Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,531 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
so I never saw any proper definition for the idea that ego/superego functions are conscious. what does this exactly mean? and what does unconscious superid mean exactly, in what fashion is it supposed to be unconscious?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,510 Posts
so I never saw any proper definition for the idea that ego/superego functions are conscious. what does this exactly mean? and what does unconscious superid mean exactly, in what fashion is it supposed to be unconscious?
I pretty much view the psyche in socionics this way:

Superego
Ego
Super-id
Id

If you've read Jung and Beebe, you will know that Jung made claims that the inferior function would be the gate to the unconsciousness. Since id in Freudian psychology pretty much represented all unconsciousness (and if I remember right Jung vehemently disagreed with Freud on this), it therefore makes sense that Augusta thought that the super-id block is exactly that - it's situated above id and leads to id. I think you're aware that "super" in Latin means above.

So when it comes to the super-id block, it's not unconscious per se, it's just that it borders on unconsciousness so we lack less awareness and thus also less control over its functions, which is why we are suck at them.

In contrast to superego block that we also suck at, I think the reason why we suck at superego in this case would be for the entirely opposite reason - it keeps telling us to live up to such standards just like how superego operates in Freudian psychology that we can never live up to them, simply. It tells us how we should be, and it creates a conflict with the ego and it is this conflict that diminishes the power of supergo.

I could be wrong, but this is how I have come to understand it, anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,961 Posts
so I never saw any proper definition for the idea that ego/superego functions are conscious. what does this exactly mean? and what does unconscious superid mean exactly, in what fashion is it supposed to be unconscious?
one way I've seen this happen is when benefactors admire their beneficiaries for being able to voice what benefactors were thinking about but couldn't easily phrase in words -- beneficiaries can do it easily and naturally because this is their dominant function, by this they help resolve the activating function of the benefactor, from this benefactor feels support from their beneficiary, unconscious is low resolution in information

i find it more helpful to think of functions in terms of their dimensionality rather than as consciousness: Socionics - the16types.info - Dimensionality of Functions
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,531 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Conscious functions means that you are aware when you utilize these functions.
Unconscious functions means that you are unaware when you utilize these functions.
So for you, how is your superid Si unconscious?... as an example :) Are you never consciously aware of your body related internal states? Is it like, comfort - etc etc Si stuff - is important to you but you don't consciously indulge in it, it's just in the background? Or am I getting this wrong?



one way I've seen this happen is when benefactors admire their beneficiaries for being able to voice what benefactors were thinking about but couldn't easily phrase in words -- beneficiaries can do it easily and naturally because this is their dominant function, by this they help resolve the activating function of the benefactor, from this benefactor feels support from their beneficiary, unconscious is low resolution in information

i find it more helpful to think of functions in terms of their dimensionality rather than as consciousness: Socionics - the16types.info - Dimensionality of Functions
I actually understand those dimensions more than the issue of conscious vs unconscious.

Are you linking the conscious functions to ability to verbalize information related to them?

What do you mean by unconscious functions having information with low resolution only?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,510 Posts
I think to me, it's more that super-id block functions sometimes surface into consciousness but they are not so to speak, your natural state of mind. The ego block is, obviously. But with the id block, we are never aware nor does it ever surface into consciousness like the super-id does, and with superego we only become aware when we meet an external demand to comply and the internal resistance that occurs when superego and ego end up in a conflict with each other.

It for example happens that I notice Se and Fi but I notice precisely because it is not my natural state of mind. I don't notice Ni or Te in such a sense, but I never notice Ne and Ti. Any attempt to even consciously trying to understand (as in, becoming aware) of how they operate in the psyche have proven to be useless thus far. I can intellectually understand but I cannot actually personally imagine or know what it feels like to think this way, more than a resistance towards its obvious foreign nature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
873 Posts
So for you, how is your superid Si unconscious?... as an example :) Are you never consciously aware of your body related internal states? Is it like, comfort - etc etc Si stuff - is important to you but you don't consciously indulge in it, it's just in the background? Or am I getting this wrong?
Well, in INFPs, or EII's, the Si is not unconscious function.

For example, I have an INFJ (IEI) brother for whom, Si is the least of all functions, and this makes him a person who is never concerned with any health issues, and he is able to clean his room and keep it clean, but he is never feeling disgusted by a messy room, or when things are just laying around in the floor, so he purely keeps himself clean so that other people wouldn't be disgusted by him.

