MBTI functions, loosely translated to Socionics, go something like this, where pink is MBTI cognitive functions and black are Socionics' function positions:
Socionically speaking, considering a type's vulnerable function is a particularly direct way of determining whether a person has been accurately typed. It is 1-dimensional, which can, among other things, denote a stripped-down quality. Its dimensionality also can be interpreted as having for a reference only one's personal experience in using it, as well as a limited and simplistic personal perspective on the way others use it. In the function dichotomies, the Vulnerable function is considered to be weak; mental; producing; inert; subdued; evaluatory; cautious; unvalued; and hated. To extrapolate, the literature suggests that one spends time thinking painfully about incompetence on this function; attempts to use it in the world but in ways that are found to be inappropriate, too little or too strong, anxiously underachieving or stressfully overachieving, even though one is cautious in its use; and one certainly prefers not to use it if not forced by circumstance.
MBTI thinks of the inferior function as a blind spot, an overlooked spot, an internal position which puts the personality at a particular disadvantage in a way that blocks growth and personal development. But Socionics suggests that the vulnerable function is a painfully conscious one. It is not ignored, however much one would like to--instead, it is consciously and painfully worked through or around, circumstance after circumstance.
The vulnerable function: the place of least resistance: it's the major flaw in personality. As a type with Te in the PoLR position, I find that I [guardedly] relate to this:
But, similarly to how the inferior function and the suggestive function is perceived, there is also a nagging experience of lack when there is no constant, subdued, high-quality information coming in from the world on this function--or perhaps when there is no demonstrative function working externally, supplying the missing qualities. If only someone would come and take the burden off. If only circumstances were not so demanding of me, one might silently think.
I think types generally are given to thinking of negatives in their worlds through the lens of their vulnerable functions. I know my experience of it is a world filled with a silent shaming demand that I improve my work productivity, my general production...that I carry out the details of work with precision and exactitude, that I say exactly what I mean, that I achieve factual accuracy and accept information as it is given.
The light in all this is the realization that one's weaknesses, Socionically speaking, cannot ever improve to become our strengths; however, one can use one's strengths to cover the inadequacies of one's weaknesses.
| 1: LEADING | 2: CREATIVE |
| DOMINANT | AUXILARY |
| 4: VULNERABLE | 3: ROLE |
| 6: ACTIVATION | 5: SUGGESTIVE |
| TERTIARY | INFERIOR |
| 7: RESTRICTIVE | 8: DEMONSTRATIVE |
You can deduct this lining-up of structures when you consider an MBTI type vs the same Socionics type (where introverted MBTI types switch the J/P determination for the purposes of this review). Take an MBTI ESTJ vs a Socionics LSE for example:
| 1: LEADING | 2: CREATIVE |
| Te | Si |
| DOMINANT | AUXILARY |
| 4: VULNERABLE | 3: ROLE |
| Ni | Fe |
| 6: ACTIVATION | 5: SUGGESTIVE |
| Ne | Fi |
| TERTIARY | INFERIOR |
| 7: RESTRICTIVE | 8: DEMONSTRATIVE |
| Ti | Se |
Clearly, the functions that are considered weakest are not identical in their positions in each typology system. MBTI's inferior function--the least evolved, sometimes called the shadow function--is considered an area of neglected needs; a weak point in the personality with which there is a love-hate relationship:
"People don't focus on information coming from their Inferior Function because they know that it isn't their strong point - they cannot discern information well in this area. It feels strange and unfamiliar. People may feel like they are being childish when trying to express themselves in grip of their inferior function, and no one will take them seriously. They feel like they are not going to make much of an impact...People don't rely on information coming from their Inferior Function directly because they don't want to compromise their world view and how they perceive and feel about themselves." ~ "Form of the Inferior Functions"Reading about MBTI's inferior function sounds as though it is anticipating constant support externally, which is really how the Suggestive function is structured. Yes, that could apply to the Socionics relationship of a type's vulnerable function correlating with their dual's demonstrative function, but MBTI's inferior function also carries with it a sense of unmet needs: that this function's information is needed for their health and wellbeing, but they are unable to themselves provide it; that is far more in line with Socionics' suggestive function than vulnerable. In MBTI the idea that each individual is a complete personality and is capable of reaching ideal functioning without external support is an individualistic perspective, while Socionics assumes the interconnectedness of relations as a base: that people are meant to fit together a certain way and express various functions in tandem. I can see how MBTI supports a needs-unmet paradigm for characterizing the inferior function, and therefore frames it as something that individuals can cultivate to positive ends; but I find more value in thinking of Socionics' Vulnerable function as being the Achilles' heel of personality, where no real improvement is lasting and coping mechanisms are defensively justified as personal evolution. This isn't the way the Inferior function's correlation, the Suggestive function, is described in Socionics. However MBTI considers it to be the weak point in personality, so it isn't improper to contrast MBTI's inferior function with Socionics' vulnerable function.
