1. Dominant - Hero - Leading Function - Explained Correctly

If you ever want help finding out your true Jungian personality type, please email [e-mail] with 'Find my Type' in the title to book your paid Diagnostic Interview.
My comprehensive crash course on Socionics will be released early next year to a paying audience, so if you would like to be notified when it is available, please email [e-mail] with 'Course' in the title to be on my 2023 reminder list.
#dominant #hero #leading #cognitivefunctions #socionics #mbti
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: www.youtube.co...
Become a Patron: / worldsocionics
Join our Facebook group: / worldsocionicssociety
Like our Facebook page: / worldsocionicssociety
Check out our Blog: worldsocionics....

[@Nyalloyd]

I’m gonna listen to this voice for hours.

[@SvenP]

You mentioned people judge each other through their dominant function. Augusta did not describe the ego block this way, but rather the super-ego. Because that is the “good vs bad” way of looking at the world. She also described the Super-id as an area where people had an “anti-consciousness”. Meaning they would feel negatively about people if they did not do those functions. For example. An IEE will be upset with people who don’t do SI and TE. She goes on to say IEE is strong fighter for accepted mainstream science, and views people who goes against this in a very bad light. (TI polr, incapable of subjective theoretical thoughts) The dominant isn’t a “judgmental” function. But the Ego=block is very good for correcting other people’s mistakes, which can be done without judgement on their character. Character judgements is done by weaker functions. That being said, great seeing this series, but let's not forget that until socionics is empirically proven, you can't claim something as "Explained correctly"

[@WorldSocionics]

Ausra said many things, some of it correct, some of it not correct. For instance, she also said that Ti is responsible for spatial awareness. These videos are not meant to cohere with every thought of Ausra unless what Ausra thought actually made sense There is certainly truth that expectations of others is to be found in the other valued elements, such as the Super-Id, even in the hypocritical case of the Suggestive blaming a partner for not providing what one needs but cannot themselves do. However the idea that the Dominant function is a lens through which we at least initially perceive merit and the lack thereof is commonly observable in people upon being typed. It also makes sense, if you have leading program, how could you not see everything through it? The superego being a place of judgement towards others does not make logical sense. It must by the dichotomies making it up be a place where the subject feels judged by others. Empirical evidence can never say what is correct, only what is not correct. The source of correctness is coherence to foundational axioms, and this is my attempt to both clearly explain these axioms and the phenomena that necessarily result from them. For instance, a Dominant function can only be described correctly if it is coherent with an approach to metabolising information that is Public, Strong, Valued, Stubborn, Constant, Obvious and Demanding. Nevertheless my publicly saying that these explanations are correct is also an invitation and provocation to challenge. A successful challenge would accomplish one or more of three things: 1) to show a dichotomy is either not salient, false, or not logically connected to the other dichotomies, 2) to show that the description of ensuing functions do not follow in some way or even contradict the dichotomies, or to 3) show evidence that disproves the claims made about the function and how a person actually operates.

[@SvenP]

​@@WorldSocionics "Ti is responsible for spatial awareness". Do you remember where you read that? There is also a distinction I would like to make between the "judgements" of the different blocks. You could say the ego block is very critical, and might seem as nit-picky, because it sees problems and wants to help you solve them. But this is in no way a judgement on your character. They just naturally want to teach you to improve. For example, you are very happy to point out people's logical arguments flaws, but you don't seem to be irritated with people or view the negatively if you have to explain yourself twice. So you are critical, but not judgmental.

[@fadingintent]

@@SvenP Judgement is not a negative thing, although in some cases it can be. Dictionary | Judgement: The ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions. Your leading function might play out like this: It's funny how this guy can't understand this simple obvious thing. Let me help him with it. (You have judged his ability to do your leading function, then you have decided to not be critical about that judgement.) Or: This guy is really skilled at doing something I can not! He is amazing! (You have judged his ability to do maybe one of your weaker functions. Then you have decided to not be critical about it.)

[@SvenP]

@@fadingintent no. Maybe re-read what I said to see the difference?

[@fadingintent]

@@SvenP You don't give much information. :) >> You mentioned people judge each other through their dominant function. Augusta did not describe the ego block this way, but rather the super-ego. So what is your statement? I read this as you not agreeing that people are capable of judging (comparing, expecting, predicting - HA! I probably associate here more meanings/connections than most people with different stacks would. I can almost see where we might diverge.) the world through their dominant function. I'm saying that your view on the word "judgement" is too "static". I would say that you can use the word in very different situations, sometimes with different meanings. You can forget that some Augusta exists and only map the word within the context of the dominant function and how that would manifest. But my awareness is "dynamic" and doesn't care about such distinctions, so maybe I push against something that your stack needs to clear out, even though my stack doesn't need it.

[@justinb9612]

This is really brilliant. It’s great that someone is up to the task of really tearing down and making sense of all of these different interpretations of type theory or whatever you want to call it. There is so much nonsense and made up rules such as the trickster function and all of these different definitions that get thrown about that differ from one “expert” to the next. What you seem to be doing is really breaking it down to what is real, and explaining it in a way that while complex is so much easier to understand than most of what I hear from typologists. Thanks for the clarity you are helping to bring to an often convoluted thing.

