The creative and activating functions (2nd and 6th)

[Angel von Himmel]

I am curious about something ... I was reading today the description of Model-A on this website, and I noticed that it mentioned that the specific corresponding blocks of the psyche often represent how a person appears when they place emphasis on certain specific functions.


For example, I am wondering if anyone else has noticed or felt that I am trying to be authoritative in the way I represent myself on this website.

I know I have been accused of it before, and this link is a perfect example of that. oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=1042

I do know for a fact that I am highly influenced by my 6th function, even to the point to where I struggled over whether I was actually XNFJ. However, I highly value my 2nd function as well and I love to use it quite regularly in my daily activities.

So, I am curious whether others think that the reason why people are perceiving that I am trying to appear as an authority is in result of the usage of my 2nd and 6th functions? Even though I am not consciously attempting to look like anything.

What do you think?

[Joy]

I'm didn't read that entire thread, but if I understand your use of the term "an authority", I think you're onto something. I can see how these relate to the functions you mentioned, though my understanding of them is not stellar ATM.

I have been accused on being bossy. Overall I'm praised for being a "natural leader". I've also been accused of "always having to be right", but those who know me well tell me that I generally am in situations where I state something as a fact. All of the above are generally the result of one of the following situations.

1) I take charge of a group effort because I logically know that I'm the best/only one for the job.
2) I have an idea
3) I encourage people to "think outside the box"
4) If I'm wrong, I want to know I'm worng, for it's about what's right, not who's right. As a result when I know "what's right" I'm at times accused of having to be the one "who's right"
5) I can delegate effectively according to the interests and skills of each individual

Ummmmmm I have to go.... I'll ponder this some more in the meantime.

[Joy]

OH!!!!

6) I have an excellent view of the forrest and the trees (stated as it was stated to me)- in other words, I can see the big picture and the little stuff at the same time, and I'm good with cause and effect relationships.


I sooooooooo have to leave for my brother's birthday party, like, two hours ago! Adios!

[Angel von Himmel]

I am the same way, I state things like they are facts before really knowing if they are 100% true the way I perceive them, mostly because I figure that whatever I say could always be corrected and changed later without much effort so long as I get the general idea out there to bounce off of various sources. Even to the point to where I have absolutly no fear of speaking up and looking like an idiot because I believe things to be a certain way at that time. Of course, people do not always like this, and I tend to get accused of acting any various way [authoritative, bossy] when in reality I was just meerly attempting to share what I know to others and to gather ideas.

[Artemis]

For example, I am wondering if anyone else has noticed or felt that I am trying to be authoritative in the way I represent myself on this website.

I know I have been accused of it before, and this link is a perfect example of that. oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=1042

Yes, I know you have been accused before, but by numbnuts that totally don't understand you. You come across to me as the most laid back person I know. You get excited about ideas and theories and want everyone to share in your excitement. I can hear you say, "Wow! Look at this!" I don't always agree with you or always know where you're coming from ?? but love your enthusiasm. I do read your posts and sometimes say, "Nah" and walk away, but that's the way it goes.

I think you are the best and nicest person on the forum. :wink:

[Artemis]

. . . when in reality I was just meerly attempting to share what I know to others and to gather ideas.

That's what I meant.

[Darklord]

That might explain why the INFps think I'm INFp .

[Joy]

Well, I think we both have the same idea, but I'm very careful not to state something as a fact unless I know it to be true. A casual onlooker may think that I am stating things as fact when I am not. I speak assuredly but make sure to include things like "I think..." and "I wonder if..." and "maybe..." etc. I think people can be turned off by our intensity and think that we are trying to dominate them when we're really just interested in whatever it is we're talking about.

[Artemis]

Nothing ventured nothing gained . . . except a lot of criticism . . .

[Joy]

Criticism is okay, and often helpful. To me at least.

[HarryBottom]

I think if someone percieves you that way, it's their problem, not yours. You don't come off as trying to be authoritative at all to me. You come off as very helfpful, trying to share the knowledge you know, and the new ideas you come up with with everybody else. I actually think Artemis said it in the best way possible. Took the words out of my mouth. Your one of my favorite people on this forum as well.

[Artemis]

Have a little faith in the rest of us, Steve. We all don't take the written word as fact. Who doesn't try it out and see if it works?

