accentuation of base, and polr will be relatively disinhibited by decreased reliance on creative

"stronger" is a tricky word though, so I avoid using it

[niffer]

The thing is dimensionality isn't about strength exactly in its entirety. It's also about being able to apply an IE with finesse and creativity in a variety of situations. It's the strength of the ability to do this that I'm talking about when I refer to dimensional "strength" (as does the original dimensionality theory).

Of course if you define it as strength in the sense of what's being used and applied the most, like a muscle you consciously use the most, then base will have to show up as being the strongest. But I'm talking about demonstrative here as if it's like a backbone instead.

If something can creatively be woven in an information producing manner like a magic wand, with the ability to cover up the most painful vulnerable function of the dual, that to me in that sense is stronger than something that's merely used on autopilot near-subconsciously all the time. Demonstrative is the true "saviour" to the dual in that sense.

@Bertrand @thehotelambush @silke @lavos @TheShadyMountainHobbit @ooo @woofwoofl

[Bertrand]

the thing to remember is suggestive is suggestive in proportion to its repression and the fact it is nevertheless valued. the more you emphasize its counterpart the more valuable what nuggets you do get become... this makes suggestive more suggestive, which makes the function more powerful in its influence over the person, but even less subject to conscious control. strong Ti LSI types can immediately develop a strange inexplicable dependency on the first person to show them a bit of Fe, for example. to say whether or not this makes the function stronger seems a matter of perspective. stronger as to what? certainly not stronger in terms of controlling ones own destiny consciously

[niffer]

We seek our duals by, and it's suggestive to us when we experience the presence of their lead function, because it's what's out in front. But typically a hidden secret weapon is the strongest one, that comes out unconsciously, not the one being paraded out all the time.

[Bertrand]

yeah, I think in the final analysis 1d is 1d and there's no way to transform them into something other. the only way to rank them when they're both equivalent is really to rank the criterion that differentiates them implicitly. thus valued v unvalued becomes determinative, and it depends on how you feel about that that determines the rank order, etc. ultimately if you value covering for your dual demonstrative is the strongest. I think a lot of it is circular because you could say a SLE concerned with covering their dual thus ranking demonstrative as stronger is a Se expression of an ethical concern when applied to a Ti system, etc. In other words, any rank order is going to be an expression of the personality itself doing the ranking unless there's something else to peg it to. Its hard to argue with dual oriented altruism, but I would say there's an inherent reciprocity that makes it more mutually beneficial, one could argue the real desire is to be looked after in turn, and that is where the real value attaches. I'm not making that argument, I'm just pointing out how perspective bound the whole issue is. In the end you might as well say a rank order is built in, which is why base is #1 and demonstrative is #8 (or #2 in model G). to reshuffle that implies a different system altogether in some sense. I think dimensionality itself could use better articulation

[niffer]

yeah, I think in the final analysis 1d is 1d and there's no way to transform them into something other. the only way to rank them when they're both equivalent is really to rank the criterion that differentiates them implicitly. thus valued v unvalued becomes determinative, and it depends on how you feel about that that determines the rank order, etc. ultimately if you value covering for your dual demonstrative is the strongest. I think a lot of it is circular because you could say a SLE concerned with covering their dual thus ranking demonstrative as stronger is a Se expression of an ethical concern when applied to a Ti system, etc. In other words, any rank order is going to be an expression of the personality itself doing the ranking unless there's something else to peg it to. Its hard to argue with dual oriented altruism, but I would say there's an inherent reciprocity that makes it more mutually beneficial, one could argue the real desire is to be looked after in turn, and that is where the real value attaches. I'm not making that argument, I'm just pointing out how perspective bound the whole issue is. In the end you might as well say a rank order is built in, which is why base is #1 and demonstrative is #8 (or #2 in model G). to reshuffle that implies a different system altogether in some sense. I think dimensionality itself could use better articulation

The rank order doesn't necessarily need to be an expression of the personality itself for what we're talking about, it can be built in ... otherwise people could just choose their TIM and piece it together like lego.

The bolded is WTF for obvious reasons...

