Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Labcoat's toolbox

  1. #1
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Labcoat's toolbox

    The first that I will discuss here is one that has not been named yet. I will call it "compositional association".

    A number of tenets and assumptions are characteristic of this technique:

    - the semantic meaning of each of socionics' terms can not be contained in a definition
    - of each of socionics' terms, it can be said what concepts and behaviors are associated with it
    - while the terms are not semantically defined, they are defined compositionally

    As an example, let's give a description of the Introverted Intuition function using this technique. I am using my own terms here, most of which should ring a bell with the more weathered readers. Some relations between terms have, to my knowledge, not been given names yet. I have given these the most intuitive names that I could think of.

    Ni is an introvert function.
    Intovert functions are associated with: pattern thinking, inaction, contemplation, privacy

    Ni is an internal function.
    Internal functions are associated with: big-picture thinking, maintaining status-quo, passivity, mildness

    Ni is a perceiving function.
    Perceiving functions are associated with: open-endedness, perceptiveness, chaos-tolerance

    Ni is a resolute function.
    Resolute functions are associated with: toughness, work mentality, discomfort-tolerance

    The result:
    Ni is a function associated with: pattern thinking, inaction, contemplation, privacy, big picture-thinking, maintaining status-quo, passivity, mildness, open-endedness, perceptiveness, chaos-tolerance, toughness, work mentality, discomfort-tolerance.

  2. #2
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Next on the list: the three trait triangles. (if you are a dutchman like me, try to pronounce that for a laugh riot)

    Out of all the traits contained in the small-cycle-dichotomies and the temperament, these concern primarily those traits that are shared between members of a dual-couple.

    There are three of such traits: Process/Result, Aristocracy/Democracy and Rational/Irrational.

    The traits that remain are what I interpret as manifestations of these primary traits. In order to get a better grasp of what is meant here, please observe the following schematic:

    Code:
    PrimaryT.   Static       Dynamic
    Process     Positivist   Negativist
    Result      Negativist   Positivist
    Aristocrat  Narrator     Taciturn
    Democrat    Taciturn     Narrator
    Rational    Introvert    Extrovert
    Irrational  Extrovert    Introvert
    Every primary trait has a Static manifestation and a Dynamic manifestation. What is important to realize here, is that even in Static types, the Dynamic manifestation of each of the primary traits the type posesses also diffusely manifests in the behavior. Also, please realize that one can not detect a primary trait apart from it's manifestation: whenever one intuitively detects Aristocracy, one is either picking up Static Narrator, Dynamic Taciturn, or a combination of either with it's diffuse counterpart.

    Another major implication of my inferences, in which my theories differ from those of others that have investigated these traits that I know of, is the claim that the manifestations of opposed primary traits under no circumstances complement eachother. Negativism manifested by Process does not value Positivism manifested by Result.

    A few notes on these triangles and what one should expect of them:

    The first is what I call the Program-Triangle*. Victor Gulenko has discussed this triangle in detail in the recently discussed article on "thought styles" which can be found in the article section. This triangle primarily concerns reasoning styles and the way one formulates arguments. The greatest contrast is that between the Result side of the socion, which observes materials from a jumping bird-view perspective, and the Process side of the socion, which works out individual steps towards a goal.

    The second is what I have dubbed the Command-Triangle*. To my knowledge this triangle has received scarce attention and is left largely undiscussed as far as this community is concerned. In brief It concerns ones position on value judgments; wether one considers these immediately real and concrete, or just topics of distant abstract evaluation. It also distributes the roles one has in proponing these positions, either as an enforcer or suggester of these views, or as a abider to- or receptor of them.

    To the third I have assigned the name Rythm-Triangle*. This triangle is already well known as the temperament and needs little more clarification. It concerns ones life rythm and ones convictions on what aspects of the world are fundamentally real and what remains as a derivative of these. The Rationals consider judgment as fundamental and are hence invested in those matters that have been earlier established in the world. The irrationals consider perception as fundamental and are thus more at home in matters that have been left largely undisturbed by society.

