Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 21/09/2008, 12:35 AM
king king is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 336
Default relative strenghts/weaknesses- using suspect analogy

I've been endeavouring to understand better the relationship between the socionics functions and went off on a tangent. This seems to make sense to me, however it is entirely speculative.

Imagine a football team, in this team the players are the various functions, you as a whole are the team itself.

Just like in a real football team, some functions would have a greater natural potential (genetic determination), others may have a weaker natural potential but through experience (positive social reinforcement, the necessity to rely on this function to succeed in a particular environment) are in practice stronger, at least until the players with the greater potential mature beyond their team mates.

Now some teams will have players that are clearly stronger (the star players) and other players who are clearly weaker. In these cases determining a hierarchy within the team would be relatively simple and the team itself may start to rely solely upon it's star players (who through constant use will develop quickly to their potential), whilst simultaneously putting the weaker players in positions where they are less likely to come into conflict and in turn develop to their potential.

In other teams the relative strength/weakness between the players may be much closer (once again due to nature and/or nurture). In these cases I would imagine determining a hierarchy of strong/weak functions would me much harder, it would become essential to determine both the current strengths and possible potential of these players.

The first type of team (team a), I believe would have a fairly autocratic management system (sense of self), the star players would in effect take sole charge of decision making and would ensure that they'd be picked first regardless of the opposition (er.. I suppose this would be any given situation), they would also monopolise the coaching within the team (er...information gathering, self improvement etc.).
I believe the advantage of team a, would be that it would have a clear stable tactic and there would be little internal conflict within the team due to there being a definitive hierarchy.

Team b, would be more democratic in nature and would be able to choose more freely which players would be best suited against different oppositions, this would allow the team a greater flexibility and also allow them collectively to develop to a greater potential.
Disadvantages may be more conflict between the players due to there being no certain power structure, it may take longer to make decisions, due to the more drawn out democratic process and finally due to resources being divided more evenly between more players, the players with the strongest natural potential may not be able to realise this.

Anyway as I said, this seems to make sense to me, but I would be happy to have some holes picked in it.


forgot the disadvantages of team a.
disadvantages may be that this team may rely on the star player when in fact a different player may be able to deal with the oppostion more effectively also team development will be limited to the stronger players.

Last edited by king; 21/09/2008 at 12:35 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 21/09/2008, 03:14 AM
king king is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 336
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by king View Post
In these cases I would imagine determining a hierarchy of strong/weak functions would me much harder, it would become essential to determine both the current strengths and possible potential of these players.
Freudian slip
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 30/09/2008, 12:08 AM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by king View Post
I've been endeavouring to understand better the relationship between the socionics functions and went off on a tangent. This seems to make sense to me, however it is entirely speculative.

Imagine a football team, in this team the players are the various functions, you as a whole are the team itself.

Just like in a real football team, some functions would have a greater natural potential (genetic determination), others may have a weaker natural potential but through experience (positive social reinforcement, the necessity to rely on this function to succeed in a particular environment) are in practice stronger, at least until the players with the greater potential mature beyond their team mates.

Now some teams will have players that are clearly stronger (the star players) and other players who are clearly weaker. In these cases determining a hierarchy within the team would be relatively simple and the team itself may start to rely solely upon it's star players (who through constant use will develop quickly to their potential), whilst simultaneously putting the weaker players in positions where they are less likely to come into conflict and in turn develop to their potential.

In other teams the relative strength/weakness between the players may be much closer (once again due to nature and/or nurture). In these cases I would imagine determining a hierarchy of strong/weak functions would me much harder, it would become essential to determine both the current strengths and possible potential of these players.

The first type of team (team a), I believe would have a fairly autocratic management system (sense of self), the star players would in effect take sole charge of decision making and would ensure that they'd be picked first regardless of the opposition (er.. I suppose this would be any given situation), they would also monopolise the coaching within the team (er...information gathering, self improvement etc.).
I believe the advantage of team a, would be that it would have a clear stable tactic and there would be little internal conflict within the team due to there being a definitive hierarchy.

Team b, would be more democratic in nature and would be able to choose more freely which players would be best suited against different oppositions, this would allow the team a greater flexibility and also allow them collectively to develop to a greater potential.
Disadvantages may be more conflict between the players due to there being no certain power structure, it may take longer to make decisions, due to the more drawn out democratic process and finally due to resources being divided more evenly between more players, the players with the strongest natural potential may not be able to realise this.

