...
Analogy to Grammar
...
Last edited by Kioshi; 06-05-2008 at 12:32 AM.
This looks a bit interesting, but very complicated.
Sorry but I don't understand anything. It's like random notes from a larger idea?
[]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
That's exactly what it is... I don't think he minds if we don't understand, but it's probably worth my trouble to try... later.Originally Posted by mikemex
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Sorry to get off topic, but it's only for a moment. I saw her name..reyne a. She was cool to have around the forum.
OK, I've focused on arranging the IM elements into a cycle, and here's what I came up with:
It seems to me that the two cycles in Model A are not complete cycles, but reversible processes. That is, Thinking does cycle to Feeling and Feeling to thinking, butcycles to
(not the other way around), and to cycle back to Thinking, it needs to go through
. One possible reason for this divide is that if a single person valued both directions of the same process, he would be constantly reversing his own work. However, with the values elements divided into quadras, the processes have time to finish their work before the reverse process plays any part.
This system has the interesting effect that the quadras translate into clubs, that is:
-Alpha directs its information to NF
-Beta directs its information to SF
-Gamma directs its information to ST
-Delta directs its information to NT
This also suggests that an intratim supervising an extratim isn't as bad as an extratim supervising an intratim, because in the "better" supervisory relationship, each partner would be seeking to convert information to the other's format.
This also results in the Asking/Declaring dichotomy having a new meaning as the direction of the information cycle - that is, should the cycle go SF>ST>NT>NF>SF or the other way around? This also determines whether (for example)
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
OK, so here's how I interpret the LII-ESE duality, according to the upper right-hand diagram:
The upper left-hand diagram describes Leftist relationships. Duality is the easiest cycle to form, but I can easily see the relationships of benefit and supervision in this diagram as well. For benefit and duality, the Hidden Agenda acts as an input; for supervision and duality, the creative function acts as an output.
The second interpretation fails to show duality as any sensible sort of cycle. It also seems to display conversions between extratim and intratim elements as opposing progress... unless there's something important about it that I missed, I think that it should be scrapped in favor of interpretation one.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Yes, what I see in duality for the second interpretation... is agreement to convert information to a pair of unvalued complementary elements - the role and ignoring functions. In that sense, it is more true to my diagram. It doesn't really explain what duals see in each other, but maybe that's a good thing - I know that duality can be rough at the start.
The question, I guess, is whether duality should be explained as a cycle at all? What I see in the first interpretation is each type as a converter from their hidden agenda to their creative function, using their dominant function for processing (so an LII converts fromto
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
OK - neither my diagram nor Kioshi's interpretation 2 allow for duality as a closed feedback loop, so I see this as a strong point for interpretation 1.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
OK, that diagram tells me nothing that I don't already know. Your analogy of the Left and Right groups working as gears is good, but it doesn't give me anything to measure Kioshi's cycles against.
However, this gives me an idea... perhaps we could mesh all four of Kioshi's cycles into a single diagram? Linking the types across the left/right dichotomy would be a good thing, and it might give the second interpretation a place that wasn't obvious from looking at each side of the dichotomy individually.
However, this would require more than 8 IM elements... I'm hesitant to move to tcaud's model (or the +/- thing in general).
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Recommendation: stop wasting your time. Socionics is a Ti theory and you're not going to advance much unless you turn to Te/Se. You need to ground the logic behind the theory into real world facts; to explain where the exposed order lies inside the brain.
Some questions:
1.- Why 16 types? Why not more or less?
2.- 16 is a power of two. Does it mean that the theory is based on binary logic?
3.- Without the dichotomic approach, which will invariably turn into defined sets of types which are powers of two, is it possible to describe the same phenomena?
4.- Is it possible that instead of a discrete set of types, there is a continuum range?
5.- Why would the mind have a single type? Isn't it too complex so there is a possibility that diverse regions do different things at the same time?
6.- If intuition is abstraction/detachment; why is there an extroverted version?
[
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