This is very funny, because my room can also get very messy sometimes, but I always feel uncomfortable and irritated when my environment looks unclean.

Si also resonates in a way that I can sometimes just sit somewhere and appreciate very simple facts about my life, or look at some abandoned house and think how people used to live there and this house definitely used to be full of life, colours and different people. My INFJ brother can't understand any of this, he needs half-fantastic and really grand motivators (I enjoy this school because it gives me a head start to dive into the life of this city, allows me to completely immerse into a certain interesting subcultures), and he laughs at me when I tell him that the mere fact that I am in a certain environment is inspiring enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: itsme45

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,961 Posts
I actually understand those dimensions more than the issue of conscious vs unconscious.
The dimensionality model is a bit different from the blocking of Model A. Since the dominant and demonstrative functions are both 4D these are outside of conscious experience, whereas in Model A the dominant function is considered to be a conscious one.

Are you linking the conscious functions to ability to verbalize information related to them?
Verbalization is one of the aspects of person's information metabolism, so properties of functions like conscious-unconscious, accepting-producing, and others, are reflected in their verbal expression.

What do you mean by unconscious functions having information with low resolution only?
I mean something like this: Image resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Where suggestive function would correspond to 1x1 and 2x2 boxes, activating - to 5x5 10x10, creative - 20x20 50x50, and dominant - 100x100.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,531 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
The dimensionality model is a bit different from the blocking of Model A. Since the dominant and demonstrative functions are both 4D these are outside of conscious experience, whereas in Model A the dominant function is considered to be a conscious one.
ok well that about 4D vs that being past consciousness is new to me.

so the leading function is unconscious how? is it like our background we exist in?


Verbalization is one of the aspects of person's information metabolism, so properties of functions like conscious-unconscious, accepting-producing, and others, are reflected in their verbal expression.
other aspects?


Where suggestive function would correspond to 1x1 and 2x2 boxes, activating - to 5x5 10x10, creative - 20x20 50x50, and dominant - 100x100.
you could've just said "image resolution", that's pretty basic stuff.... though I appreciate you trying to help by linking to wikipedia. I really just don't need such basic information.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,961 Posts
ok well that about 4D vs that being past consciousness is new to me.

so the leading function is unconscious how? is it like our background we exist in?
yes, which is why I like this model more because it more closely reflects the reality imo

people often have trouble figuring out their dominant function, and once they do - describing how it works, since throughout their lives it lies just above their conscious experience ... the conscious experience is dominated mostly by creative function, which is 3D, which produces a conscious, fully realized response

other aspects?
orienting in space, for example, even if it doesn't require verbal communication but it is also reflective of person's IM

you could've just said "image resolution", that's pretty basic stuff.... though I appreciate you trying to help by linking to wikipedia. I really just don't need such basic information.
i posted the link for the pictures, they made for a good visual demonstration, rather than trying to educate anyone on the concepts which is simple enough that most of us know what it means

though I do think that describing functional differences in terms of resolution is still a gross oversimplification of what's actually going on, but it's an upgrade from MBTI's terminology which describes functions in accordance to "strength" and never explains what this means
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
yes, which is why I like this model more because it more closely reflects the reality imo

people often have trouble figuring out their dominant function, and once they do - describing how it works, since throughout their lives it lies just above their conscious experience ... the conscious experience is dominated mostly by creative function, which is 3D, which produces a conscious, fully realized response
So something you just do naturally without thinking much at all and just seems completely normal? Reminds me a bit of unconscious competence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,531 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
yes, which is why I like this model more because it more closely reflects the reality imo

people often have trouble figuring out their dominant function, and once they do - describing how it works, since throughout their lives it lies just above their conscious experience ... the conscious experience is dominated mostly by creative function, which is 3D, which produces a conscious, fully realized response
Well yes that kinda makes sense


orienting in space, for example, even if it doesn't require verbal communication but it is also reflective of person's IM
Can you say more about this orienting in space thing? How are IMs reflected in that?


i posted the link for the pictures, they made for a good visual demonstration, rather than trying to educate anyone on the concepts which is simple enough that most of us know what it means

though I do think that describing functional differences in terms of resolution is still a gross oversimplification of what's actually going on, but it's an upgrade from MBTI's terminology which describes functions in accordance to "strength" and never explains what this means
Ahh yeah the pics are good.

If I'm to take this literally then.. I feel it's a lot of difference between lower and higher resolutions for the mobilizing (5x5 vs 10x10) and creative functions (20x20 vs 50x50). Is that really so in your opinion?