[Bertrand]

that's what I'm saying, the straight numerical order is already a rank order derived from informational pathway order. if you want to rank it differently it presupposes a criterion on which to do that, which gives shape to whatever follows. articulating whatever that criterion is a statement of value or logic. logic when you admit you could attach any reason to rank it accordingly. value if you say we should

[Singu]

This thread is funny... it's a good example of how there's a world of "fake causality", and unless you rise above it to the world of real causality, you will never get to the real thing, where the actual meat is. It's like people are just splitting hairs over trying to justify the fake causality that they're observing, with their "arguments" and "logic" that seem like they're explaining things, but they're explaining and finding nothing. It was all just an illusion.

In fact you can't exactly "see" causality, as it's not really something that's "there", but it's more like something that you'd have to create by yourself.

That's why practically every single Socionics debates turn into these confusions and people running in circles, and never arriving at any conclusion. And then it only becomes a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with something, where it becomes a matter of mere opinion. That's why Socionics can never actually create any real knowledge.

[Bertrand]

it can create self knowledge

[niffer]

that's what I'm saying, the straight numerical order is already a rank order derived from informational pathway order. if you want to rank it differently it presupposes a criterion on which to do that, which gives shape to whatever follows. articulating whatever that criterion is a statement of value or logic. logic when you admit you could attach any reason to rank it accordingly. value if you say we should

Ok the 1-8 mixes it up by alternating semi-Freudian blocks though lol, it's hardly got anything to do with the strength/dimensionality pathways we're talking about.

[Bertrand]

it totally does though, look closer. its strength over how the information is shaped

[Singu]

it can create self knowledge

You're just chasing after the illusion of trying to justify fake causality, as in what you have simply observed in succession. But it doesn't work that way, and it will never work. It's an impossibility.

You simply can't infer causality from observations alone, because the observations are just something that you have observed in succession, but there is no actual causality in that. You'd have to create and come up with causality and explanations first. This sounds incredibly counter-intuitive, because it is. People are just so used to "naturally" inferring causality from observations alone. It's only a matter of impossibility.

[Bertrand]

fake causality isn't fake if it works

part of personality is how you develop personal notions of causality. whatever you deem "real" causality was once just some person's individual notion of things. if you subordinate people of today to your standard you would freeze progress because people would only be allowed to think in categories that by all accounts are still incomplete at present. people just act out their notions of causality and keep what works, society in turn is like a broader psyche that takes what works. it works from the ground up, while you're trying to impress causality from the top down. you're like the mouthpiece for a tyrannical ruler, as if being their stupid lackey was some position of merit

[Singu]

fake causality isn't fake if it works

But clearly, it doesn't work.

It's like you've observed in succession, a black cat and an accident. And so you infer causality, and you come up with this beautiful theory, "Model Black Cat". And you try very hard to justify it in all the way that it makes sense. And yet that is still not the real causality, because you are missing a very important point:

Why did the accident occur?

[Bertrand]

just cause you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't work. if it truly offers no benefit, i.e.: does no work, then people naturally drop it. you make it sound like all people do is bang their heads against the wall fruitlessly, when in fact they're driven by different goals is all. I'm not saying people are never wrong, I'm saying we have to allow people to be wrong to allow other people to be right and its out of this forum that human achievement, which all real advancement is predicated upon, springs from. the kind of advancement you're advocating is actually just the potential that was already conferred by the geniuses of the past, we are simply working out the consequences of it. what I call real advancement is not this kind of rote derivation of consequence from what has already been achieved, but radical creative triumphs that usher in paradigm shifts. to reiterate, the kind of "advancement" you're advocating for is actually already a dead end, and if you force it upon everyone in the name of reducing mistakes to zero, you preempt the emergence of future potential, in essence sacrificing the future in the name of stabilizing the present

[Singu]

Alright, well I'm just telling you, it doesn't work, and it never will. You can keep wasting your time on it, or not, it's up to you.

But what's troubling is that it's a systematic error of Socionics, where people are caught up in this whole mess, when they don't have to be. It is a dead end, and most people eventually give up on Socionics, because they see nothing in it anymore and see that it's producing nothing. But they may never discover the real reason behind it, which was that it was a theory entirely based upon fake causality.

But the result is still the same: it didn't work.