Socionically speaking, considering a type's vulnerable function is a particularly direct way of determining whether a person has been accurately typed. It is 1-dimensional, which can, among other things, denote a stripped-down quality. Its dimensionality also can be interpreted as having for a reference only one's personal experience in using it, as well as a limited and simplistic personal perspective on the way others use it. In the function dichotomies, the Vulnerable function is considered to be weak; mental; producing; inert; subdued; evaluatory; cautious; unvalued; and hated. To extrapolate, the literature suggests that one spends time thinking painfully about incompetence on this function; attempts to use it in the world but in ways that are found to be inappropriate, too little or too strong, anxiously underachieving or stressfully overachieving, even though one is cautious in its use; and one certainly prefers not to use it if not forced by circumstance.
MBTI thinks of the inferior function as a blind spot, an overlooked spot, an internal position which puts the personality at a particular disadvantage in a way that blocks growth and personal development. But Socionics suggests that the vulnerable function is a painfully conscious one. It is not ignored, however much one would like to--instead, it is consciously and painfully worked through or around, circumstance after circumstance.
The vulnerable function: the place of least resistance: it's the major flaw in personality. As a type with Te in the PoLR position, I find that I [guardedly] relate to this:
"A type with Te PoLR tends to reject facts given from a source which they are personally unfamiliar with, firmly believing they can make their own decisions that are solely based on their own perspective and reasoning about it. They will tend to become defensive when questioned about their rationale or efficiency, pointing out that there is no such thing as objective "fact". Also, these types experience a significant level of stress in tending to day-to-day must do's and responsibilities in life (like routine maintenance or working productively), manifesting itself as a general laziness or hyper-diligence." ~ "Super-Ego Block Functions"In working with information on the vulnerable function, it's especially clear when other functions come into play: faced with a string of factual data, for example, the most effective method of working with it for me is to consider emergent patterns--that is, consider it through an Ni lens. Or, 'surrender' to it as an inevitable requirement--Se+Ti lens. Still there is an impulse to turn away, move away from it somehow, to be minimalist in its use.
But, similarly to how the inferior function and the suggestive function is perceived, there is also a nagging experience of lack when there is no constant, subdued, high-quality information coming in from the world on this function--or perhaps when there is no demonstrative function working externally, supplying the missing qualities. If only someone would come and take the burden off. If only circumstances were not so demanding of me, one might silently think.
I think types generally are given to thinking of negatives in their worlds through the lens of their vulnerable functions. I know my experience of it is a world filled with a silent shaming demand that I improve my work productivity, my general production...that I carry out the details of work with precision and exactitude, that I say exactly what I mean, that I achieve factual accuracy and accept information as it is given.
The light in all this is the realization that one's weaknesses, Socionically speaking, cannot ever improve to become our strengths; however, one can use one's strengths to cover the inadequacies of one's weaknesses.
Finnaly some clarification in this inconsistency! many thx :D
ReplyDelete