    * a slight update: I am no longer using the term "triangle" to denote these, instead calling them "styles". Also, I have discarded the term Rythm-Triangle, falling back on the more common usage "temperament". To summarize, the names used are Thinking-Style, Command-Style and Temperament.
    Last edited by krieger; 02-06-2008 at 01:35 PM.

  3. #3
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sorry, I'm interested, but I can't understand which are the vertices of the triangles in your scheme. Or is it not the scheme to be taken as the frame of reference, the triangles being exclusively an abstract construct?
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  4. #4
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Naturally I approve this thread enormously. I just suspect that there's an error in the first post, that big-picture thinking should appear under internal and pattern thinking under introvert, not vice versa. I also think "shy" needs to be defined since the general use of the word fails to explain such Ni people as Joy.

    "
    Another major implication of my inferences, in which my theories differ from those of others that have investigated these traits that I know of, is the claim that the manifestations of opposed primary traits under no circumstances complement eachother. Negativism manifested by Process does not value Positivism manifested by Result. "

    Also quoting this for importance.
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

  5. #5
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sure, fixed. You probably know better than me.

    I may alternate the bits about complementation between Reinin dichotomies slightly where interaction between Rationals and Irrationals is concerned.

    Sorry, I'm interested, but I can't understand which are the vertices of the triangles in your scheme. Or is it not the scheme to be taken as the frame of reference, the triangles being exclusively an abstract construct?
    Top vertice of the triangle is it's Primary Quality; the bottom two it's Static and Dynamic manifestations on the more superficial conceptual level.

  6. #6
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have noticed it is the xNTp types that are most critical of internal validation of ones beliefs. I attribute this to the "process" quality, which attribution I in turn base on my personalized interpretation of Accepting and Creating functions.

    In short under my interpretation, a Creating function signifies a principle, whereas an Accepting function signifies a situational fact. To be conrete Creating (Result) thus means trusting ones own principles/beliefs and trying to build forth on them, eg. extrapolating new facts from them, whereas to be concrete Accepting (Process) means that one tries to forge new principles from immediate fact.

    I reach the conclusion that Creating means principle and Accepting means fact by looking at the Limiting/Empowering attributes and how they appear in conjunction with Static/Dynamic:

    Accepting function: Limiting when Dynamic, Empowering when Static
    Creating function: Empowering when Dynamic, Limiting when Static

    Again some interpretatory work is needed here...

    Statics refers to analytical fact, whereas Dynamics refers to synthetical fact. For the purpose of this explanation it will suffice to think of the former as "facts that are true regardless of the situation" and of the latter as "facts that are true of a particular situation". (philosophically this is more complicated than how I explain this, and I would be happy to be corrected by someone more versed in the use of these concepts. One area in which complications occur is that of mathematics, which field deals with facts that are "a priori synthetical", which under my interpretation would fall into the analytical catagory but shouldn't).

    When one investigates any function axis, either of the ends Static and Dynamic will be distributed to the Limiting functions, whereas the remaining end will be distributed to the Empowering functions. This tells much about the working of functions. Limiting functions are associated with the Negativist types: negativists are invested in things that are maximally "stripped down", things of which only the essence is there to the exclusion of anything redundant. Positivist types on the other hand are invested in situational, contingent, manifestory things. These tendencies of types can be directly linked to the Limiting and Empowering aspects of functions.

    Knowing this, we can improve our understanding of how a function axis is put together. The function axis consists of a part that is "stripped down" essence, and of a part that is manifestory. Also, one of these parts lies on the Static level, whereas the other lies on the Dynamic level.

    I'm going to have to explain some more of my views before I can go on. Another thing to notice about function axis is the distribution of Introvert and Extrovert functions, also known as Field and Object functions. The introvert function deals with perspective dependant things, whereas the extrovert function deals with perspective independant things. What makes this helluva complicated is that the perspective independant has to be known through being seen in a perspective. Hence why people can take solipsistic attitudes and get away with it claiming it is all in logic.