[Waddlesworth]

Now I know this is about me, you might as well of just said it. I agree, "nothing ventured, nothing gained" but I also feel that an amateur, especially when they make a web-site, should present themselves as an amateur, especially if they are generating new models or are presenting what appears to be hundreds VI pictures which have no explanation attached to them.

As for me thinking of myself as an authority, well, i think that I have an eye for what is valuable and what is misleading. In the time I have been learning about socionics I have developed a pretty strong understanding of what its about and what it isn't about. I have also felt that it's best to stick with the models and not try and break free from them until you actually get what you are talking about.

[Angel von Himmel]

Waddles, you have no right to make those judgements. Just quit ...

[Joy]

ENTps, by nature, take what's there and play around with it to find patterns and discover new possibilities. I may be new around here, but I've never seen rmcnew say to anyone "Your ideas are stupid and so are you." So let the ENTp do what ENTps do best.

[Joy]

ENTps, by nature, take what's there and play around with it to find patterns and discover new possibilities. I may be new around here, but I've never seen rmcnew say to anyone "Your ideas are stupid and so are you." So let the ENTp do what ENTps do best.

Oops, that was me.

[Cone]

Hey, that poll is biased. There's no option that says, "Dude, you're crazy."

[Waddlesworth]

I have "no right"? what are you talkin' about, dude.

But @ joy, I'm an ENTp as well. What do you think that ENTp's naturally ignore rules and are somehow successful? Like, for example, an ENTp in biology can make up some new model on some intuitive hunch without knowing the fundamentals of biology?

if they follow the rules they are automatically "gamma"? absurd. Logic follows rules, ENTp's just do this creatively.

I may have no decent right to insult rmcnew, but I have every right to criticize his ideas.

[Cone]

I may have no decent right to insult rmcnew, but I have every right to criticize his ideas.

Well, actually you don't. You have to be INTp, "The critic", to do that. That's why he got angry.

jk

[diamond]

WW, if rmcnew said that he was testing out ideas each and every time he was doing so, would you feel better?

Are you concerned that he puts a lot into it what with grids and charts and such and so it looks kind of official when it's really not? What would be the worst thing that would happen if a neophyte comes across rmcnew's models?

For myself, it's an o.d. on when I crave more from rmcnew's models and ideas. Only because there are so many of them!

[Waddlesworth]

yeah, i just think that Rmcnew jumps out there unprepared. I mean, I never claimed to be an expert but I try to put some sort of theoretical basis on my ideas.

The Web-site he made, Soncion.info, has all of these writings he did, but he never says "I am just an amateur right now" instead he just puts it all out there like its all valid. His "explanation" of the model-A probably scores a 10 on my pretension scale just because there is absolutely no theoretical basis within it and it leaves out so much information already available.

It just seems like he doesn't appreciate the hard work and research involved in understanding things like that. There is this mentality of "Hey, I'm ENTp, we invent new things and combine theories and new ideas, so whenever I think I am doing this it's okay"

"I'll write an explanation of the model-a, if it doesn't make sense it's okay, because I'm ENTp!"

or

"I'll plaster a couple of weak functions on the model-x without fully knowing what the model-x is. Doesn't make sense? it's okay, I'm ENTp so i can do things like that and get away with it. We do things like that and you'd better respect it!"

if someone wants to be accepted as a logical person they have to present their ideas modestly and rationally.

[Cone]

Remember when I first came onto this forum? You guys just loved me when I was bullshitting my ass off.

[Joy]

But @ joy, I'm an ENTp as well. What do you think that ENTp's naturally ignore rules and are somehow successful? Like, for example, an ENTp in biology can make up some new model on some intuitive hunch without knowing the fundamentals of biology?

if they follow the rules they are automatically "gamma"? absurd. Logic follows rules, ENTp's just do this creatively.

It's not a matter of ignoring "rules", it's a matter of testing accepted norms and trying things that others may not see a point in.

I think we're reaching the heart of the matter with this statement:

Like, for example, an ENTp in biology can make up some new model on some intuitive hunch without knowing the fundamentals of biology?

Why do you think he doesn't grasp the fundamentals? Someone sounds insecure... But don't mind me. I don't know enough about Socionics or this debate to speak assuredly on the matter.

