Jack Flak's Function System Adventure

[Salomé]

Lady, what the fuck are you talking about?

for that.

When conjecture is all you've got, then you'd better damned argue the hell out of it. I don't know what the context of this argument is, but I can't picture even one scientific scenario where unchallenged conjecture is better than nothing. What if it's false? Then you've wasted a whole heap of time studying what can't be true.

That's exactly what I was saying.
So you get another .

 

[redacted]

You also link S/N T/F.

I don't link them, except that S/N is perception and T/F is judgment, which is just definitional.

Why don't we just lump them all together and call it Ff?*
Come on son -- We're referencing the fragments of behavior separate from all others. Thinking is not tied to feeling. Else we ought to just call it judgement. When we're talking about Thinking, we're talking about the part of judgement which is separate from emotive judgement.

Right, we should call it judgment. Then we can split judgment in two just like we split all of cognition in two by using the terms perception and judgment.

8 = 2^3

it's not 8 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1

(more like 4 = 2^2, not 4 = 1+1+1+1)

By your mish-mash logic, Thinking is tied to sensing, since photons still go into the eyeballs and make electrical signals even while we're using Judging functions.

Thinking and Sensing can run in parallel. The brain is NOT a serial processor -- jeez. What makes you think that?

 

[MissMurder]

its logical yes, i understand that, i just dont see the point considering its nothing new but i have stated that before so pardon this comment, i just wanted to follow that i understood how it generally worked

Ahem. Why do you consider the improvement and streamlining of an existing concept bad? It's what got us from this:

To this:

 

[Nocapszy]

I don't link them, except that S/N is perception and T/F is judgment, which is just definitional.

I lying scoundrel.
You've said more than once that F and T are inseparable -- interdependent even.
That's a bunch of shit.

Right, we should call it judgment. Then we can split judgment in two just like we split all of cognition in two by using the terms perception and judgment.

Indeed sir -- Thinking and Feeling are not dependent of one another, they are not married. None of that is true.
The entire point of calling it Thinking is to say that it doesn't involve Feeling, except what's required by a biological invention to keep itself alive.

Thinking and Sensing can run in parallel. The brain is NOT a serial processor -- jeez. What makes you think that?

You misread me.
What I said doesn't even sound like Sensing and Thinking can't run parallel -- just that they're not married to one another.

Just like Thinking and Feeling aren't.
Anything the two have in common, would be something referenced as a byproduct or incident of judgement.
That, instead of choking up some half-cocked nonsense about Thinking and Feeling having some kind blood-brothers-like sharing relationship.

 

[mlittrell]

Ahem. Why do you consider the improvement and streamlining of an existing concept bad? It's what got us from this

or from this:

to this:

 

[527468]

No, none of this is your own theory. It's already been tried out and failed. You see, the reason Js are Js is because their functions are organized in a certain way that perceiving is inward and judging is outward, and for Ps visa versa. This fact alone is more important than how one tends to their primary function, because it specifies upon a larger classification. J and P in the original theory are full classifications, and to simply switch the introverted personalities would pose both classifications much too alike. As for the currently used theory, there are viable definitions for the four temperaments. To make it into what your propose more simple is just a downgrade. It doesn't help the current theory.

 

[Jack Flak]

No, none of this is your own theory. It's already been tried out and failed. You see, the reason Js are Js is because their functions are organized in a certain way that perceiving is inward and judging is outward, and for Ps visa versa. This fact alone is more important than how one tends to their primary function, because it specifies upon a larger classification. J and P in the original theory are full classifications, and to simply switch the introverted personalities would pose both classifications much too alike. As for the currently used theory, there are viable definitions for the four temperaments. To make it into what your propose more simple is just a downgrade. It doesn't help the current theory.

Actually, some of it is my own theory. I'm not going to bother explaining what, as you obviously haven't read what I've already written very carefully. As for the rest, you're basically explaining the foundations of MBTT function theory, which I'm familiar with, and which suck.

 

[527468]

INTPly speaking, instead of having judgment be a vital part of our brainwork, like MBTI says, socionics along with Jack's theory says that judgment is a support function.

Well what exactly is a support function and when does it become activated? I agree with this, especially Ni for INTPs. I just need to know what support functions "do."

 

[Jack Flak]

INTPly speaking, instead of having judgment be a vital part of our brainwork, like MBTI says, socionics along with Jack's theory says that judgment is a support function.

Well what exactly is a support function and when does it become activated? I agree with this, especially Ni for INTPs. I just need to know what support functions "do."

I think you're missing the point, lemons. What defines a function as the Support function is being the most dominant function which doesn't compete with the Primary. When we Judge, we either use T or F to process (or both). When we Perceive, we either use N or S to acquire information (or both). If a person is more concerned with N than any other function, T or F may be the Support function.

 

[entropie]

Jack, I currently dont know whats going on here, but I read up there something about Ni and the INTP. I remember you taking this as a possibility into account, when you did analyze yourself sometime.

Back in those days we aggreed that Ni as support function makes no sense in the MBTI concept. A few days ago, I thought about this and I was wondering, could it possibly be that the Si in the INTP is making some compromise with the Ne, so that it could be seen as somewhat Ni in the end ?

Just an idea here, could be complete BS

 

[Jack Flak]

About Ni, yes, I said that the way socionics describes Ni use in the INTP, it makes perfect sense. But so does the way MBTT describes Ti in the INTP. Hence: abandoning both function systems.

could it possibly be that the Si in the INTP is making some compromise with the Ne, so that it could be seen as somewhat Ni in the end ?

That's BlueWing logic! And I disagree with it.

I still think the best way to describe the functions is as I have, because it's simple, and doesn't go very far into the territory of "Well, it could be this, but we don't know."

 

[entropie]

Yes that's makes sense to me. That "it could be that" crap I dont like either.

 

[527468]

I think you're missing the point, lemons. What defines a function as the Support function is being the most dominant function which doesn't compete with the Primary. When we Judge, we either use T or F to process (or both). When we Perceive, we either use N or S to acquire information (or both). If a person is more concerned with N than any other function, T or F may be the Support function.

I "get it" now. I just had to read for a while because I wasn't really interested until I correctly started to see the sense in it. So far my faith in this science lies in Socionics. Their descriptions are spot on.