    Anyway, I find this interpretation of introvert/extrovert to work, so let's build forth on it. We need a workable interpretation of "perspective" to go on. An attempt:

    - it involves a subject. In fact, the perspective and the subject are somehow hard to tell apart.
    - usually a great deal of facts can be said to be true or untrue of a perspective.
    - there is a good deal of similarity between the notions "perspective" and "situation".
    - a perspective observes a part of a situation, but not always the whole of one.
    - yet that subset of the situation can be seen as a situation in itself.

    Anyway, of whatever interpretation you're going to come up with it will be nigh impossible to tell wether it is adequate or not, so we should instead use whatever interpretation fits in with the other parts of the model and test it. Yay for Result thinking. For the time being I'm calling a perspective a grouping of specific items. This notion is simple, yet powerful and captures the notion of perspective at least reasonably well. Look at this elegant detail: the perspective is a grouping of items, but the item is just as much a grouping of perspectives.

    Ok, now since Introvert and Extrovert are distributed over Static and Dynamic in the same way as Limiting and Empowering are, the Introvert part of a function axis is always Limiting or Empowering and the Extrovert part is of the opposite quality. We thus have a stripped down part that is linked to a grouping of manifestory parts.

    Good, we're getting closer to the end. Accepting function axes are Limiting Dynamic. There is a synthetical constatation that is taken as "the essence", which leads to a series of manifestory ruminations on the Static level. Thus, Accepting function signifies the act of observing a certain thing and linking it to all the possible things you think it might be hinting at.

    Creating functions axes are Limiting Static. As such these packets of information are locked down on the Static level and recognized on the Dynamic level. A constatation that is linked to a certain definition that one already carries with oneself as existing apart from any single situation. This is what I call a principle.

    This should momentarily suffice as justification for my views.

  7. #7
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The context problem in socionics: it is never possible to test wether a statement is true or false because there is no defined context in which statements about socionics are to be placed such that their meaning is unambiguous. The context problem can never be solved in full, although steps can be put towards making certain parts of the theory verifyable. A nasty difficulty at this is that such steps can only be put once one has accepted a certain suggested context to suffice as the correct one.

    The first step towards solving the context problem would be to define the notions Judging and Perceiving. What follows is a suggestion on my part as to how this would be done.

    Perceiving deals with that which simply exists, whereas judging deals with a comparison between two such existing things.

    The simplest possible result of a comparison is "follows" or "succeeds". Given no other way of designating how one object relates to another, this relation can be assumed to be between two things when they were simply compared in sequence. As such, the notion of a comparison is equivalent to that of a sequence, which in turn in equivalent to a one way relation. The socionics term "judging" combines all these notions into one. It can be thought of as an event, but also as a fact, or as an action, though it is never one of these things without being all of the other aswell.
    Last edited by krieger; 02-15-2008 at 02:19 AM.

  8. #8
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    deleted because of a change in views.
    Last edited by krieger; 03-01-2008 at 03:44 PM.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    My current position on "dual-type theory": there are most certainly multiple types of multiple temperaments active in any single person at any time. I am, however, not confident that dual-type theory offers the last word on these. For the moment, as with all things socionics, I am assuming everything to be a thousand times more complicated than any of us can fathom it to be at this point in time.

    Also, I believe a type change from ENFp to ENTp on the "slave level", in so far it exists, is possible.
    Type change is easy on the slave; it's how you observe the situation before you from other angles of the same type. (or part of it) But, the information domains available to the functions remain the same: role remains role, base remains base, etc.

    On the other hand, asking how "temporary types" (on either level) manifest could be a good idea. It might give us a better understanding of our own archetypes, maybe? Gulenko actually wrote something about as many as four "types" in someone.... (although I don't think he was talking about the dual-type phenomenon.)

    EDIT:
    (I noticed that I derailed the thread topic. Just making a point so don't mind me.)
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 02-14-2008 at 10:31 PM.

