What is the rationale behind the function pairs?

zero
New Member

Posts: 1

Tagline: ????

What is the rationale behind the function pairs? Dec 18, 2018 21:12:43 GMT -5 by zero

Quote

Post by zero on Dec 18, 2018 21:12:43 GMT -5

I am a new member to the forum and new to CT as well. In periods I have been interested in jungian types and MBTI, but very soon I have been frustrated with the lack of logic and evidence. So I am glad that I accidentally found this website, CT really makes sense! And maybe vultology when I get more into it, initially I can just say that I find it interesting.
I have never accepted the idea in MBTI that if one has identified the extroverted function, the other function is then by definition introverted. This insisting on regularity/order/symmetry is like saying that a man should always marry a woman. Its equal to the lack of any reasonable explanation for some of the rules in the enneagram, e.g. why the “wing” of a type always have to be one at the side. Humans have a natural love of order. And as a human being I LOVE such systems, although I become disappointed again and again, after some deeper scrutiny. Until now nobody have managed to come up with anything like the periodic table when it comes to psychology.

So I like that CT has rejected some of the ideas in MBTI and started more or less from scratch, but not totally from scratch as some ideas from (newer versions of) MBTI have not been challenged (or at least I cannot find where, neither at the CT website or any MBTI site), one of the ideas is the rule of the the polarity of functions. I LIKE this idea because it creates such a beautiful order, just like when you have found South West you also know NorthEast. But as long as I am skeptic, I am stuck at this point
I am on the brink to just accepting this idea, because a whole new world would open once I accept that Si always combine with Ne. So I really hope to be convinced!

The dichotomic version of MBTI gives a very shallow description, the function pairs open up to a much deeper description/understanding.
As the possible function pairs are given it makes the interplay of the cognitive functions much easier to grasp, whereas it would be quite confusing to have a stack of 8 functions that could combine in every way.

So I would really like to be presented for the argument for the axiom of the function pairs.

Why cant a person have a realistic information gathering (Se) AND a historical Information synthesis (Si). Is this not rather common to find among very dry college professors? Or somebody who has nothing surreal or metaphysical about them. I think I am oscillating between these two, when I am doing my financial accounting, not much intuition is needed then.
Then when I am at a party and find company with someone who has a lot of N, I might go into an oscillation between Ne and Ni – I see some surreal meaning in what the other person says (Ne) and I connect that to some metaphysical viewpoint (Ni) and the conversation gets really bizarre. Couldnt it be that many artist oscillate like that in their creative process, especially avantgarde artists.

I can see that an oscillation like that sooner or later would cause a psychotic breakdown and maybe too much oscillation between Se and Si is what is found in autistic disorders?

So if an oscillation HAS to take place between Pe an Pi (BTW - I can see that there have to be some oscillation, that you cannot use one function separate, but wasn´t Jungs original idea that the “oscillation” happened between the main function and the helping/auxiliary function (J and P))?
I can also see that probably only one oscillation can take place at once, like it is said in the material “It is conceivable that the existence of both axes in the same psyche would cause mental aberrations due to conflicting instructions for how to metabolize information.” but what I suggest is this:
That when oscillating between Pe and Pi I could shift between S(e or I) and N(e or I) depending on what applies best at the moment: Someone says, 'I dreamt about rats tonight'. I could go 'oh, have you had rats in your house in the past? (Si) or I could say 'maybe rats symbolize something unconscious in you (Ni). Whatever I say the other person could stick to Se and refuse my psychobabble and talk about a rat he once saw (Si), or he could use Ni and see what the symbolic meaning could be.
The conversation would be pretty boring if both stayed in Se/Si, I would look at a cup (Se) and say that this was the kind of cups we had in my childhood home (Si) and the other would comment that in his family they always drank tea.

In short – I find SO much depths and meaning in the descriptions of the functions in CT, but I still dont know what to think of the “polarities”. Cant I have any Ne if I have Ni ?.....

Auburn
Admin/Vultologist

Posts: 2,576

Type: TiNe-Ti
Development: ll-l
Temperament: INT
Tagline: Working on Website

What is the rationale behind the function pairs? Dec 18, 2018 22:06:04 GMT -5 by Auburn jdempcy likes this

Quote

Post by Auburn on Dec 18, 2018 22:06:04 GMT -5

Great questions!

