Me again :)

[Jonathan]

Well Expat certainly thinks he's a yardstick.

That's not correct. I think that my evaluations of other people's use of functions are objectively correct (in as far as anything regarding functions is objective) and they should be independent of the observer's type. However, if you ask me why I see it and others don't, one possibility is my use of functions, assuming my type is correct. Another possibility is of course that my evaluations are wrong. It's a very different thing from using myself as "yardstick". And please note that I've never used poster's supposed relationships with me to type them, as some other people here are so fond of doing.

Okay, sorry. I didn't mean it in a derogatory way, but I could see how it could come off that I was over-generalizing.

What I meant was that you're confident of your type, and that you believe you can tell other's strength of Te by your own. There's nothing wrong with that as a method, a tool, even though it may not be a perfect method. I didn't mean to imply that you see no possibility of being wrong or that your not open to other evidence.

[Phaedrus]

Well Expat certainly thinks he's a yardstick.

Expat should be used as a yardstick. He is a yardstick, because it is obvious that he is an ENTj. We should use him as a reference point to compare other people's possible types with.

I think that my evaluations of other people's use of functions are objectively correct (in as far as anything regarding functions is objective) and they should be independent of the observer's type.

Anyone's evaluation of people's use of functions should of course be independent of the observer's type, otherwise it is not objective. It is not obvious that Expat's evaluations of people's use fo functions are objectively correct, but it is not obvious that they are incorrect either. But even if we assume that Expat's evaluations of people's use of functions are objectively correct, his conclusions on what types people are based on his evaluations of people's use of functions are evidently incorrect in some cases. And we should try our best to understand that phenomenon.

A functions analysis seem to be a very unreliable typing method, and there are two possible reasons for that: either we cannot conclude for sure what type a person is even if we know what functions are in use, or it is more difficult to determine what functions are in use than people (like Expat) imagine. I don't which of these two options is the correct one, but I know that there is no third alternative.

[Expat]

I do not think that functional analysis is necessarily a good way to make a case for a person's type even though as a dominant person you would prefer to deal with the information regarding the matter at that level.

The functions are what define the Socionics relationships, which are what Socionics is all about. So a person's Socionics type, the type that will fit that person's relationships with others, is best seen through the functions.

It has been seen over and over again where even the "experts" of socionics disagree with what exactly is being expressed/seen function wise in a person's behavior, values, way of communication etc.

It is not an exact science. We all know that. Some "experts" will be wrong. That happens with eg economics too. That doesn't mean that functional analyses are useless. The presence of some disagreement on specifics does not invalidate the whole.

I think that if a person is so inclined they can come up with a very good functional analysis of why you are an ESFj ( possibly with an overactive role function :wink: rather than an ENTj).

That functional analysis would not stand to close examination and would collapse immediately. You seem to be suggesting that all functional analyses are mumbo-jumbo and therefore useless. That's an easier case to make than to sustain.

I would like to see someone propose a consistent version of Socionics that would really conclude that I am ESFj and my Te is an "overactive role function". It would have to explain why my tole is "overactive" in the first place, and why Fe - my base function - is dormant, to the annoyance of Fe types. Etc etc.

I know you weren't being serious about ESFj specifically, but that's the kind of thing you have to consider when you say that the functional analyses could be made into whatever one wishes. That is false, if you want to reach consistent conclusions.

I may be hitting at a soft target -- but let us take again the Socionics version of the Socionix crowd, according to which I am ESTj. I think it's based on my lack of what they see as "Ni" and some other supposed ESTj and non-ENTj traits. Fine. But at the same time they say or said that Isha is INFp, which would make us conflictors, something neither of us can remotely see. So that version needs some working on, to say the least.

It seems that trying to proof a person type using functional analysis though having an air of objectivity about it, often ends up being just as unclear and subjective as saying "I think Xox is an ENFp because he just appears that way to me and my intuition".