  10. #10
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    To Felafel: slave type is a secundary type that every person posesses. It is a type that doesn't tell us about a person's attitude to life, so much as it tells us about their attitude to a particular thing they are handling at any time. If the socionics type is the whole of your visual field, then the "slave" type is a magnifying glass through which you study a particular thing within that visual field. This is how I understand it, at least (tcaudilllg focusses more on the "action" aspect of the slave type). If I am an ST type with an NF slave, for example, I might observe some emotional event and perceive a great deal of hidden meaning in it, but based on this choose to guide the whole of my attitude into concrete action like any regular ST type would. Someone looking from the outside just sees a person who undertakes concrete action, but under the surface there is perception of great depth going on. This is why the slave type is more difficult to detect than the ordinary socionics type.

    See the "supersocion theory explained" thread in the non-mainstream socionics section for more info.

    Things I'd like to do in this tread:

    - describe two mechanisms that are at work in the socionics discourse on the forum: "fallacy by symmetry" and "counter-insult by symmetry".
    - present alternatives to a number of ingrained socionics concepts: the inequalty of roles in supervision and benefit relations, the existence of function strengths and the "accepting", "creating", "valued" and "non-valued" nature of functions.
    - long term: create a discrete ontological framework that makes evident how socionics functions construct a model of reality (wether this will or will not succeed hinges on wether I'll be able to demonstrate the existence of + and - aspects of functions by doing this)
    - even longer term: link this discrete framework to a continuous model that handles raising and falling values in vectorized data streams using calculus
    Last edited by krieger; 02-16-2008 at 04:42 PM.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    If the socionics type is the whole of your visual field, then the "slave" type is a magnifying glass through which you study a particular thing within that visual field. This is how I understand it, at least
    It sounds, if I understand you correctly, that the slave type is essentially the same as the "mode" one is in, basically what Smilex talks about when he talks about people constantly shifting type orientation. Would you say, for example, that if an acc- type's imagination is directed towards /, then LII would be the slave type...or, for example, suppose an EIE projects with expressive gestures a perfect / state in a way that even a master-ILI couldn't even do (lacking the ability to project so expressively), then ILI would be the slave type?

    This makes me wonder too how often people confuse the master and slave. Perhaps people may think they're a given type, or that someone else is a given type, but they're seeing the slave type rather than the master.

    In particular, I've noticed that among the various methods people use to type people, there are some who emphasize what IM elements a person exhudes and seems confident in, and there are others who focus on what a person "values" (i.e., what the person believes to be "a good thing").

    It seems to me that at any given time, it may often be the slave type, rather than the master, that has the most influence on what one thinks is a "a good thing"...because that is what one is choosing to focus on at the moment.

    Hence, I would hypothesize that if one types someone based on "Do you think and are good things more than and ," that is more likely to indicate the slave type....whereas if one types someone based on "What roles does this person play? What IM Element does this person consistently seem to be "about," perhaps that's more an indicator for the master type (?).

  12. #12
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It sounds, if I understand you correctly, that the slave type is essentially the same as the "mode" one is in, basically what Smilex talks about when he talks about people constantly shifting type orientation.
    We ordinarily suppose for the slave type to be fixed, although slave type changes, like master type changes, are always entertainable. So, I'd say, that description would not be very good. I'd say that any type that isn't at least momentarily stable can't be detected at all, as for a type to be seen, there first need to be repeating trends hinting at it.

    Would you say, for example, that if an acc- type's imagination is directed towards /, then LII would be the slave type...or, for example, suppose an EIE projects with expressive gestures a perfect / state in a way that even a master-ILI couldn't even do (lacking the ability to project so expressively), then ILI would be the slave type?
    You'd be making a lot of assumptions as to how things we know about master types carry over to the slave type. That is something that should be guarded against.

    Hence, I would hypothesize that if one types someone based on "Do you think and are good things more than and ," that is more likely to indicate the slave type....whereas if one types someone based on "What roles does this person play? What IM Element does this person consistently seem to be "about," perhaps that's more an indicator for the master type (?).
    You'd probably have to describe master Te different from slave Te to get good testing results. What a future "test" of slave type would look like, I dare not say.

    Keep in mind dual-type theory is still in a very, very early stage of investigation. None of what we speak about is really "known" and "understood" so much as it is hypothesised, entertained. The privilege of knowing things for sure is one we just don't have in this field.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •