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...