No. The difference is that functional analysis is something that can be explained, using definitions that can be discussed and hopefully agreed upon. That's impossible when you rely on your "intuition". "I just know it" is not a good argument.

It seems that you are trying very hard Expat to apply objectivity and "facts" to an area that short of some blood test being discovered to determine type cannot actually really be objective. It is not that some people here do not like or value objective facts it is just that they realize that there are no real objective facts and universally accepted definitions in the this area.

That was an excellent case for the non-utility of in Socionics. You have no use for it. You don't think it's important and you think I'm wasting my time on something non-important.

Until the blood test is developed by the great scientists of Russia , I think we are better off considering a variety of methods and input to come closer to determining a person's type rather than just relying on "functional analysis" and other pseudo based approaches as evidence of a person's type.

So rather than "pseudo " you prefer "I just know it based on my intuition"? Is that it?

It's not "pseudo ". It's "inexact" , which is something else.

The functions, how they interplay with each other and their real life manifestation in a person seems highly dependent on each socionists (or novice socionists) own understanding and opinion and is not actually fact based; typing from a functional analysis perspective actually starts from a highly subjective base in that regard. However, I guess we could do more "functional analysis" if only to appease the dominants or something .

And to type people with base on "intuition" and "the other XXXxs I know" is not "highly subjective"?

[Expat]

Okay, sorry. I didn't mean it in a derogatory way, but I could see how it could come off that I was over-generalizing.

What I meant was that you're confident of your type, and that you believe you can tell other's strength of Te by your own. There's nothing wrong with that as a method, a tool, even though it may not be a perfect method. I didn't mean to imply that you see no possibility of being wrong or that your not open to other evidence.

No need for apologies

It's not my preferred method. However, each person will be most adept at evaluating how others use their own strong functions. I prefer to rely on mutually-agreed-upon definitions of the functions, however, in some cases it's difficult since, obviously, there are no very precise definitions.

[Expat]

I think Expat's ideas with this whole IEI thing are interesting, and at least partly correct. The problem I have with it, though, is that if we took the assumption of the various candidates being ILI/Ni-subtype, then we should expect weaker Te preference than in an LIE anyway, in part because of the Ni subtype. And if Expat is right about a Te weakness, it still doesn't tell us how a confirmed Beta NF feels about whether there's Fe strength.

For example, if Sned, Kristiina, etc., say "Yes, that person has strong Fe," and Expat says "and he has weak Te," then that's pretty clear evidence. But if Expat says "weak Te" and Sned or others imply "and weak Fe too," then where are? All we have is Ni people (assuming that part's correct) with a somewhat complex relationship between Te and Fe.

Well, in XoX's case for instance, both snegledmaca and Kristiina, just to use your examples, agreed on his not being INTp, with snegledmaca specifically agreeing on and (if I recall correctly). In other cases it's not so clear, but there I agree, too, FWIW.

You are basing your arguments on the assumption that Sned, Kristina etc are types and that Expat is a type. Now I will not challenge that assumption at present because those are most likely their types. Be aware though that the types of these people are not uncontroversial and irrefutable and using them or others as a yardstick to measure/determine other people's type is a particularly sound method. You cannot make Expat a meter to measure the presence/quantity of ness or Kristina a meter to measure the presence/quantity of ness in other words. You must also see the general weakness in assuming that because an individual who is a XXXx type (or claims to be in any case)does not subjectively see another individual as having the same strong functions as themselves and therefore not of XXXx type that it is necessarily true.

In principle I agree with this (but then I don't see, again, why you prefer to type others according to "those I know" since you are indirectly making them into yardsticks).

I would much prefer not to use such arguments; but sometimes the discussion gets so involved into precise definitions of Te and Fe etc that it doesn't move forward otherwise. I do see the weak points.

[Expat]

I think Expat's ideas with this whole IEI thing are interesting, and at least partly correct. The problem I have with it, though, is that if we took the assumption of the various candidates being ILI/Ni-subtype, then we should expect weaker Te preference than in an LIE anyway, in part because of the Ni subtype. And if Expat is right about a Te weakness, it still doesn't tell us how a confirmed Beta NF feels about whether there's Fe strength.