[Bertrand]

socionics is like a ladder that you use to climb and then throw it away, its not meant to be relied upon forever in its current form. if people's interest in it fades its not because its false its because they got all they could out of it. I doubt many people would say of socionics they wish they never encountered the idea in the first place. if that were the consensus then maybe you could say it did no work, at least for those people. but it functions to get people from point a to point b, and even if at point b they no longer use socionics, it was a necessary part of the journey. I'd be willing to bet people that spent substantial time investigating the kind of phenomena socionics centers around are better off for the experience and they apply bits of insight here and there in their lives to their benefit. 10,000 years from now people may not be using the same socionics they do today, but its like faulting the ancient egyptians for making use of the tools available to them at the time. you can say science offers better tools, and in many ways it does, but as to the phenomenology of the self science has no available tools. current science simply does not acknowledge it except in rare cases like peterson. this kind of exclusion doesn't really help people for whom these issues are real. you can't just define someones problem out of existence for them, only in academia can you exclude "problems" in that fashion. for people who live them they need whatever help they can get

[niffer]

it totally does though, look closer. its strength over how the information is shaped

- -

[ooo]

Socionics is so well structured, with its scheme to the perfect model of the psyche, all the theories about why each of us is made of preconceived blocks, and especially its greatest conquest, that is, the perfect lego model of how we are attracted by certain people only, based on the other lego model of our psyche... well it's so well structured that once you enter in its loop it's difficult to prove that things don't exactly work as it shows, because potentially everything is contained inside of it, so that if you find fault in it, then it's because "you have weak T", or "you can't type", followed with "don't you see you're just in conflict with me all the times? we're conflictors then!"

This said, the point you've raised is important, for me, because it shows one of the things I've been hypothesizing on for quite some time, that perhaps the difference is really blurred between some types, namely quasi-identicals have really inverted functions that it's a second to step in your "opposite"'s territory. But if this is so easy to do for quasi-identicals, that in a Jungian view of dichotomies are just divided by the letter J/P, and that for some reason the model A cares to consider as the most important dividend, well... then what about the other dividend/dichotomies that a person can have developed just the same? I mean that a person can not only be on the verge of J/P, but he can be as well on the verge of T/F, or N/S, or I/E, and in terms of socionics there's just no explanation for these borderline cases, you're either one thing or the other, without a possibility to be two things at once.
This is for me one of its greatest flaws, because obviously such a black and white division is miles away from what human nature is.

But the Model A structure has a good schematization, it shouldn't be thrown away completely.

The division of what is conscious and what is unconscious is very important, let's see it in terms of model A. If I'm a SLE, it means that unconsciously I have Ni as the least developed function. But it's the unconscious to shape in a great deal what we make of our conscious self. If unconsciously I am the least Ni, I'll develop my conscious self in its opposite= Se. Se excludes Ni in everything, but they need each other to exist. But this is just one of the many dichotomies out there! If unconsciously I am the most Te (8th function), that is, rational, instead of irrational (Se), as Jung taught us, it means that I will consciously exclude its opposite= Fi. But what this means is that unconsciously I'll need Fi, as much as conscious Se needs (the unconscious lack of) Ni to shape itself. But it won't be a conscious need, because we don't value that which threaten our selves, and the Polr, Fi in the case of a SLE, is exactly that, a threaten both for the conscious ego, that expresses itself with the creative, Ti, excluding Fi, and it's a threaten for the unconscious too, because Te is the opposite of Fi, and as SLEs, we have the greatest amount of Te in our unconscious.

So if by consciousness we value what proves our ego, we value DS in the amount that by its exclusion, we can be ourselves, its opposite. But unconscioulsy all of this is more potent and twisted, so what makes the greatest part of it, needs the greatest exclusion of its opposite to exist. Our unconscious needs the (lack of) Polr to prove itself.

A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect, whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition. This peculiarity, however, is of interest only for one who is concerned with the practical psychological treatment of such cases. But for such a man it is important to know about it. For I have frequently observed the way in which a physician, in the case for instance of an exclusively intellectual subject, will do his utmost to develop the feeling function directly out of the unconscious. This attempt must always come to grief, since it involves too great a violation of the conscious standpoint. Should such a violation succeed, there ensues a really compulsive dependence of the patient upon the physician, a 'transference' which can be amputated only by brutality, because such a violation robs the patient of a standpoint -- his physician becomes his standpoint. But the approach to the unconscious and to the most repressed function is disclosed, as it were, of itself, and with more adequate protection of the conscious standpoint, when the way of development is via the secondary function-thus in the case of a rational type by way of the irrational function. For this lends the conscious standpoint such a range and prospect over what is possible and imminent that consciousness gains an adequate protection against the destructive effect of the unconscious. Conversely, an irrational type demands a stronger development of the rational auxiliary function represented in consciousness, in order to be sufficiently prepared to receive the impact of the unconscious.