Let us assume for a moment that Si and Ne are the same thing structurally, and Ni and Se are the same thing structurally at the genetic level --following in the logic of this article. Lets assume that homo sapiens are 99% similar to each other and this includes the brain. But there is *one* variation (for now lets focus on one) in the wiring of brain circuitry where two wires are crossed. Lets say neural activity is directional in some areas, and in one case a person's processing is going like this N--->S, and in the other person it's going like this S<----N.

If we treat this as a static fact of the individual, then we have to contend with problems. How would an Si/Ne user view the outer world realistically? Are they simply unable to? And can Ni/Se users not hypothesize in the moment? I think these questions are dramatically underestimating the cyclical nature of the brain at the millisecond level.

This is only a theoretical problem if we are viewing functions are generalized/universal domain of information the way Socionics treats them. But in CT we don't view Se as an information domain (i.e. sensation taking place in the external) but as a structural feature of a person. "Sensation taking place in the external" is the S+E temperament in CT, and can happen from combining many functions together.

So for example, if you are an Fe user and need to get something done that is wholly mechanical, you can use Fe (w/ Ti) to do it, but you'll just be expending more energy. It would be like trying to use a wrench to hammer in a nail. The proper tool might be a hammer (Te) but humans work with what they got. At every millisecond loop, you waste energy comparing your action against an irrelevant ethical component, but you get the benefits of Je out of it.

Now, if this were the case, we would expect to see the signs of this compensation (stress) in the way people behave. And as far as I can tell that's precisely what we see. Ne users use their Ne to get a hold of the tangible world, proportional to how well integrated their Si is (cuz they have to use Ne+Si to do the same thing Se does). Or if they don't have developed Si, then they can use Ne to pay attention to the literal sensory world but with a depletion of energy because they are processing an extra layer of associations (N) that are not needed and which the present task omits. This will lead to compensation in the form of boredom and mental fatigue. Getting an Ne user to hyper-focus on the S+E information domain is possible, but quite taxing.

Another example is taking a TiNe like myself and using a combination of Ti+Ne+Si to achieve similar results to Ni. Ne provides real-time abstract correlations which Ti will veto if they don't meet a certain level of consistency, and alignment to what is known (Si). What results is a weeding out of Ne hypotheticals until what remains is the identification of longstanding thematic truths. To suggest that humans can't use their functions in combination to achieve these sort of effects would itself be quite a claim to make.

Suggesting that Ni subject material can only come from "Ni" the function, severely limits the way we frame the human brain. It is akin to saying that a given person simply can't entertain a given idea, at some structural level. This is obviously false, as we can all entertain or generate any idea or thought, absent of some mental deformity. So we cannot ascribe subject material to function axes if we treat the function axes as anything real at the physical level in human beings, because it would structurally limit certain humans from having certain thoughts if the axes are mutually elusive.

If we define functions as general information domains, the only way we can resolve this is to grant every human all 8 information domains ("functions") because we all necessarily have access to all of them, which is what Socionics does. It's a different way of rationalizing the same problem. But you are right in saying that you can "use" Si and Se both, if that is how you are framing the reality of the functions; by content material and information domains. That's just not how CT views functions at all.

~~~~~~~~~~

Now I have not actually answered your question as to why mutually exclusive function pairs are real, or if they are. I've simply provided a rationalization that I feel is internally coherent and competes with the MBTI/Socionics interpretation. Whether what I say is true or not, and whether my interpretation is right, is a matter of scientific investigation that is ongoing.

Last Edit: Dec 18, 2018 22:26:04 GMT -5 by Auburn

Nullius in Verba

teatime
Senior Member

Posts: 401

Type: NeFi

What is the rationale behind the function pairs? Feb 15, 2019 20:19:04 GMT -5 by teatime

Quote

Post by teatime on Feb 15, 2019 20:19:04 GMT -5

I have to disagree with the example that a Fe mechanic would require the use of Ti any more than a Te mechanic would require the use of Fi. Fe is fully a Je function, and it can do anything, IMO, that Te can. There's no popular way to say this, but I have to say what I see: Fe is simply the mapping of emotional/social dynamics onto a field that was once used for Te alone.

I can agree, however, that the user may incur a greater cost (but perhaps the user would reap a greater reward) if the F layer is used in the process.

Last Edit: Feb 15, 2019 20:22:33 GMT -5 by teatime

What is the rationale behind the function pairs?

Post by zero on Dec 18, 2018 21:12:43 GMT -5

Post by Auburn on Dec 18, 2018 22:06:04 GMT -5

Post by teatime on Feb 15, 2019 20:19:04 GMT -5

Discord Chat