I will make it into a general point, avoiding specific cases. I agree with you to a great extent.

For both Ni IP types, especially if strongly Ni, their main focus will be on the "river flow" as per my metaphor. Back to that image (which is Ni again itself). It will be on neither Te as in "making things work" nor on Fe as in "influencing people's mood". Te and Fe are, for them, mainly rational data-collecting to make sure that they still perceive the flow to be ok. So, in terms of active behavior, it can be very tricky to differentiate the two.

However, when they do use such functions actively, or when it's clear which kind of "data" they see as more important, then it's possible to see - or to glimpse, if you will - the Fe or Te preference. That's what I mean.

[Phaedrus]

I do not think that functional analysis is necessarily a good way to make a case for a person's type even though as a dominant person you would prefer to deal with the information regarding the matter at that level.

The functions are what define the Socionics relationships, which are what Socionics is all about. So a person's Socionics type, the type that will fit that person's relationships with others, is best seen through the functions.

Both Megan and Expat are right about what they say here. But some people don't realize that a person's socionic type is not defined through that person's relationships with others. People who think that have misunderstood the basics of Socionics. The intertype relations are defined through the types between which there is a certain kind of relation, not the other way around. As in other models too, the types come first. Augusta first determined which two types she had in front of her, then she observed the type of relation they had, and after that she put a certain label on that kind of relation.

I think that if a person is so inclined they can come up with a very good functional analysis of why you are an ESFj ( possibly with an overactive role function :wink: rather than an ENTj).

That functional analysis would not stand to close examination and would collapse immediately. You seem to be suggesting that all functional analyses are mumbo-jumbo and therefore useless. That's an easier case to make than to sustain.

I would like to see someone propose a consistent version of Socionics that would really conclude that I am ESFj and my Te is an "overactive role function". It would have to explain why my tole is "overactive" in the first place, and why Fe - my base function - is dormant, to the annoyance of Fe types. Etc etc.

I know you weren't being serious about ESFj specifically, but that's the kind of thing you have to consider when you say that the functional analyses could be made into whatever one wishes. That is false, if you want to reach consistent conclusions.

Megan makes a good and sound point, which you seem to make fun of. Of course a functional analysis that would conclude that you are an ESFj would be an incorrect analysis, since you are an ENTj. But you make the same kind of mistake when you conclude that I am an INFp based on your functional analysis, since the truth is that I am an INTp. So, obviously you are able to make a functional analysis into an incorrect conclusion, and that's really Megan's point as I understand it. Functional analyses are no better than other typing methods, and quite often they are worse. That is not to say, of course, that a correct functional analysis could be made into whatever one wishes, only that an incorrect analysis could.

It seems that trying to proof a person type using functional analysis though having an air of objectivity about it, often ends up being just as unclear and subjective as saying "I think Xox is an ENFp because he just appears that way to me and my intuition".

No. The difference is that functional analysis is something that can be explained, using definitions that can be discussed and hopefully agreed upon. That's impossible when you rely on your "intuition". "I just know it" is not a good argument.

That a functional analysis can be explained doesn't mean that it is more correct, more true, than a typing that is based on "intuition". Either one of them can be true or false regardless of whether it can be explained or not. Provability is not the same thing as truth, neither here nor elsewhere. A person's type is whatever it is independently of our ability to prove that the person is a certain type. The type "is out there", since it is a biological phenomenon.

Until the blood test is developed by the great scientists of Russia , I think we are better off considering a variety of methods and input to come closer to determining a person's type rather than just relying on "functional analysis" and other pseudo based approaches as evidence of a person's type.

A very good point.

So rather than "pseudo " you prefer "I just know it based on my intuition"? Is that it?

And a stupid comment from someone who is totally missing (or deliberately ignoring) Megan's point.