Here's the complete Socion with the reciprocal relationships of Duals' leading vs suggestive functions highlighted blue, and duals indicated by colored pairs:
A lot of Socionics materials considers the way functions inter-correlate between dual pairs, and there is similarly a lot of discussion on the expression of each information element in any given personality type: how the leading manifests vs the creative, etc.
Socionics tends to look at different kinds of information elements as operating distinctly but combining their expression to create the 'flavor' of the type. Socionics also has as one of its base assumptions the belief that among the various kinds of information types process, each type has a preference for receiving some forms--via suggestive function--and expressing others--via leading function, for example.
But perhaps types are not collections of specifically arranged information elements so much as those expressed qualities are conferred to individual types by the 'shape' of the personality, where function dimensionality and positioning really just describes the peaks and valleys of the personality. Perhaps where there is a Ti PoLR as a valley, the valley arcs up into an Ne Leading as a cliff. Perhaps those are not distinctly functioning information elements but are given the quality of information elements in the way the personality shapes itself: making functions more like gradients on a scale rather than individual bits in different positions.
What does this shift in thinking mean for individual types? It means that regardless of the interconnected relationships via function processing, types can exist in a vacuum. Being a landscape of peaks and valleys--positive functioning elements vs under-functioning elements--is not the same as thinking of types as being half of a whole duality pair. It means each type can be an individual flavor, good entirely on its own, without the need for a complement or admirers. In short it means an individualized instead of inter-complimentary view of the personality.
MBTI already does something like that in that it looks only at what Socionics considers the valued functions (check out a previous post about the PoLR/Inferior functions). That supports the idea in MBTI that in order to self-develop, one must develop all 4 of the functions in one’s type, even though they are of various strengths. Perhaps Socionics can learn something from this perspective: where instead of thinking of the activation and suggestive functions as functions on which we seek information externally, they can be self-developed.
To some extent this is already a commonly, albeit silently, understood fact that people naturally come to learn how to take care of themselves on their weak functions, especially their valued weak functions, as they mature into adulthood and self-sufficiency. ILEs learn to cook for themselves; IEEs learn to keep their homes clean; ILIs learn to stand their ground; EIIs learn efficiency and exactness in their work. But I think that despite these ways people grow into their personalities and come to terms with themselves, it is not well-enough discussed in the community. Instead there is a hopeful focus on relationships with potential duals--or dualization of a sort with other types--as a means of getting what one is missing from the world or themselves.
There are too many people living on their own these days--both functionally and emotionally--for us in the Socionics community not to account for the ways they are self-sufficient. There are too many people engaged in intensive self-development for us not to accept the ways they are growing into themselves, their whole selves.
Finally there is also a way in which Socionics supports a static view of self, giving types a chance to say “That’s just how I am” about their weak functions, without seeking ways to support real self-transcendence by remaining content with coping mechanisms. Instead there is value in seeking to find as many ways of applying our strengths through and upon our weak functions as possible.
Besides: a landscape doesn't have inherently better or worse parts to it. It is simply that people find it is nicer to build their self-identity upon shores and not in lakes, or on cliffs and not beaches. But it is the whole that is beautiful.
A lot of Socionics materials considers the way functions inter-correlate between dual pairs, and there is similarly a lot of discussion on the expression of each information element in any given personality type: how the leading manifests vs the creative, etc.
Socionics tends to look at different kinds of information elements as operating distinctly but combining their expression to create the 'flavor' of the type. Socionics also has as one of its base assumptions the belief that among the various kinds of information types process, each type has a preference for receiving some forms--via suggestive function--and expressing others--via leading function, for example.
But perhaps types are not collections of specifically arranged information elements so much as those expressed qualities are conferred to individual types by the 'shape' of the personality, where function dimensionality and positioning really just describes the peaks and valleys of the personality. Perhaps where there is a Ti PoLR as a valley, the valley arcs up into an Ne Leading as a cliff. Perhaps those are not distinctly functioning information elements but are given the quality of information elements in the way the personality shapes itself: making functions more like gradients on a scale rather than individual bits in different positions.
What does this shift in thinking mean for individual types? It means that regardless of the interconnected relationships via function processing, types can exist in a vacuum. Being a landscape of peaks and valleys--positive functioning elements vs under-functioning elements--is not the same as thinking of types as being half of a whole duality pair. It means each type can be an individual flavor, good entirely on its own, without the need for a complement or admirers. In short it means an individualized instead of inter-complimentary view of the personality.
MBTI already does something like that in that it looks only at what Socionics considers the valued functions (check out a previous post about the PoLR/Inferior functions). That supports the idea in MBTI that in order to self-develop, one must develop all 4 of the functions in one’s type, even though they are of various strengths. Perhaps Socionics can learn something from this perspective: where instead of thinking of the activation and suggestive functions as functions on which we seek information externally, they can be self-developed.
To some extent this is already a commonly, albeit silently, understood fact that people naturally come to learn how to take care of themselves on their weak functions, especially their valued weak functions, as they mature into adulthood and self-sufficiency. ILEs learn to cook for themselves; IEEs learn to keep their homes clean; ILIs learn to stand their ground; EIIs learn efficiency and exactness in their work. But I think that despite these ways people grow into their personalities and come to terms with themselves, it is not well-enough discussed in the community. Instead there is a hopeful focus on relationships with potential duals--or dualization of a sort with other types--as a means of getting what one is missing from the world or themselves.
There are too many people living on their own these days--both functionally and emotionally--for us in the Socionics community not to account for the ways they are self-sufficient. There are too many people engaged in intensive self-development for us not to accept the ways they are growing into themselves, their whole selves.
Finally there is also a way in which Socionics supports a static view of self, giving types a chance to say “That’s just how I am” about their weak functions, without seeking ways to support real self-transcendence by remaining content with coping mechanisms. Instead there is value in seeking to find as many ways of applying our strengths through and upon our weak functions as possible.
Besides: a landscape doesn't have inherently better or worse parts to it. It is simply that people find it is nicer to build their self-identity upon shores and not in lakes, or on cliffs and not beaches. But it is the whole that is beautiful.
"But perhaps types are not collections of specifically arranged information elements so much as those expressed qualities are conferred to individual types by the 'shape' of the personality, where function dimensionality and positioning really just describes the peaks and valleys of the personality. Perhaps where there is a Ti PoLR as a valley, the valley arcs up into an Ne Leading as a cliff. Perhaps those are not distinctly functioning information elements but are given the quality of information elements in the way the personality shapes itself: making functions more like gradients on a scale rather than individual bits in different positions."
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I really understand or agree with your metaphor, I would say, there is certainly the notion in socionics of how IM elements "converge" forming a type rather than remain distinct elements. Mainly this is quadra values.
Also, I agree that the super-id, and particularly the suggestive function, conventionally thought of as exclusively sought after in others, is far better seen as undergoing a lifetime of development.