Jonathan's main function?

[krieger]

Very little thought went into this thread. The idea seems daft and degenerative on second thought. Apologies. This thread should not have existed.

I guess this is what happens when you start looking at socionics from too theoretical a perspective.

[Joy]

this would be a good thread for the "what's my type?" section :wink:

[krieger]

fine with me. I don't much care where it gets put.

I thought it might be of interest to more poeple than just jonathan, as it concerns the way we look on a function that doesn't get discussed much..

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[krieger]

Sure. One link coming up.

http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=3...r=asc&start=15

I should add to the link that the thread in it was written a long, long time ago. I do not know if smilingeyes stands by everything he says in it, particularly the provocative (albeit possibly true) stuff.

I think motivated by loss of control means something like this:
Ti is the 'I know the answer to everything!' function. It works best when you are in power, because, well, duh, you want people to accept your anser as true. :wink:

Fi is exactly opposite to it, in that regard. I'll not risk describing how it works, but smilingeyes seems to think it works best when you relinquish all personal power. It's about finding the right way, instead of assuming you already know it.

Hope that helps.

[FDG]

Jonathan's behaviour can also be seen as characterist of the resonance group - clarifying information. He's very, very big on that.

You mean flooding the forum repeating obvious stuff?

[Jonathan]

Geez...I never even knew this thread existed. I could be ...who knows? Depends on how you define it. No way I could be though. And people who I think are seem different from me somehow, but I could be wrong.

If I'm ILI, as Rick seems to think, creating a strong impression of would not be out of character for that type.

[krieger]

I know. I don't know what I was thinking.

I guess the significant point in this thread, is that Fi CAN certainly manifest itself in an effective style of intellectuality. Many of the ego-block Fi types in my field of activity are very, very high performers. It seems to be their admiration before knowledge (subconscious disposition to Te) that prompts them to ask the right kind of questions, and the right amount of them...

It fascinates me, and makes me mightily jealous. :wink:

[Jonathan]

Sure. One link coming up.

http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=3...r=asc&start=15

I should add to the link that the thread in it was written a long, long time ago. I do not know if smilingeyes stands by everything he says in it, particularly the provocative (albeit possibly true) stuff.

I think motivated by loss of control means something like this:
Ti is the 'I know the answer to everything!' function. It works best when you are in power, because, well, duh, you want people to accept your anser as true. :wink:

Fi is exactly opposite to it, in that regard. I'll not risk describing how it works, but smilingeyes seems to think it works best when you relinquish all personal power. It's about finding the right way, instead of assuming you already know it.

Hope that helps.

By the way, I remember Smilex's formulation for Fi in his famous "mathematico-mechanico" post. I found it was insightful and useful, but non-standard for Socionics.

If Fi means assuming that you might be wrong, then I definitely identify with Fi. INFj would seem to be a reasonable hypothesis in that case.

Similarly, Anndelise has described Fi as if it's a sort of thinking, almost like Ti, except that it's more "involved" and reflects the need to put things in one's own words to understand them. Again, I can relate to that.

However, apparently no standard Socionics text defines in either of those ways. In typical Socionics descriptions, focuses on the relationships between people; it's more like a social understanding than a kind of thinking.

Here's how Dmitri's site describes :

Such people are very passionate in evaluating other people, but from outside they seem to be “emotionless”, smiling just as much as etiquette requires. They are good spectators of relations: in a small collective, they very quickly feel who has which relations with whom. They can work with people – as lawyers, pedagogues, etc. However, being so attentive to people's relations, they do not like, even more, they are afraid of “intellectual initiative”, do not like arguing, because it can “break” or just significantly change relations with other people.

I'm very much not that...not into etiquette, not inclined to evaluate other people, not normally observant about who has relations with whom....and in direct contrast to Dmitri's view of , sometimes my tendency to debate people or offer suggestions/critiques gets me in trouble.

