The Socionics Functions - Could there be Sub-Factors?
Let's look an example:
Why I don't value business logic.
Imagine being at a computer prompt, doing spreadsheets or inputting banking information. I would say this task involves 'business logic' and I don't really value it. But what is really going on here?
This is my explanation:
1. I am strong visual thinker. Spreadsheets and banking software usually has information displayed as facts and figures instead of as charts, graphs, etc. This makes it more difficult for me to follow.
2. The tasks are not always innovative. If I'm just working the regular, hum-drum office job, I am usually not doing something cuttting-edge, and this makes it more difficult.
3. The tasks are numerical but not mathematical. I can be strong logical/mathematical thinker, but I'm not quite as good at dealing with just numbers or figures.
4. The tasks are not particularly abstract. I am obviously not doing something like philosophizing about banking when I'm doing this.
5. The tasks are more by rote. When I learned CS and economics, I tried hard to learn the 'why' behind the formula, algorithm, etc. This is more of a black-box approach and that also makes it more difficult.
6. The tasks are precise, and I am not particularly precise.
7. The tasks are not usually done from home.
Now, let's look at investing:
- The task is now innovative, involves much more visual thinking, not as precise, and can easily be done from home. (And I actually have a brilliant investing idea and would love to do this!) But to some this is still 'business-logic.'
But do you see what's going on? There are different psychological factors that make up various tasks, including those that involve 'business logic'. It is really not whether it's 'business logic' that actually drives whether me or anyone else is proficient at them, but the various psychological factors that make them up! In my case, I usually do not value 'business-logic' for all of the reasons above. But there are still tasks that are 'Ti', such as database administration that I do not like for the same reasons! (e.g., because they're by rote, not visual, etc.) Therefore, my argument is that it is not the function itself that defines whether one values it, but the various psychological factors involved, such as how visual, abstract, or by rote the tasks are. Also, there are therefore people with 'your function' that do not share some of these sub-factors who are completely different from you psychologically. I would say that socionists should even study these psychological factors empirically to really have some understanding of how this fits together... Even try the above exercise to see what does/doesn't fit for yourself....
Anyway, I think that this is an interesting hypothesis and I am interested in hearing your opinion...
Last edited by jason_m; 08-10-2019 at 08:49 AM.
Even in relationships, 'Fe' can be broken down:
I am looking for someone:
- Extraverted (important)
- With a sense of humor (really important)
- Perhaps sarcastic
- Not a b*tch (This is essential)
- And I usually focus on tone of voice
For someone else 'Ti', it could be different...
Last edited by jason_m; 08-10-2019 at 10:02 AM.
I guess the whole point is that the notion of 'functions' is a misnomer: they are completely determined by each sub-factor. There can then be people who share the same 'function' who are not alike because they do not share certain sub-factors or people who have different 'functions' who are alike in some way because they share them - maybe more alike than people with the same function...
And if you look at the various sub-factors, a lot of them don't really fit into Model A:
- I am visuospatial thinker. Therefore, facts, figures, etc. - things that I cannot visualize - are the 'opposite' function.
- I am also abstract thinker. Things that are more concrete are then 'opposite.'
- I am not precise. Therefore, precise thinking is the 'opposite' function. That could be someone who doesn't value either Te OR Ti.
- I prefer a 'white box' approach. A black-box approach is again 'opposite.' That again could be either Te or Ti.
These individual factors therefore do not appear to fit into Model A at all! I would argue that it is these individual factors that determine what 'function' one has, as was illustrated with my business logic example above. The question then is why is there even a need to have the functions? It would seem that the sub-factors are more important, and if they are not determined by the functions at all (as I expect them to not be) , then they are completely unnecessary...
Also, it's not that socionics is completely useless either. It's just that the individual sub-factors seem more important and are worth investigating...
Last edited by jason_m; 08-11-2019 at 03:51 AM.
This can already be explained using standard theory.
Investing involves intuition, putting numbers in a spreadsheet does not. Tasks rarely involve only one IM element.
data systematization and calculations is more Ti
Originally Posted by jason_m
more Te would be to gather that data, to find better ways to do something. while when you put the data to prepared tables - it's more Ti
there can influence other factors besides valued functions and Jung types
also you may lesser like a process by other reasons besides what your valued functions are. for P, F, N, E types to do accountants works is lesser interesting and common
there is no need to dream about new theory as versions of Jung functions to explain why you dislike databases works
Yeah @jason_m thats basically how you refute socionics. Good job (this is actually a compliment)
I get it that some want to put it all under the umbrella of "intuition" and "tasks involve more than one IM element" or "Jung functions explain it all" but that to me really is an explanation and model sadly very lacking compared to investigating actual connections between the elements OP listed (and other ones too ofc)
And not only simply lacking... but actually turns out to be logically incorrect when you investigate in this fashion.
Yeah, before anyone says that oh no, there are explanations provided in this thread to show how the socionics model works actually, no... if you want to be intellectually honest, keep track of your conclusions about socionics before you start mixing up deduction and induction in an unsystematic and logically contradictory fashion. Then see what I meant.
I personally believed for quite a while that socionics had valid ideas even if I rejected the model "as is" a long time ago. I tried to keep these socionics ideas inside a framework from my own observations, but I've found better frameworks for these ideas, so I see no reason to stick to socionics in any way at all. Even if those ideas are valid, they are working much better inside other frameworks/understandings than they ever did inside a socionics context.
To get more specific: these would be ideas such as complementary opposites and interactions between those (not the whole duality thing though), the role of feelings vs rationality and the various forms of modelling/arrangement of subjective and objective conclusions (what some want to call Ti/Fe vs Fi/Te), the model of conscious/not conscious processes, function dimensionality, and many other various aspects of cognition that are mentioned here and there in socionics, I just gave a few examples now.
Last edited by Myst; 08-16-2019 at 05:31 PM.
But... but, I like unsystematic and logically contradictory fashion.
I see functions and all the rest as loose elements that may or may not come together, just tools to attempt at explaining what I experience. I haven't typed half of the people I know and it can take me years to have a moment of "hm, seems like x function at y place" or "x IR", but those two conclusion don't always match up, haha.
In a way, with enough elements I can make up crazy typings and alternative typings, I don't care that they are correct or not, I think types are personal... if you're honest to yourself that is. I can be honest to a fault to others but I decieved myself greatly in the past, socionics put words on things and I could grasp them easier. No, I don't think socionics was nessecary but it is there in my past and memory, it makes a part of my world vision now. Anything else could have taken that place though.
I am unsystematic and contradictory in essence therefore it aligns with myself in a systematic fashion. People can indeed change, but they also can't; I hold many contradictive beliefs and it's fine with me. I don't see how I could build just one structure to explain everything, so I'll just play around with what I got and not care much.
I'd have no shame to type someone TeNe, but I would not tell it out loud, would asking for a shit fest.
The worst part of socionics is its language, real shitty when all you can think of to describe a thing is [function] and no one around actualy knows what that means.
@lilac tenebris heh I see. I agree btw that one structure won't explain everything like socionics tries.
Everything is a spiral inside of another spiral moving in opposite directions. <o>