[@andersonsoares158]

That was really interesting. When I started to study Jung cognitive functions the first thing I thought was, "wait, if I have Ni, Fe, Ti and Se, It means that I don't have Ne, Fi, Te and Si?! That's awkward cause sometimes seems like I'm using some of this functions, so something is off".... I come up exactly with that thought about using two or more functions to emulate a determined function that I didn't had. Then I learn about BB, and now socionics. I was always reluctant to study socionics cause I thought it was the same thing as BB but with a different nomenclature. But it is really different and make more sense too.

[@wintermute3402]

To the people commenting and criticising Jack for saying we judge others for our leading function, be careful not to project the assumption that he is saying we judge others *with* our leading function. That would, of course, depend on if the leading function itself were a rational aspect. It can be the case, if it is instead irrational, that the judgment is made using the rational creative function *for* the leading irrational function. This is what Jack said, verbtim, if you listen closely. He says "judging others *for*", not judging others *with*.

[@Mart-Bro]

This is excellent content here. Clearly a lot of work went in, thanks for taking on this project :D

[@WorldSocionics]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@kjdaniels3267]

Nice video Jack! Yeah I totally agree with you Jack about using an 8 function model instead of a 4 function model. It’s definitely outdated part of the MBTI System. It makes sense that as a type we would be able to utilize 7 out of 8 functions (excluding the Blindspot obviously). 4 function models are inherently very limited.

[@ineedhelp8573]

That is where the "improvement" in the system that they bring. In mbti you cant have fe and fi but for me it always depends on the subject i prefer one over another. This shows why i have that kind off feeling

[@jphone9200]

You should make s video on how each function manifests in this slot

[@cavejohnson4054]

ty, the Socionics model makes more sense than the Meijers Bridges

[@axiiscognitivetypology]

Jack, what this really is about is you not recognizing extroverted intuition as an extroverted perception. Both are extroverted perception as both cluster into this definition : Pe's primary focus is the intake and creation of specific aspects of object experience. As an extroverted function, Pe's frame of reference is concerned with these aspects directly, with the fidelity of these mental objects obtained in high resolution. People with strong Pe are often exploratory by nature, seeking more object experience to add to an ever growing catalog of connections. If you refer back to our talk, (and believe me I know I am not great at explaining myself or other things in real-time), my point remains the same: extroverted intuition is concretized by introverted sensation. The two (Se and Ne) are opposites you cannot have both. Se's focus is the physical characteristics of the object in actuality and attention is drawn towards the strongest sensation. With extroverted intuition, you have an unconscious process of expectation which "seizes and shapes the object." Jung was clear about this, I think: " But since intuition, in the extraverted attitude, has a prevailingly objective orientation, it actually comes very near to sensation; indeed, the expectant attitude towards outer objects may, with almost equal probability, avail itself of sensation. Hence, for intuition really to become paramount, sensation must to a large extent be suppressed. I am now speaking of sensation as the simple and direct sense-reaction, an almost definite physiological and psychic datum. This must be expressly established beforehand, because, if I ask the intuitive how he is [p. 463] orientated, he will speak of things which are quite indistinguishable from sense-perceptions. Frequently he will even make use of the term 'sensation'. He actually has sensations, but he is not guided by them per se, merely using them as directing-points for his distant vision. They are selected by unconscious expectation. Not the strongest sensation." I agree with what you said about the conflation of the term "function." Nevertheless, I do think this issue with Carl Jung is one where you are not thinking like a Jungian, you are thinking like a Socionist, and so you are misrepresenting, unintentionally, this approach to the very complex problem of personality.

[@WorldSocionics]

I think the issue here is divergence over what it means to "have" or "use". For me, if I am passable at assessing my immediate surroundings and acting assertively and decisively to secure a concrete physical advantage, and it is a certainty that I can do this somewhat, I am using and thereby possessing Se, and that is not in any part Si or Ne. However, I think we both can agree that I do not "value" Se and consistently prefer to open and explore possibilities rather than assert my will to impact on physical reality in way that prevents alternatives from flourishing. What causes me to engage in what I identify as Se is external pressures and expectations, and the need to react to these demands, lest I lose out on greater possibilities and opportunities in Ne terms. I call this uncomfortable transition from the hero into the demonic a "Masking" transition, something which is only negated by external provision of the anima, which releases one from the struggle of losing oneself in conformity.

[@axiiscognitivetypology]

@@WorldSocionics Jack, what do you mean by "provision of the anima?" From what I have observed, I can agree that you do not value Se. Nevertheless, we may be talking about different things here again. External pressures/expectations/obligations to me fall under the extroverted judgment umbrella not extroverted perception. Pressures/ expectations/obligations etc. are imposed by society. It is a rational realm of objective values. I don't think it has anything to do with the irrational, unless we are talking about real-time action possibilities, improvisation, and bouncing back (as it relates to your ability to seize opportunities, strike and counter...) I would agree that is more Pe. Even still, we would be referring to a mode of Interaction with Pe subordinate to Je. It seems to me whenever "force" comes up we are referring to a process involving both Je, Pe, and to a lesser degree Ji.