[krieger]

Yes. Much of smilingeyes' work aspires to being 'one step beyond socionics.' Cone and smilingeyes himself used to talk of it as 'the advent of gamma-socionics'. It's a pity we see so little of it today.

Smilingeyes tries to look at things from a mathematical perspective. The aim is to find a methodology by which one can arrive at indisputable truths. If applied correctly, it could end all of the mumbo-jumbo magical socionics talk of today, in which you can never know what you should believe and what not. There's no arguing with mathematics!

You're right about the socionics texts not speaking about Fi like that. But our intuitive conceptions of the feeling functions are built around the idea that they are only socially significant. If it happened to be so that there is an intellectual side to them, how would we know? You can only know a possibility is true or untrue by first exploring it.

This is why we need a mathematical model; to understand what we are really talking about here.

[Jonathan]

Yes. Much of smilingeyes' work aspires to being 'one step beyond socionics.' Cone and smilingeyes himself used to talk of it as 'the advent of gamma-socionics'. It's a pity we see so little of it today.

Smilingeyes tries to look at things from a mathematical perspective. The aim is to find a methodology by which one can arrive at indisputable truths. If applied correctly, it could end all of the mumbo-jumbo magical socionics talk of today, in which you can never know what you should believe and what not. There's no arguing with mathematics!

You're right about the socionics texts not speaking about Fi like that. But our intuitive conceptions of the feeling functions are built around the idea that they are only socially significant. If it happened to be so that there is an intellectual side to them, how would we know? You can only know a possibility is true or untrue by first exploring it.

This is why we need a mathematical model; to understand what we are really talking about here.

I agree. My own viewpoint is that typology, in its purest form, relates to some salient facts about the nature of phenomena in general. The various qualities and relationships that result may be seen on many different levels and in many applications, sort of like a mathematical truth that applies in many different places. When people see the results of this, they recognize what someone else is saying (regarding typology) as being the same thing they saw.

The upshot is, there may not be a single definition of . There is perhaps an abstract mathematical definition, that has something to do perhaps with receptivity to the axial . Then, people see lots of things that could be manifestations of and probably are, from a mathematical sense, but they're not necessarily all manifestations of the same thing...that is, of the same application of the underlying mathematical pattern.

Socionics has two interesting and perhaps frustrating premises that lead to it's highly particular conclusions:
1) In Socionics, a person is a type....not expresses a type, not is in a type state at the moment, not is thinking a thought of a certain type....but is a type.
2) In Socionics, there are certain fixed behaviors, tendencies, etc., associated with the various types and functions, based on existing Socionics literature and the corroborated observations within the Russian Socionics community.

So, one way of seeing this is that Socionics is one subset of Jungian typology. One could define a Jungian typology in purely mathematical terms. I like what Smilex has posted very much; I'm not convinced it gets there 100%. To view Jungian typology in a purely mathematical sense, we need to come up with definitions that are even more generalized...ones that get to the core of all the similarities of Jungian typologies.

I'm still open to the possibility of "being" . Who knows? Give me some evidence.

[Smilingeyes]

The interest in some of my works is heart-warming. I'd like to issue a warning though that in general, it is the best to only use complex derivative interpretations to gain understanding of people one has already definitively typed, whereas its less useful to use them for actual typing. The view of Fi that was quoted in this thread is something I do defend but it is very derivative and ephemeral in its nature. I would not claim Jonathan has FiNe (though I would accept him being called fine) (Ah, I'm hilarious).

And it's nice to see someone else mention this viewpoint as to the nature of socionic functions. Well presented.

Incidentally, labcoat... You seem to picking up chinese with great alacrity.

[Gilly]

I'd like to issue a warning though that in general, it is the best to only use complex derivative interpretations to gain understanding of people one has already definitively typed, whereas its less useful to use them for actual typing. The view of Fi that was quoted in this thread is something I do defend but it is very derivative and ephemeral in its nature.

This is a very important distinction, and I'm glad that you've pointed it out for people who haven't delved quite as deeply.