This provides actual testable hypotheses, e.g. that between Ni/Fe and Ti/Se alternation we will see brief moments of supposedly unconscious functions. They can be verified as such because nothing else would supposedly fit. Keep a look out for this I guess. Also, socionics model of ego/super-ego/id/super-id may well be valid here, with some re-interpreting of what those terms mean, and also which are the conscious blocks (since it's meant to be Ni-Fe with Ti-Se). I think Si-Te may be super-id for INFJ - id is what we want (Ti-Se), super-id is how we will have to get it. Ni-Fe is our ego, Fi-Ne is our super-ego.
Ooh I tried adding in all 8 functions and it works nicely. Basically INFJ is Nx(f) Fy(n) [intermediate Ny(t), Fx(s), Sx(f), Ty(n)] Tx(s) Sy(t). x/y generalises whatever other subscripts I was coming up with before. The important thing is that x and y are of opposite nature whatever way you look at it. We can use i and e just as well, as long as we recognise that these notions generalise when providing a full account. The (k) bit is the function that that demi-function passes to, e.g. Ni(f) can pass to Fe(n) or Fi(s). Note that Fe(n) can then pass the information right back after processing, which is what we recognise as conscious cognition. Fi on the other hand must pass straight to S, which has the option of consciously operating with Ti (if it is responsive).
Actually I think the XXXX thing was just saying that ego and id and super-ego and super-id are all balanced, in socionics terms. The ego is the main conscious block, the super ego is the parallel function, the id is the complementing functions, the super-id is tert/inf. Both ego and super-id (not super-ego) are conscious. So, we have a tridivision of conscious/unconscious, ego/id and super/-.
well I don't try to think about it. It just happens. Nothing else to think about I guess. (I'm using four subscripts for each function now o.o, wayy over thinking. INFJ = Nijdf-Fepan-Tijds-Sepat). dom and ter elements are directive, aux and inf elements are adaptive, the j/p is analogous to J/P-dom, just as i/e is analogous to I/E). Functions are then also classed by what function they naturally conjur up, e.g. INFJs Ni has a natural F quality to it, because it is designed to flow in real time into F.)
They would maybe be XXXX in the sense that each usual dichotomy is equally represented on some level. However, at the level of real world interactions the usual dichotomies do get stressed, so this doesn't even matter. They still only access half of the function subtypes, the others are covered/unconscious.
So, I think everyone is XXXX, in 16 different ways.
Ni and Fe and Ti and Se are all equal parts of the existence for the INFJ, though for some reason Ni and Fe get most emphasised in society. I think this has to do with what I was saying about the conformance of certain function variants to the world structure, and the incompatibility of the others. Social life makes some functions work well, and some not.
Se for the INFJ is seen through an often very observant mode of viewing the environment, seeing all phenomena occur as is. Ti then becomes the subject viewing this. Often your real time observances will be put under an analytical lens, e.g. tracking the movements of an insect. This doesn't seem to be very conducive cognition for acting as an organism, but is just as real as the Directive side of the INFJ.
o.o yeah I know (haven't you known for a while?), though I'm not sure what internal/external means exactly. (something you can "point to" vs something you can't?) NF vs ST dichotomising comes up a fair bit. There's the holistic, amorphous vs concrete that I've seen mentioned on a Jung related typology, internal/external, eyes of the group vs eyes of the self for N vs S and judgments relating to the group vs judgments relating to the self for F vs T (SkyWalker's), even Pod'Lair has Si/Ti = checking, Ni/Fi = feeling out (strangely enough I mentioned to Logic ages ago how I thought N and F were holistic processes, S and T were linear in the sense that they point to a single thing given the data, he totally rejected it)
Yeah they're exactly the same. The links are due to having a common rational or irrational function but inverted, e.g. Nij and Nep with the INFJ/ENTP, but with the other function of a different kind (T vs F).
My problem with the supervision concepts is that I would have expected the dynamics to be different depending on whether the types were dominant rationals or irrationals, i.e. whether the dominant or auxiliary is the one which forms the complement.
Both of those third-tier dichotomies are about how the functions get pairs as you moved from i to e or p to j in a cycle of all four functions, for example: Fij - Fep - Nij - Nep - Tij - Tep - Sij - Sep - Fij This contains the INFJ, ENTP, ISTJ and ESFP. (one dichotomy is a result of the i and e chain, the other is due to the p and j chain). So like how quadra values are about valuing functions being in a particular place/role, cognitive styles is about functions being linked to a particular other function. I don't know what exactly this means in terms of how you identify the different chains though. If i->e and p->j, whatever that means, then static cycles are due to these conflicting so no movement is possible, dynamic cycles are where these go together. i.e. I have no idea of why positive/negative, involute/evolute results, but it's something to do with that `\()/`
I don't know whether to trust that or not. I'm not sure why those dichotomies follow from the different combinations of functions (I don't know the reasons intuitively so I won't accept it, = what dichotomy?), so they might not correlate at all, or might correlate in a way which is misrepresented by the cognitive styles.