Compound Functions vs Emulated Functions Hypotheses

[Juan E. Sandoval]

Heya,

With Unison's permission, I wanted to save this discussion from Discord, for further investigation and discussion.

---

unison — 04/13/2022

This is an older video from my Axis 12 days https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNfhzkO0Cc0

unison — 04/13/2022

The video didn't age well, but, it's one of the few videos I have

Auburn | TiNe — 04/13/2022

i did like, and do, unison's openness and collaborative pov. it's really nice to see. i agree that we should be investigating with piqued interest at what this is all about, and excitedly sharing with each other what we discover.

Auburn | TiNe — 04/13/2022

it's similar to the idea of compound functions, but with the modulation of 3. but apparently, the emergent result doesn't have a predictable emulation? i wonder then if it wouldn't just be simpler to call them something else?

unison — 04/13/2022

The hypothesis was that it does have a predictable emulation

Auburn | TiNe — 04/13/2022

like if Te+Fi+Si don't necessarily emulate "Ti", and it really isn't Ti anyhow, the name is misleading perhaps?

ohh, i must've misunderstood the video.

unison — 04/13/2022

The hypothesis was more like those set of 3 functions can be used together fill in the gap left by the "absence" of Ti

• I.e. doing something similar to abiotic axiomatic thought

• Auburn | TiNe — 04/13/2022

  mmh

• unison — 04/13/2022

  The name "emulated X" was just to make it easier to understand

• Auburn | TiNe — 04/13/2022

  right

• that's an interesting hypothesis.

my thoughts so far side with the idea that two functions are sufficient to emulate the gaps, but this can be tested and refuted, and that's still an open question. but for example, i imagine that when we have a large enough pool of TeSi l--l types, we could see if they emulate abiotic axiomatic thought more often, or less often, than TeSi ll-l types. The former has Te+Fi only, the latter Te+Fi+Si.

unison — 04/13/2022

It's very similar to the compound function idea, in that it's not actual Ti that is happening, but with the additional idea that the presence of Si shifts the balance toward introversion (making the difference between IT and EF)

So, TeFiPi = IT, and TeFiPe = EF

• That's kind of how the idea translates

Auburn | TiNe — 04/13/2022

right, i see. would the attitude of that third function (ie the "S" part of Si) play into this in any way? Or would it mostly contribute a net introverted energy (i.e. two i's pushing things into net-I territory?)

unison — 04/13/2022

That's a good way to test it. That was the point the hypothesis was at near the end of A12, but never quite got there

unison — 04/13/2022

I agree that the meat of the emulation (what technically makes it possible) is the two homo-axial functions, but also think that at least a little bit of a 3rd function is required as a cognitive tie-breaker between I/E directionality

Peter | FiNe — 04/13/2022

speculations on functions working like this seems to me like byproduct of reification.

• unison — 04/13/2022

  Sometimes that's needed

• It just isn't an end goal

Auburn | TiNe — 04/13/2022

right, i try to keep the ratio of speculation to data-gathering/observation much fatter on the observation end, cuz it's so easy to run away with speculations, and be trying to solve a problem on the 24th level, when floors 5-23 are all speculative.

and you're really only at floor 4

unison — 04/13/2022

That, pretty much. There's a balance in there, it often pays to allow at least a few floors to be speculative, otherwise you don't know what floor you're trying to get to

Peter | FiNe — 04/14/2022

Thank you for answer I will back to it later. I am getting ready to sleep. I think we use different frameworks. This tension might be creative. 🙂

unison — 04/14/2022

This tension might be creative.

Indeed! Goodnight

Peter | FiNe — 04/14/2022

TY. Good night to you too or have a nice day (depend on your location) 🙂

Auburn | TiNe — 04/14/2022

So, after thinking about this for a bit, I think modulation itself could take care of this? (at least from where I am sitting, theoretically atm). For example, an Fe-lead can modulate Ti either very lightly or very heavily. There isn't necessarily a need to invoke a Pi process, as there are naturally different ranges of how heavily one wishes to modulate a function. For example I can modulate my Fe either partly, or really heavily, to the point where I momentarily look like I'm leading with it, without invoking Ne into the picture, to attain that net-E effect. At least not for the production of a particular mental content.

For example, I think the CT system is quite the example of ET handiwork, in the sense of being objective/materialistic in subject matter. And I think I use my Ti to basically "T" my Fe; to "abiotic" my understanding of humanity..  ...studying people like physical objects. But it's a quasi-effect, as I don't ever really see them that way.

unison — 04/14/2022

I still hold to my previous suspicions, but I like what you said earlier: I think the only way to be more certain is to see if there are any correlations within known devs

• This topic was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Juan E. Sandoval.

[Juan E. Sandoval]

This discussion is actually part of a wider topic which I know of as inter-function dynamics:

https://cognitivetypology.com/index.php?title=Inter-Function_Dynamics

Inter-function dynamics refers to the operations performed by the joint activity of two or more energetic functions. What I call "Tier 2" operations would be those involving two functions, like Ti+Se. Tier 3 and Tier 4 would involve the use of 3-functions and 4-functions respectively. So far we have only really explored the effects of  two-function collaborations, due to the sheer difficulty involved in establishing all the foundational work from which to even ask such a complex question as the nature of 3+ function dynamics.

I've been so very focused on simply trying to rigorously establish the reality of the 8 functions, and types, which is not to be taken for granted, and hasn't technically been done yet to a satisfactory degree. As well as things like function hierarchy, which also needs proof to it, for anyone out there in the science community to accept as a premise. A question as nuanced as 3-function interactions hasn't fully enter my keen attention yet, simply due to the order of priority needed in establishing fundamentals first. And also because without getting the foundational work done, it can't be studied properly, because you need to have accurate typings, down to the development, to study the question effectively.

But I'm excited to see where this goes! I can certainly imagine 3 function dynamics creating unique emergences, and I am curious about what might emerge from that investigation.

BTW-

I'm very grateful to have new members like Unison, Yoda and Rams here lately! I hope in the future that questions like the nature of 3+ function dynamics, or other hypotheses, can be creatively explored by our members here, in that same collaborative spirit that Unison shares, and hopefully without needing to splinter the community. There's no reason why we can't work together, and I think it's essential that we do. And having different hypotheses to test is wonderful, and is part of the natural process of any field of study evolving by testing them and keeping those that work. Since CT is a research project, it is not monolithic, although a broad consensus is healthy to have as a baseline.

And it's my hope to have others write in-depth articles and possibly even books on CT related matters, and to have it grow into a body of work with many authors involved. If an important discovery is made, or artice is written by someone from our community, they will most certainly be featured in the articles section or official wiki, and be cited & credited accordingly.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Juan E. Sandoval.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Juan E. Sandoval.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Juan E. Sandoval.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Juan E. Sandoval.

[unknown]

I like your passion, openess and collaborative spirit. I think we share common ideals.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by unknown.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by unknown.

[Author]

Posts