[Cone]

Why do you think he doesn't grasp the fundamentals? Someone sounds insecure... But don't mind me. I don't know enough about Socionics or this debate to speak assuredly on the matter.

Rmcnew's Model-X is basically Model-A, minus some stuff.

[MysticSonic]

"Remember when I first came onto this forum? You guys just loved me when I was bullshitting my ass off."

No offense, but I don't remember doing that.

[Cone]

Not you, the ENTps.

[Angel von Himmel]

I have "no right"? what are you talkin' about, dude.

It has to do with hypocracy, you say I should basically do the equivalent of stamping "amature" acrost my head whenever I do anything, but what sort of authority should demand that I do that? Especially since I am solely responsible for the content ... that is not anyone else's job but mine.

[Waddlesworth]

ugh, look, people can daydream about functions and models forever. I do it all of the time, but you have to do it with quality, especially if you take yourself so seriously.

@ joy

I've been on this forum longer than most people. I have also read pretty much anything related to the subject of socionics. I have an idea of what's going on, I am sure I have a better idea of what is going on than you do and also most of the members on this forum. Now you can prize mediocrity if you want, but once you start asking deep questions you start to realize how pointless a thing like the "model-x with weak functions" is.

If RMCNEW can give us all a clear and coherent explanation of what Socionics is, what the Model-X is, and also what a type is fundamentally, I will respect it, but i know that there isn't one.

If he can give us all a reason why there are no id functions on the "model-x with weak functions" i would also be happier. But the truth is that his ideas aren't grounded in reason, plain and simple. they are just lost. Can you honestly see a socionics textbook with the "model-x with weak functions" in it? there is no logic in it, its a lost model.

now you can try and attack me, but I assure all of you my logic is very sound. I am teaching myself passionately, my thoughts are moving in the right direction. It takes discipline and patience. But i also realize that a basic understanding of the brain, that is, psychology, is also important as well as some elements of sociology. Socionics requires alot of understanding and integrity.

If I were insecure about my knowledge I wouldn't be criticizing rmcnew. But I'm sure that many forum members are already aware that I am secure in my understanding, which grows by the day.

[Waddlesworth]

I have "no right"? what are you talkin' about, dude.

It has to do with hypocracy, you say I should basically do the equivalent of stamping "amature" acrost my head whenever I do anything, but what sort of authority should demand that I do that? Especially since I am solely responsible for the content ... that is not anyone else's job but mine.

The reason I say this is because your information is based off of an intuitive interpration of second rate translations and web-pages with little information in english. that's pretty much what all of our knowledge is based off of if you specifically focus on "socionics" when generating your ideas.

[MysticSonic]

RMCNew, I think the criticisms stem from the fact that not that you are attempting to BE authoriative but instead HOLD authority; this is due to the fact of the relative scarcity of Socionic material. This is heightened because your material is a sort of Socionic material that's perceived as possessing authority due to the fact that you run a website; it would be compared to other Socionic material that was developed by professionals, and in turn processed as an authoritative sort of information.

Since you provide no logical basis, or very little, for many of conjectures of the Socionic description, others, and myself, are merely worried that, due to the potential influence your works might have on the English-speaking world that contains an interest in Socionics, you may instill some notions into people that may be incorrect.

So the request is that you develop some sort of basis for your ideas before you present them, as not doing so subjects them to the subjective intuition which is frequently mistaken on many subjects.

[Angel von Himmel]

If RMCNEW can give us all a clear and coherent explanation of what Socionics is, what the Model-X is, and also what a type is fundamentally, I will respect it, but i know that there isn't one.

If he can give us all a reason why there are no id functions on the "model-x with weak functions" i would also be happier. But the truth is that his ideas aren't grounded in reason, plain and simple. they are just lost. Can you honestly see a socionics textbook with the "model-x with weak functions" in it? there is no logic in it, its a lost model.

The reason why I have not considered to add the ID functions to the model I created is because those functions are usually supressed by the strength of the EGO functions, and they can not cooperate with each other or atleast not totally at the same time. I basically wanted to create a model that would demonstrate how the functions worked together in relationship, and those functions do not work well with the other functions. Most people do not even realize they can use their ID functions. And it is a good thing, too. I know I would be one arrogant demanding son of a bitch if my ID functions suddenly started to manifest themselves, I would probably end up in jail or homeless or something. Not a good thing.

