Tertiary and Inferior

[Simplexity]

I'll answer that question in a moment -- once we establish this:
What is the use of a correlation in a typology?
Perhaps I'm off my mark, but it was always my assumption that the aim of a typology is to enhance individual insight. The first two functions allow for us to reach that, because they're present enough to have a very strong bearing on behavior and personality.

Tertiary and Inferior on the other hand -- the rare birds; the ones happening along as the Primaries see fit -- don't make a legitimate impact on the insight, and studying a correlation (better named a confirmed bias, as you so aptly did) would inevitably encroach on observation: the very foundation of knowledge seeking.

Yes that is what I was trying to get at. I think ultimately working on your dominant and auxillary is your best bet. Those tertiary and inferior are too subtle to ultimately notice when you look at the totality of a person.

If you're arguing about the validity of using them or possibly even referencing them I can agree. Dissonance explained better about the correlation if you were to take the analysis to that extent. I honestly think, though, that I've worked on them moderately enough to the point where I don't feel extremely awkward using them. Does it define me at all, no, but you will see subtle undertones.

On the other end if you were to type based solely on those last two functions I think it would be somewhat disingenuous because they really don't give you an accurate portrayal of who a person is. At the same time depending on who you are you may have different functions in that slot that serve to color your personality

 

[Nocapszy]

No dude, Aimahn, I'm saying, Ne and Ti are the only sure ones for ENTP.
Maybe Te will be stronger than Fe. Maybe Se will be stronger than Si.

Who knows?
Four function modelists certainly don't.

 

[entropie]

No dude, Aimahn, I'm saying, Ne and Ti are the only sure ones for ENTP.
Maybe Te will be stronger than Fe. Maybe Se will be stronger than Si.

Who knows?
Four function modelists certainly don't.

Yea something seems to be definitly wrong, in the end not every type is like every type. Maybe the 8 function system gives a broader variety of interpreting why. While a 2 function system would lack precision. Dont know

 

[Simplexity]

I'm arguing on the basis that those last two aren't set in stone. I guess by that end I'm somewhat disregarding the four function model, so yes I guess that's where your disagreement and opposition come from. I think that you can work on tertiary and inferior functions though.

Do you not agree?

Whether or not they are the same across ALL specific types is something I don't fully agree with. In my case I think I built up specifically Si and Fe.

 

[Jack Flak]

Food for thought (I've said something similar before, like months ago):

Take an individual you know well, and know the type of. Assign two functions to tertiary and inferior to them, which are NOT listed in their MBTT or Socionics function order. If you are worth your weight in cold semen, you'll be able to construct a "rational" argument as to why these functions are valid. This makes traditional functional analysis bunk.

 

[Orangey]

Four function model? Pile of bile.

 

[Nocapszy]

Yea something seems to be definitly wrong, in the end not every type is like every type. Maybe the 8 function system gives a broader variety of interpreting why. While a 2 function system would lack precision. Dont know

Two function model wouldn't lack precision. It's the only one that leaves room for precision.
The other six are left variable depending entirely on the individual.
In reality, all eight are variable. But the first two we use to decide what to call them.
It's like calling something that blends a blender.
By this analogy, what the four function modelists are doing is calling something that only surely blends a blender/slicer.
Well maybe the blender does slice, but on the other hand, it doesn't have to. It might blend my mashing things together, rather than by cutting them up.

 

[Simplexity]

I can agree with that. I was mainly arguing that the functions that I have built up just so happend to align with those prescribed for INTPs in the four function model. Environmental factors such as school most definitely have an effect on the tertiary and inferior. Other INTPs most likely have a different orientation than I, maybe even drastically so.

 

[Jeffster]

What?

 

[Jack Flak]

I can agree with that. I was mainly arguing that the functions that I have built up to aligned with those prescribed for INTPs in the four function model. Environmental factors such as school most definitely have an effect on the tertiary and inferior.

THERE IS NO TERTIARY/INFERIOR! END IT! NOW!

 

[Simplexity]

THERE IS NO TERTIARY/INFERIOR! END IT! NOW!

So are you arguing that even if there were, they shouldn't be called that?

is it because they are so weakly used and ill reflected and overshadowed by your dominant and auxilary that it would be a disservice to call them that?

 

[Jack Flak]

So are you arguing that even if there were, they shouldn't be called that?

is it because they are so weakly used and ill reflected and overshadowed by your dominant and auxilary that it would be a disservice to call them that?

I'm arguing that "It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter why they're dressed as a tiger. Do they have my leg?"

 

[Simplexity]

Ok. So basically define types by their two dominant functions?

 

[Jack Flak]

Ok. So basically define types by their two dominant functions?

Fuckin' DUH. Din't I do that last week?

 

[miss fortune]

I agree with the existance of the 8 functions- because an F or T, for instance, is too flat and one dimensional to describe the difference between types. I don't, however, beleive in the rigidity of the origional system. The first two of the 8 functions are what matters in determining your type, after that, the functions don't necissarily occur in the specified order- and this is how people of the same type can be quite different.

For instance- Ne/Ti makes me an ENTP, even though the next function is Se instead of the "correct" function of Fe. The idea that we are defined by 4 functions alone seems rather silly.

I'm not discounting functions alltogether, but I think that a person can definitley have different tertiary and inferior functions than were origionally prescribed.

 

[Simplexity]

Fuckin' DUH. Din't I do that last week?

See the thing is I get that. But at the same time I don't like jumping ship all the time so I have to look at things from different perspectives, to save a long drawn out argument I basically agree.

At the same time though I was trying to state that people aren't only two functions. Do those two define them? Yes. But there is a lot more to a person than that.

Agree?

 

[entropie]

Two function model wouldn't lack precision. It's the only one that leaves room for precision.
The other six are left variable depending entirely on the individual.
In reality, all eight are variable. But the first two we use to decide what to call them.
It's like calling something that blends a blender.
By this analogy, what the four function modelists are doing is calling something that only surely blends a blender/slicer.
Well maybe the blender does slice, but on the other hand, it doesn't have to. It might blend my mashing things together, rather than by cutting them up.

you really have to explain me this thought in german english one day, I dont get it but it surely sounds intresting.

 

[Jack Flak]

See the thing is I get that. But at the same time I don't like jumping ship all the time so I have to look at things from different perspectives, to save a long drawn out argument I basically agree.

At the same time though I was trying to state that people aren't only two functions. Do those two define them? Yes. But there is a lot more to a person than that.

Agree?

Uh, yeaHHHHHH. Everyone uses all four main functions. What defines the types is a preference for one, and a lesser preference for another (And I/E in general).

 

[Simplexity]

Ok. I just have a habit of having a structure buried in my head (with logical consistency, not necessarily right) and just arguing other points and sides with contradicting logic to sort of test out my theory. I can see why it can be confusing as fuck if you are trying to see what I'm getting at when I'm in that mode.

 

[Jack Flak]

Ok. I just have a habit of having a structure buried in my head (with logical consistency, not necessarily right) and just arguing other points and sides with contradicting logic to sort of test out my theory. I can see why it can be confusing as fuck if you are trying to see what I'm getting at when I'm in that mode.

I would go to the E.R. and have said 'structure' removed before you start jumping to undue conclusions.