Not too surprised. The cognitive functions are pretty vague and hard to see in people.
In the studies they were given operational definitions so vagueness was not an issue. The problem was, operational definitions didn't behave as neat and didn't show correlations as neat as it would be expected by fans of function and type dynamics theory.
Also, your way of talking about functions does not sound vague at all. It's all operational definitions, you seem to be equating functions with concrete traits. Those things are absolutely not hard to see in people. The advantage is that if you are willing to let go of your assumptions then such a concrete tangible approach will easily show you where the theory doesn't work out so well. So I am wondering, how come you haven't seen that, or have you, but you have explanations for all of it?
If it says that, it'll probably be using gender norms to explain the differences. But yes, I don't take the Romance Styles very seriously.
And then the question is, how does socionics functions and gender norms work together. E.g.; where does a socionics function end and where does the gender norm start?
It's my own addition that I'm still working on. It assumed that Se and Si play a role in your physical movements. People with high Se being physically confident with powerful movements while people with high Si would be physically controlled, making precise, graceful movements. As a result, the opposite would show in Intuitors... those with very weak Se (high Ni) moving delicately i.e. small, frail and self-protective movements and those with very weak Si (high Ne) would move clumsily, lacking control but making bigger movements nonetheless.
Interesting, it would be even more interesting if you did your own study about whether this assumption is actually that correct.
Also, how about creative function, I assume your addition is more about leading function showing?
Well, it is if the matter is confusing two things that might appear similarly. You'd be able to apply the qualifiers to distinguish whether it is one thing or the other or know when to suspend judgement between the two until more evidence comes to provide context.
You know, the way these things tend to turn out, I usually end up suspending judgement, meaning that it doesn't seem a very usable theory...
If you look at the article above, the Stable-Normalising temperament (IJ) is one that focuses on personal values/principles etc. and sticks to those rules with a perfectionist quality. If something can't be done perfectly, it often isn't done at all.
Yes, I know that, my question was about however what deeper reason there would be for enneagram 1 overlap with IJ temperament. Enneagram after all is not about cognitive functions, so how come there would be this overlap? Have you ever thought about this?
He could be lying, but it would be unlikely without a reason for why he would be lying. It's very much consistent to the personality he shows in the books.
I didn't imply he was lying. I implied the personality may be more variable than assumed.
I don't know about consistency but the leading function is meant to be set as the source of a person's worldview. As an Ne lead, the basis of all my values and the vast majority of my decisions are those that allow me to do more interesting things with few restrictions and obstacles.
Well glad you have such a consistent worldview that most of your stuff can be categorized under one single approach. I'm not quite sure that everyone is this consistent.
Jesus and then Gandhi, eastern ideas of Ahimsa and other similar memes changed the way we think about resistance. Physical force has been suppressed in western society with the forming of the United Nations. Instead of expansionist wars and conquering of rival nations, countries have to seek arbitration and compromise. Conquering anything by force is no longer seen as valuable but is rather disapproved of. Instead, non-violent resistance is seen as the key to making change. At the same time, western condemnation of Hitler and the Third Reich further vilified Se while also turning people against Fe. Now, not only is violence seen as bad, but being part of public opinion is frowned upon. Peer pressure and sheep-culture are concepts often thrown around nowadays and there is a strong tendency for moral lessons learned in children's TV shows that are of an Fi Ne persuasion.
Just imagine how different the world was back in the ancient world, where things were Beta. Moral worth was tied up with physical superiority and strong leadership. It was the cult of personality that was the 'hero'. Now when we look at Superman, we see the 'hero' fundamentally altered with Delta, Judaeo-Christian morality. At the same time, those who have been oppressed are now looked on with moral warmth. To suffer at the hands of another seems to elevate a person.
Nietzsche talks about this (albeit not through Socionics) in his Genealogy of Morals. He says that the Slave morality has overcome the Noble morality through guilt trips
Alright but why is physical force always related to Se? Not only that, but why is Se also always being equated with physical force here? (That is, if something's Se, then it's physical force as well) Before answering this - somewhat rhetorical question - see below what I really mean by it.
The world is indeed heading in a direction where having knowledge/information/intelligence will achieve more than willingness to enter physical fights. Calling this anti-Se is another thing entirely though. This isn't an explanation for anything at all. Reducing Se (as a cognitive function) to the concrete trait of violence does simplify the theory to the extent that it shows that it doesn't actually explain anything, what's left is just a descriptive approach.
I've seen ILIs being emotionally animated before. One does need to apply context to these situations... To act in the spirit of Fe is to express emotions that are not necessarily sincere so that you can contribute to a group mood. This is what I would be very surprised to see an ILI doing. However, if someone has just managed to excite an ILI (SEEs often can), you can see the emotionality coming out. It's not too common but it happens. The feeling will always be genuine too as they have no Fe to amp things up more than they are.
Yes of course almost anyone should be able to be emotionally animated at times. Now, if the feeling is always genuine, then it isn't really Fe, is it? Then why equate Fe with emotional animation? If you decide not to equate Fe with it but make the definition depend on the source of the emotionality (genuine expression of own feelings or just adjusting group atmosphere), then how do you determine just by looking if it's genuine for the person or not? Dangerous grounds again.