Anyway as I said, this seems to make sense to me, but I would be happy to have some holes picked in it.


forgot the disadvantages of team a.
disadvantages may be that this team may rely on the star player when in fact a different player may be able to deal with the oppostion more effectively also team development will be limited to the stronger players.

The funny thing here is that each function is a human!

So this is how you visualize individualistic brains and collectivistic brains?

The comparison between an individualistic- and a collectivistic set of functions is interesting in that it suggests that the brains over-all performance is measured by it weakest function not the strongest. Like a having a crappy goal keeper.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 30/09/2008, 01:29 AM
king king is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 336
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
The funny thing here is that each function is a human!

So this is how you visualize individualistic brains and collectivistic brains?

The comparison between an individualistic- and a collectivistic set of functions is interesting in that it suggests that the brains over-all performance is measured by it weakest function not the strongest. Like a having a crappy goal keeper.
I readily admit the anology is suspect, the reasoning even more so.

I am interested in the relationship between internal and external politics and how peoples views of the functions reflected this (poor pastiche of Plato).

There seems to be some debate for example over whether you can change type, function preference etc.. I wanted to get an idea whether people who believed in static/dynamic functions had either liberal/conservative external politics. I'm also interested in whether type itself can predispose someone to either view.

This didn't work!!!!

I also chucked in a few other bits which I think were picked up by people smarter than myself. The good thing about having broad fuzzy logic is that people with proper logic can pick through the rubble and pick out things that may be useful.


goalkeeper ...no that's just silly
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 30/09/2008, 06:22 AM
RSV3's Avatar
RSV3 RSV3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by king View Post
I readily admit the anology is suspect, the reasoning even more so.

I am interested in the relationship between internal and external politics and how peoples views of the functions reflected this (poor pastiche of Plato).

There seems to be some debate for example over whether you can change type, function preference etc.. I wanted to get an idea whether people who believed in static/dynamic functions had either liberal/conservative external politics. I'm also interested in whether type itself can predispose someone to either view.
Statics (EP and IJ) are generally more conservative and dynamics (IP and EJ) are generally more liberal. However this is just a generalization and there are a lot of exceptions.
__________________
Sociotype.com

Increased expression of one function (1) suppresses the opposing intradichotomy function and (2) suppresses the opposing intrablock function (and vise versa).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 30/09/2008, 08:17 AM
shadowpuppet's Avatar
shadowpuppet shadowpuppet is offline
the Omniscient
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3 View Post
Statics (EP and IJ) are generally more conservative and dynamics (IP and EJ) are generally more liberal. However this is just a generalization and there are a lot of exceptions.
I guess I could see that...

...since static types focus on unchanging principles and dynamic types focus on changing conditions.
__________________

u!




Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
Thanks. Now I understand why Prom thinks you are the most intelligent person at this forum.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 30/09/2008, 11:27 PM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowpuppet View Post
I guess I could see that...

...since static types focus on unchanging principles and dynamic types focus on changing conditions.
"unchanging principles"... ? Now I regret I gave you you're hook line... You almost lost the right to use it.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 30/09/2008, 11:47 PM
Cyclops Cyclops is offline
Gone on holiday...
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
"unchanging principles"... ? Now I regret I gave you you're hook line... You almost lost the right to use it.
Perhaps he's referring to Ti/Fi
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 30/09/2008, 11:52 PM
shadowpuppet's Avatar
shadowpuppet shadowpuppet is offline
the Omniscient
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 642
Default

It can go either way.

Prom, a dynamic type, is also pretty conservative as is typical of Gammas. Crazedrat, who is the same type, is a left-wing fanatic. From my experience (this and others), I have become quite certain that -leaders share more of a blind self-confidence in their personal beliefs than a common political agenda.
__________________

u!




Quote:
Originally Posted by Vibration View Post
Thanks. Now I understand why Prom thinks you are the most intelligent person at this forum.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01/10/2008, 01:09 AM
Vibration Vibration is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 448
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
Perhaps he's referring to Ti/Fi
Ti changes principles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowpuppet View Post
It can go either way.

Prom, a dynamic type, is also pretty conservative as is typical of Gammas. Crazedrat, who is the same type, is a left-wing fanatic. From my experience (this and others), I have become quite certain that -leaders share more of a blind self-confidence in their personal beliefs than a common political agenda.
"also"? hahaha!

Last edited by Vibration; 01/10/2008 at 01:10 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 SOCIONICS.COM