Sure it's an oversimplification, I get that.


So something you just do naturally without thinking much at all and just seems completely normal? Reminds me a bit of unconscious competence.
I really like the idea of associating this with the stuff at that link :)

I could totally link that with the IM dimensions :p


A question here though... say someone who has, say, 2D Se, do they really have to focus on environment as a conscious task? Taking extra mental effort while being conscious of all the aspects of the process and all that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,510 Posts
A question here though... say someone who has, say, 2D Se, do they really have to focus on environment as a conscious task? Taking extra mental effort while being conscious of all the aspects of the process and all that?
At what level is 2D Se 2D? But yes, as someone with inferior sensation I have to focus on the environment as a conscious task in order to actively and consciously register what is going on around me. Otherwise I just unconsciously note my environment but I pay no real conscious attention to it unless something were to interest me.

I see but I am not looking at the objects.
 

·
Spotlight March 2016
Joined
·
8,193 Posts
At what level is 2D Se 2D? But yes, as someone with inferior sensation I have to focus on the environment as a conscious task in order to actively and consciously register what is going on around me. Otherwise I just unconsciously note my environment but I pay no real conscious attention to it unless something were to interest me.

I see but I am not looking at the objects.
This is kind of interesting-- It reminds me how our biological visual perception works.

That our brains only allow us to focus on one point in our vision at a time, and then it fills in the rest of the peripherals with a very well-calculated guess.

It kinda explains thinking we see a goat in the corner of our eye, while it becomes a pillow.

Being aware of your environment, but not necessarily 'seeing' it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,531 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
At what level is 2D Se 2D? But yes, as someone with inferior sensation I have to focus on the environment as a conscious task in order to actively and consciously register what is going on around me. Otherwise I just unconsciously note my environment but I pay no real conscious attention to it unless something were to interest me.

I see but I am not looking at the objects.
That's a good question, I mean the dimensionality concept is beautiful logically but it's hard to apply IMO. Hard to say what's what dimension just based on that concept.

Btw, the competence levels wouldn't line up perfectly either, only the role function would be conscious 2D function in terms of conscious incompetence. Right? :/

About your attitude to the environment, interesting.. as for your last sentence, I also don't look at everything closely.


This is kind of interesting-- It reminds me how our biological visual perception works.

That our brains only allow us to focus on one point in our vision at a time, and then it fills in the rest of the peripherals with a very well-calculated guess.

It kinda explains thinking we see a goat in the corner of our eye, while it becomes a pillow.

Being aware of your environment, but not necessarily 'seeing' it.
That about focus on one narrow/small point, I don't really do that by default. I don't usually have a specific focus, instead I just take in everything at once.

I don't really have that sort of "hallucination" misinterpreting stuff in the corner of my eye, except maybe if I've not slept for days but I'd also have to be stressed out at the same time to get this effect.

The "well-calculated guess" you mention would be coming from a quick scan of environment so it's not truly a guess, it's based on what's actually been seen.

But I think that anyway this idea of having only one little point of real focus is the wrong idea. A lot of the stuff in environment can and will be processed on a subconscious level. I'll give you a few simple examples.

1. You are trying to locate a red dot in between many other dots as a cognitive task in an experiment. You will find that red dot without having to look at each dot one by one consciously. At least I do, I think most people do it like that but tell me if I'm wrong heh. I'll mention more about that below.

Real life example of that experiment would be you going around in your room to find, say, a red pen. Your brain will have the image of the red pen and will find it without necessarily having to go beyond the subconscious level. This does of course has the prerequisite of actually having the proper focus on the task of finding the pen/dot/etc.

2. You're in a party deep into conversation with a friend and you suddenly hear your name said by someone else - without you ever having to pay conscious attention to anything beyond the conversation with your friend. In psychology, it's a well-known effect called the "cocktail party effect".

Now of course, you could say that not everyone works like this, the wikipedia article on the cocktail part effect mentions this too ("Note that while most people with normal hearing can tune out other conversations, many can't or can only do it with great effort. It's also worth noting that most people at cocktail parties can do it because those who can't usually avoid cocktail parties").

I don't know much about individual differences as I've only studied general cognitive psychology. I know even less about whether such differences would be linked in any way to cognitive function preferences. So this is why I said, hey tell me if I'm wrong in assuming that it works like this for most people :)
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top