[@treblestrings6263]

Saying that you can't have both Se & Ne because they are diametrically opposed to eachother is like saying you can't have Ti & Fe because they are diametrically opposed to eachother. Jung wrote about how an equal & opposites are needed to counterbalance the psyche, with feeling balancing thinking & vice versa, Intuition balancing sensing & vice versa, Extraversion balancing introversion & vice versa, so who is to say that Se doesn't also balance Ne & vice versa? (Saying vice versa too much is a vice, I know. Lol.)

[@Rawwcj]

@@treblestrings6263 Two opposite functions S & N of the same attitude E + E cannot balance each other.

[@WorldSocionics]

They can't, they are mutually exclusive on the informational level, but that doesn't mean an organism can't mode switch. It's just not comfortable.

[@sylviaowega3839]

Question: Is the individual who uses introverted intuition (Ni) more intuitive than the who using extroverted intuition (Ne)?

[@WorldSocionics]

I would say they are equally intuitive but unbalanced in the kind of iNtuition they prefer.

[@AdoptionLawSourceTrinity]

I can understand why Ni, Ne, Si and Se are information elements in that they are acted upon. Are Ti, Te, Fi and Fe not information elements since they judge the information and are not acted upon?

[@WorldSocionics]

Judgements, as opposed to the act of judging are no more active than Perceptions as opposed to the act of perceiving. An example: your genetic code. A structure that ordains the phenotypes you will physically manifest. It is a Judgement, prescriptive in its nature rather than descriptive, but no less a piece of information to be processed by a person than the shape, colour, texture, smell and taste of a block of cheese.

[@AdoptionLawSourceTrinity]

I think what's throwing me off are words like "judging" and "refining" which I see as volitional as opposed to passive. Are any of our volitional decisions related to the information elements?

[@jaredvaughan1665]

Using the 4 function model is like driving a Ford Model T. Very outdated.

[@treblestrings6263]

Not even outdated since even 100 years ago, this idea that "you only have four functions" wasn't a thing. It seems that the nü fangled "Objective" Personality System people invented or popularized this. In a sense, Carl Jung's OG model was an 8 function model as in that "theory", all of the types had all 8 function-attitudes. So, it's like, where do you get "there's only four" from?

[@UrbanArtCentral]

Do u think at some point of a person's, eg. Under extreme stress, mid life crisis etc. A person's dominon fx can be shut down for a time?

[@WorldSocionics]

Hard to see a Leading function be shut down

[@felipecagorago]

6:30

[@jennys_life]

Thank you for the video. It was quite interesting and you make a lot of good points but I'm actually confused :) I'm confused about the active/passive thing and why you want to call functions elements. Here is how I think about it: If I say "the blue shirt is my favorite shirt" then the word "shirt" is correct in both cases. Likewise if I say "the introverted thinking-function is my leading function" then the word "function" would be correct in both cases. All of the above is quite passive. Only the ACT of WEARING the shirt or USING the function would make it active. I always thought the position in the function stack applies attributes on how you use the function, not itself acting upon it. You as the human acts upon it by using it. So maybe you could clear up my confusion on how this works and where I got it wrong. Thanks again for the video

[@WorldSocionics]

I think the source of the confusion is you not being aware of the metaphysical nature of the Elements. You are perhaps very used to thinking of Se or Te in form when they are being used. I am used to thinking of Sensation and Thinking even without people to use them. Se is all extension of objects in physical space. Ti is the rules by which objects can be structured together. Your DNA is an instance of Se+Ti, in the same way that the emotion of happiness and contentment is Fe+Si. This is all before we as organisms start harnessing, processing, metabolising and using this information to our own ends, which is where functions come into the picture, some doing this competently, others not so competently, some in a set, decisive way, others open to other inputs, some with intrinsic value, others only extrinsic if at all. I hope that helps. I go into more detail on all of this in my course.

[@jennys_life]

Ah thank you. I can see where the distinction is coming from. Thanks for clearing that up.

[@Retrogamer71]

Jack, not only are you giving stern rectitude, you are tickling my axioms. I confess to being a Dr. John Beebe advocate and a Jungian process of individuation based consciousness philosopher on archetype and of the co-located function attitude. However self awareness, self analysis of archetype is a pathology of lacking. And itself is underpinned by a logic of the manifestation of archetype beginning at the start of individuation the power of the first archetype, the great mother. However in persona and personal development you are only describing a third of the picture, that of the undeveloped human cast in biology of ethos.

[@sugarcravings1797]

You were weak, Jack. You've been seduced by the views you've gotten. Now you're gonna squeeze up all possible resources to regain them. /j

[@WorldSocionics]

I did like the views but I planned this before. Got more in store.