The unconscious functions are in an archaic, animal state. Their symbolical appearances in dreams and phantasies usually represent the battle or coming encounter of two animals or monsters.

-Final lines of Chapter X, The Psychological Types, C. Jung-

Here's Jung addressing the need to reach the unconscious through the auxiliary function, what socionics calls the creative function. It's a real need because without this integration we're caricatures of our leading functions, a physic won't be able to access his feelings, a humanitarian won't be able to do basic math and so on...

Anyway, if the road to the integration of the unconscious passes through the creative, it means to recognize that our creative function itself is the repressed Polr itself, that we've repressed in order to shape ourselves. Our unconscious self is blocked by the ego, but it's shaped instead by the super-ego.
If the road to unconscious passes through the creative, because it distances itself a bit more from the leading ego function, then it will require integrating the Polr, so to understand that we're made of everything, as perfected round beings without limits and socionics blocks.

In the final stance this means to understand that socionics, as it's approached by most, is a shield to prove themselves, rather than developing their true strenghts.

[strangeling]

Well I disagree that stronger base accentuates polr. Because I was speaking from personal experience. But fine whatever, lol.

[Tigerfadder]

I think that - sign elements might give a "harsher" appearance and seem to be of higher dimension than + sign elements. That is probably just the appearance of the element.

[squark]

Was traveling, and just got back. Will have to remind myself to look at this later.

[niffer]

Well I disagree that stronger base accentuates polr. Because I was speaking from personal experience. But fine whatever, lol.

I mean, you did see and understand the conundrum there right?

[squark]

Well, you might be onto something. In some russian source, the demonstrative was described as the element in which the person is "a magician" at (literal words). This might imply that the person is even better at their demonstrative, than their base.

Right, if it's the same source I remember, someone was asked how they did something and they answered, "I don't know, my hands just did it" - and I think that's a good description of the demonstrative. Because you're not paying attention to it, it sits outside of your awareness as something you're even doing. You use it and create with it, but you don't know how, it just happens (like magic I guess is the implication there)

------
Because people tend to see themselves as their base - it seems like the strongest, but @ooo brought up a good point in that the unconscious may be more powerful than our conscious. I think when typing both ourselves and other people its easier to see what we consciously focus on - in my opinion it's where our focus is that stands out more, and the below-the-surface unconscious work that feeds it tends to go unnoticed by both ourselves and others.

The base and demonstrative are technically equal in dimensionality. It brings up an idea though - if the polr is the consciously weakest, the suggestive may be the unconsciously weakest, iow you know when you're getting a polr hit, but you might not realize when your suggestive is getting poked. So, like the base looking the strongest because that's where our focus is, the polr may look the weakest and be more painful because we're more aware of it than the suggestive.

[domr]

The problem with the dimensions is that they don't make any sense. 1D experience is the only definition that makes sense. The other 3 are blatantly wrong or unintuitive to the point of being wrong. So dimensionally effectually works as strength of functions.

the unconscious may be more powerful than our conscious.

It's not. The unconscious is simply the opposite of the conscious. If someone uses introverted judgement in the conscious than extraverted judgement is in the conscious. My suspicion for the reason behind the seperation between conscious and unconscious is that having all 4 different types of functions (Ji,Je,Pi,Pe) would lead to confusion so the mind separates the two to make it easier for us to function.

[niffer]

The problem with the dimensions is that they don't make any sense. 1D experience is the only definition that makes sense. The other 3 are blatantly wrong or unintuitive to the point of being wrong. So dimensionally effectually works as strength of functions.

... Can you elaborate? So you say the experience for 1D works. How would you define the other dimensions otherwise?

If you do feel like it works as strength in effect, then something must be working there. How would you account for this?

[domr]

... Can you elaborate? So you say the experience for 1D works. How would you define the other dimensions otherwise?

If you do feel like it works as strength in effect, then something must be working there. How would you account for this?

1D = devoid. It feels like a person doesn't have the function at all. Their experience is like a roomba cleaning a room. They need to hit a brick wall or rock bottom with the function to learn the errors of their way. And that only applies to situations which are identical to the one they experienced so this cycle repeats the next time they are in a new situation.