And saying that my model is pointless actually sounds to me like that is suggestivelly founded on a bout of ignorance, considering that I basically added the Super-EGO block. I did not even invent that, so how is that pointless? I figured that someone with your presupposed amount of knowledge would have figured that out by now.

I am not even going to respond to the rest, it sounds like ponpous pride and arrogance ... I avoid that like the plague.

[Angel von Himmel]

I have "no right"? what are you talkin' about, dude.

It has to do with hypocracy, you say I should basically do the equivalent of stamping "amature" acrost my head whenever I do anything, but what sort of authority should demand that I do that? Especially since I am solely responsible for the content ... that is not anyone else's job but mine.

The reason I say this is because your information is based off of an intuitive interpration of second rate translations and web-pages with little information in english. that's pretty much what all of our knowledge is based off of if you specifically focus on "socionics" when generating your ideas.

Actually, I am basing alot of what I have to say on personal experience. I read something somewhere, and I read something else somewhere. I compare what I read to what I see and experience [ personal experiences and also the analysis of the saved results from socionics test I wrote.]

So, in effect I am really rebuilding socionics from scratch up ... errors? There have been some, but they usually get corrected when I see them for what they are, but I still think you are underestimate my potential in your judgements.

[Waddlesworth]

there's no pompous arrogance here.

[Angel von Himmel]

there's no pompous arrogance here.

No point in arguing with brick walls ... I know, because I can be one as well.

[diamond]

So, in effect I am really rebuilding socionics from scratch up ... errors? There have been some, but they usually get corrected when I see them for what they are, but I still think you are underestimate my potential in your judgements.

I'm not trying to put you on the defensive or anything rmcnew, but "rebuilding socionics" - to me this sounds a little inflated and egotistical, as if socionics is in need of re-building. I think what people are wondering is whether you are trying to understand what's been developed so far before tearing it down and starting from scratch again.

Maybe you are like me: to understand something completely, I have to re-invent it practically. If this is the case, it's not what comes across in some of your posts.

Do I think socionics could benefit from enhancement? Better translation from the Russian? A more empirical foundation? Absolutely! Do I think that playing with this theory and applying it to practical situations adds to our understanding? Totally. You probably do, too.

It just seems to be because of the way you are going about this, people are misundersanding you.

FWIW, IMHO.

[Angel von Himmel]

So, in effect I am really rebuilding socionics from scratch up ... errors? There have been some, but they usually get corrected when I see them for what they are, but I still think you are underestimate my potential in your judgements.

I'm not trying to put you on the defensive or anything rmcnew, but "rebuilding socionics" - to me this sounds a little inflated and egotistical, as if socionics is in need of re-building. I think what people are wondering is whether you are trying to understand what's been developed so far before tearing it down and starting from scratch again.

Maybe you are like me: to understand something completely, I have to re-invent it practically. If this is the case, it's not what comes across in some of your posts.

Do I think socionics could benefit from enhancement? Better translation from the Russian? A more empirical foundation? Absolutely! Do I think that playing with this theory and applying it to practical situations adds to our understanding? Totally. You probably do, too.

It just seems to be because of the way you are going about this, people are misundersanding you.

FWIW, IMHO.

The reason why I said I was rebuilding in from scratch up is because I do not totally trust the structural integrity of the many mock translated articles that contain too many syntax and contextual errors to be totally understood by someone who does not understand the origional language in the first place. So, I experiement with my understanding of it and see what works according to what I have read. Sometimes I am wrong, sometimes I am not; it all depends. In the end I usually just keep what I see that works.

[Cone]

Here's what's strange: if rmcnew wasn't here to back up his claims, chances are that everyone would be more on the side of Waddlesworth. In fact, I remember an incident where one forum member attempted to change the wording of what Ni/Ne were called, so someone decided that wasn't good, and everyone else followed.

Now the same thing is happening, but everyone's following the first person to say that rmcnew was right.

[diamond]

Are there really "sides", Cone?

[Rocky]

In fact, I remember an incident where one forum member attempted to change the wording of what Ni/Ne were called, so someone decided that wasn't good, and everyone else followed.

Wait, was that me?

[Angel von Himmel]

All I am interested in is doing what I am doing ... if anyone wants to follow, be my guest. I have left enough things lying around for people.