• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Where does knowledge fit into functions theory?

wolfy

awsm
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
12,251
How does knowledge fit into the model?


Do the perceiving functions have knowledge?
Do they just have access to knowledge?
How does what we know affect and work through the perceiving functions?
Do all the functions have access to the same knowledge?

There seems to be a path implicit in the model. That knowledge is perceived by the perceiving functions and resides in the judging functions. Is that right?

It is also sometimes implied that some functions can work outside of the persons own knowledge boundaries. Rather than the function simply working with what is known to the individual outside of concious cognition. Is this right?
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
How does knowledge fit into the model?


Do the perceiving functions have knowledge?
Do they just have access to knowledge?
How does what we know affect and work through the perceiving functions?
Do all the functions have access to the same knowledge?

There seems to be a path implicit in the model. That knowledge is perceived by the perceiving functions and resides in the judging functions. Is that right?

It is also sometimes implied that some functions can work outside of the persons own knowledge boundaries. Rather than the function simply working with what is known to the individual outside of concious cognition. Is this right?

The basic theories don't factor in for knowledge... nor for growth.

I suppose you can "try" to extend it to account for learning.

The perceiving functions could be influenced by knowledge... as in what you focus on. If it's a situation you're familiar with, you'll naturally zoom in to what you consider to be "important".

By definition though Si would probably be most aware of knowledge?

Similarly judging functions are influenced by knowledge... in this case more directly. Fe & Fi values are based on learning. Ti & Te... well the concept of logic etc is learnt.
 

wolfy

awsm
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
12,251
The basic theories don't factor in for knowledge... nor for growth.

I suppose you can "try" to extend it to account for learning.

The perceiving functions could be influenced by knowledge... as in what you focus on. If it's a situation you're familiar with, you'll naturally zoom in to what you consider to be "important".

By definition though Si would probably be most aware of knowledge?

Similarly judging functions are influenced by knowledge... in this case more directly. Fe & Fi values are based on learning. Ti & Te... well the concept of logic etc is learnt.

The whole system seems to be a sorting system for information. For what you focus on and what you do with what you know. To me, a persons knowledge framework seems to sit outside of the system.
You would think that a persons use of the functions would be limited to the level of their exposure to information. To the persons own learning.

The functions don't learn. They don't have access to knowledge outside of what the individual knows. That's how it seems to me.
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
The whole system seems to be a sorting system for information. For what you focus on and what you do with what you know. To me, a persons knowledge framework seems to sit outside of the system.
You would think that a persons use of the functions would be limited to the level of their exposure to information. To the persons own learning.

The functions don't learn. They don't have access to knowledge outside of what the individual knows. That's how it seems to me.

Hmmm then I'm not sure what's the purpose of using the system if that's so. To me, knowledge and learning defines a huge part of a person. A system that doesn't take that into account would be none too accurate.
 

wolfy

awsm
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
12,251
Hmmm then I'm not sure what's the purpose of using the system if that's so. To me, knowledge and learning defines a huge part of a person. A system that doesn't take that into account would be none too accurate.

I agree, to me knowledge and learning defines a huge part of a person.

I think I did a poor job of asking the question.
I think the system takes it into account but does not address it specifically.
My question is, the functions do something with/to something. They are cognitive processes.

What is the material they process?
information?
experience?
knowledge?

I think an individual is limited to using the functions within their own accumulated knowledge and experiences.

What limits the functions? What limits our thinking?
Do you think the answer to these questions are the same?
 

wolfy

awsm
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
12,251
I think I made a mistake when I said the knowledge framework sits outside of the system. I think the whole system is comprised of our accumulated knowledge, experience and thus limited to it.
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
Nowhere does the system directly mention knowledge and experience... the closest is function development, even that doesn't really address the issue.

We can attempt to fit knowledge to the system. Or simply admit the system is flawed.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
It seems to me that MBTI doesn't concern itself with knowledge, but with a model that explains the nature of interpretive preference.

Our perceiving functions give us raw, uninterpreted data, and uninterpreted data doens't constitute knowledge.

For instance, Se might present you with red, white, and blue splotches, but a judging function is required to take this data, conjoin and relate them in certain ways, i.e., make judgments about the relations that hold between each datum, in order for the perceiver to come to the conclusion that these particular splotches represent, or correspond to, or ______(insert preferred epistemological term here), an American flag.

Of course, the perceiver could err in his judgment, and thus his conclusions would not constitute knowledge, but, in any case, the perceiver has now used his judging function to interpret the data transmitted by his perceiving function.
 

Kingfisher

full of love
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
1,685
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
i am not sure i completely understand this thread, it is a little hard for me to follow.

but i think that S/N determines how we take information and turn it into knowledge.
i think that the sensing function, especially Se, processes information and turns it into functional or practical knowledge, knowledge of things that physically exist.
i think that the intuition function processes information and turns it into theoretical and abstract knowledge, knowledge of ideas and concepts.

maybe that is why this thread is confusing to me. it is pretty highly conceptual, and i think i have a very under-developed intuition.
 

wolfy

awsm
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
12,251
but i think that S/N determines how we take information and turn it into knowledge.
i think that the sensing function, especially Se, processes information and turns it into functional or practical knowledge, knowledge of things that physically exist.
i think that the intuition function processes information and turns it into theoretical and abstract knowledge, knowledge of ideas and concepts.

I just asked the question poorly...I think that's right. Do you think we are limited by all we have been able to perceive and process over the course of our lifetime? All that has come into our awareness. Those are the building blocks you are working with.

perception
In philosophy, psychology, and the cognitive sciences, perception is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information

Two types of consciousness are considerable regarding perception: phenomenal (any occurrence that is observable and physical) and psychological.


I think so. I just want someone to clarify it for me.
 

Kingfisher

full of love
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
1,685
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Do you think we are limited by all we have been able to perceive and process over the course of our lifetime? All that has come into our awareness. Those are the building blocks you are working with.

yeah, i think we are definitely limited by what we perceive in our own lifetime.
i think we are limited because we need input from our enviroment to process, to turn into knowledge. so if we have been exposed to a limited number of things we can only perceive those few things, and we have to build all of our knowledge and understanding based on those few things. i guess it is like Plato's allegory of the cave. if we are only ever exposed to shadows on a wall, we build our idea of reality from that, but if we see the objects casting the shadows we have a verydifferent idea of reality. i cannot believe i just referenced the allegory of the cave, i feel like a huge dork now.

if we are limited by what we percieve in our lifetime, then it seems to me like knowledge and understanding is best served by having as many different experiences as possible.

but i think Owl is right, it not just what we perceive but how we process it. i think someone can be exposed to all kinds of experiences and data, but still not turn it into knowledge.
 

wolfy

awsm
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
12,251
yeah, i think we are definitely limited by what we perceive in our own lifetime.
i think we are limited because we need input from our enviroment to process, to turn into knowledge. so if we have been exposed to a limited number of things we can only perceive those few things, and we have to build all of our knowledge and understanding based on those few things. i guess it is like Plato's allegory of the cave. if we are only ever exposed to shadows on a wall, we build our idea of reality from that, but if we see the objects casting the shadows we have a verydifferent idea of reality. i cannot believe i just referenced the allegory of the cave, i feel like a huge dork now.

if we are limited by what we percieve in our lifetime, then it seems to me like knowledge and understanding is best served by having as many different experiences as possible.

but i think Owl is right, it not just what we perceive but how we process it. i think someone can be exposed to all kinds of experiences and data, but still not turn it into knowledge.

While I was organising my thoughts and thinking about what to say I thought of the allegory of the cave. That's one good use of this forum. To exorcise the dorky demons from your conciousness.

I think everything we have perceived remains in our minds. It's our ability to recall it that makes it knowledge. I think with intuition, it's accessing the store of patterns without requiring conscious thought.

And yeah, we are limited to all we have perceived.
 
G

garbage

Guest
In Socionics, the functions are called Information Metabolism elements.

I kind of like that.

The functions themselves process knowledge in various ways. They are our mental filter and our way of dealing with the world.
 
Top