2d= poorly applied or misapplied. Good example is 2D Fe. 2D Fe is guess and check. The people do actions and then if other people get upset, they readjust or calibrate. This doesn't have anything to do with norms.

3d = good. A person uses the function and they use it well.

4d = break the rules or create the rules. You are soo good at this function that you know when it doesn't apply and/or you expand the function into areas. Ironically 4D functions, especially the demonstrative, can appear similar to 1D in the sense that 1D violates the function out of ignorance while 4D violates the functions out of competence. This doesn't have anything to do with time.

I can describe the different levels but I don't know accurate dimensions to qualify them and the current ones are like a square peg trying to be shoved down a round hole.

[niffer]

@ooo Thank you so much for your long post, it was very insightful. I'm normally turned off by long textwalls which is why I took so long to get back to it, but it was well worth the read. If you could take that and start a thread about it, I would love to see it and participate in it.

[niffer]

1D = devoid. It feels like a person doesn't have the function at all. Their experience is like a roomba cleaning a room. They need to hit a brick wall or rock bottom with the function to learn the errors of their way. And that only applies to situations which are identical to the one they experienced so this cycle repeats the next time they are in a new situation.

2d= poorly applied or misapplied. Good example is 2D Fe. 2D Fe is guess and check. The people do actions and then if other people get upset, they readjust or calibrate. This doesn't have anything to do with norms.

3d = good. A person uses the function and they use it well.

4d = break the rules or create the rules. You are soo good at this function that you know when it doesn't apply and/or you expand the function into areas. Ironically 4D functions, especially the demonstrative, can appear similar to 1D in the sense that 1D violates the function out of ignorance while 4D violates the functions out of competence. This doesn't have anything to do with time.

I completely agree with these. I don't think they're different really from what the original definitions were getting at but this is great elaboration. And yeah the original is a bit vague in some places, with the "time" thing that you pointed out... (I assume they mean it to be "transcendent of normal space-boundaries", in addition to tying the dimensions to being representative of the 3 dimensions of space + time as fourth).

In particular I agree with the bolded, and thanks for pointing that out with regard to the demonstrative.

I can describe the different levels but I don't know accurate dimensions to qualify them and the current ones are like a square peg trying to be shoved down a round hole.

Feel free to post here if you want to try!

[niffer]

@ooo One more note, as clarification:

Anyway, if the road to the integration of the unconscious passes through the creative, it means to recognize that our creative function itself is the repressed Polr itself, that we've repressed in order to shape ourselves. Our unconscious self is blocked by the ego, but it's shaped instead by the super-ego.
If the road to unconscious passes through the creative, because it distances itself a bit more from the leading ego function, then it will require integrating the Polr, so to understand that we're made of everything, as perfected round beings without limits and socionics blocks.

So are you saying that use of the creative function is in effect both repression and integration of the Polr simultaneously?

And P.S., I still think you're an IEE lol.

I think it's complicated, because we know:

- All functions with the same vertness are linked in a way (all introverted functions, and all extroverted ones in the 'psyche')
- At the same time, usage of one function is supposed to suppress another (in particular creative suppressing polr, i.e. usage of Ti would suppress Fi according to this, which kind of contradicts the point above..)

Conventional subtype theories do not address the issue above.

The above is also imo why people have been getting so confused, feeling like for e.g. a stronger base would accentuate Polr or not, or diminish role or not.

[ooo]

@ooo Thank you so much for your long post, it was very insightful. I'm normally turned off by long textwalls which is why I took so long to get back to it, but it was well worth the read. If you could take that and start a thread about it, I would love to see it and participate in it.

basically ive created a socionics system that takes note of the current level of the psyche, say you're relaxed, stressed or inspired, and then mixes the 9 IE functions from the 3 last blocks of model A with the 2 main functions, so that each SLE for instance will be a mix of Se, Ti+ Si, Te when inspired (ID takeover), and a mix of Se, Ti, and Ne, Fi (super-ego over block) when stressed, etc... the most difficult to pin down is the mental effect created by the functions of our dual, how they'll interact with our main functions should depend a great deal on our level of acceptance of our unconscious, so it's yet again another confirmation of how much we need to go beyond our mere main functions to reach our true depths...

i always feel like i'm repeating the obvious lol

[niffer]

i always feel like i'm repeating the obvious lol

Definitely not, thanks for these .

Would you be able to check out the post I tagged you in #118 too if you haven't seen it already?