# Thread: Hypothesis : 16-component Context Model C

1. ## Hypothesis : 16-component Context Model C

I suggest that reality isn't filtrated by information elements, but by information contexts. I mean, White Logic and Ethics are perceived in the context of Black Sensing and Intuition ; whereas White Sensing and Intuition are perceived in the context of Black Logic and Ethics.

For example :

Sensing Logical example

You perceive - in the context of +. You perceive objective interactions between rotating gears (-) in the context of the objective movement of each rotating gear (+). But you perceive them also in the context of the gears themselves (subjective physical properties, -) and the static structure of mechanics (subjective structural dependencies of gears, +)

Intuitive Logical example

You perceive + in the context of -. You perceive subjective intangible connections between algorithmic objects (+) in the context of subjective algorithms ( -). (If you're a programmer you'll understand). If this is software code, + would be the objective code himself, its abstract properties, and - would be the objective structure of the code, the correlation between the abstract bodies of the code.

Nomenclature of Model C

This model consists of 4 blocks and 4 sub-blocks. Blocks are named from A to D, sub-blocks from 1 to 4.

A complete data processing agent (including human beings) has 4 information processing components :

- External Input : inputting data from reality and adapting the psyche to it
- External Output : outputting data to reality and chainging it
- Internal Input : "inputting" part of internal data processing - imagination ?
- Internal Output : "outputting" part of internal data processing - memory, storage ?

To make things simpler, let's name those processes : W, X, Y, and Z.

Blocks A to D have varying strength of External components W and X :

A : strong W, strong X
B : weak W, strong X
C : strong W, weak X
D : weak W, weak X

Sub-blocks 1 to 4 have varying strength of Internal components Y and Z :

1 : strong Y, strong Z
2 : weak Y, strong Z
3 : strong Y, weak Z
4 : weak Y, weak Z

For example, the - of a LII (as A1 function) would be W+X+Y+Z+, and his - (as C3 function) would be W+X-Y+Z-. "Dual-seeking" function is the most specialised on Input.

Sub-block pairs A12, B12, C12, D12, A34, B34, C34 and D34 are each assigned to an information context, which is defined by the dichotomies Statics/Dynamics, Sensing/Intuition, and Logic/Ethics.

Blocks A, B, C and D are each assigned to an information supercontext, which is defined by the dichotomies Sensing/Intuition, and Logic/Ethics.

Model C and dimensionality

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Dimensionality

Block A processes 4 dimensions : Ex, Nr, St and Tm
Block B processes 3 dimensions : Ex, Nr and St
Block C processes 2 dimensions : Ex and Nr
Block D processes 1 dimension : Ex

I'm open to critiques for this model.

2. and hitta actually thinks you're ILI...

3. A : strong W, strong X
B : weak W, strong X
C : strong W, weak X
D : weak W, weak X
Now that does appear to be innovative. Can you provide us an example from your own logic?

4. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Now that does appear to be innovative. Can you provide us an example from your own logic?
Don't "Input" and "Output" mean something to you ?

5. Originally Posted by machintruc
Don't "Input" and "Output" mean something to you ?
Actually, now that I think about it I don't need to use any model that substitutes terms as vague as 'Y' and 'X' for functions. This isn't math... get off your ass and think of real names that actually tell us something about them.

6. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Actually, now that I think about it I don't need to use any model that substitutes terms as vague as 'Y' and 'X' for functions. This isn't math... get off your ass and think of real names that actually tell us something about them.
These aren't functions. These are information processing components. I named them so to make things simpler. I won't repeat "internal input from somewhere" all the time.

W = input from reality
X = output to reality
Y = input on mind
Z = output on mind

For example, you read on some paper "10 * 15 = ___"

With W, you input the "10 * 15" thing itself.
With Y, you input "10 * 15" on your mind as something you want for processing.
With Z, you output "150" on your mind because you knew that "10 * 15" was a multiplication.
With X, you write "150", because it was the expected output.

Have you ever read on neural networks ? You'll understand my way of thinking.

7. Originally Posted by jxrtes
Is a physiological explanation for:
...???
It has nothing "physiological" in itself. It's cognitive, and apply for AI-based systems as well.

8. Originally Posted by jxrtes
Yes. I was reffering to memory/storage, which is also a physiological phenomenon as well as a cognitive one. But whatever, lets not bother with terms.
However, do you have any critiques of my model ?

9. Originally Posted by dee
well, for a start i'd rename
internal output to Ii
external output to Oe,
internal and external inputs Ii and Ie respectively (for ease of usage and memorization).
no, because the I letter would be occupied by "internal" and "input". this may lead to confusion.

i wonder how is it more useful than aushra's model A though. i mean "models" are usually built to reflect some limited portion of reality FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. unless your model can deliver new and fantastic results, how is it useful?
reality aspects are actually 16, and not 8.

Model A is ok, but it doesn't describe as much as Model C.

Mode C is here to overcome some Model A's limitations.

10. .

11. Originally Posted by dee
i'm dying to know like what?
Model A :

- Information is perceived through elements.
- Aspects and functions are 8.
- Lack of emphasis on comparison-modification.
- Dominant element is strong
- Information tend to flow 1>2>3>4>1 and 5>6>7>8>5
- Too much emphasis on duality. Function 5 is the dual of Function 1.

Model C :

- Information is perceived through contexts.
- Aspects and functions are 16.
- More emphasis on comparison-modification
- One sub-aspect of dominant element is strong, the other is weak. For example, LII's have strong - and weak +.
- Information tend to flow asymmetrically between adjacent blocks, i.e. strong A>B>C>D>A flow and weak A>D>C>B>A flow, and somewhat randomly within blocks, functions 1 and 2 (of any block) as foreground, and functions 3 and 4 as background.
- Less emphasis on duality. Function A1 is the dual of Function C3.

12. Some detail on Information Contexts :

There are 8 contexts. For now I call them :

Logical context (in the formal sense)
Mathematical context (this includes computing and history)

Physical context (including geographic)
Mechanical context (or dynamic physical)

Intentional context (in the sense of "motivational")
Cultural context (in the sense of social hedonic orientations)

Ethical context (in the formal sense)
Social context (in the sence of social interactions)

There are 4 supercontexts.

I didn't find relevant definitions yet, then I'll call them :

NT : Logical-Mathematical supercontext
ST : Physical-Mechanical supercontext
SF : Intentional-Cultural supercontext
NF : Ethical-Social supercontext

There are 2 hypercontexts.

The first groups ST and NF, and the other NT and SF. But I didn't find relevant definitions yet.

13. Originally Posted by dee
i thought why not just change some of model A? (i don't see how it is required though as i mean the amount of experiments that proved it > ... disproved it, e.g. take Talanov. he proved model A works).
Because Model A is based on elements. Model C is based on contexts.

Originally Posted by dee
also, what you said about info flows and all, i mean if it's not certain in model A, how can it be in model C? i mean this is purely theoretical, right?
It's still an hypothesis.

Originally Posted by dee
if you will persist, why not take some from classical socionics, i mean it does work in a way, so maybe you can just "borrow" from it, e.g. even for your supercontext definitions, though i can't really think of anything other than democratic/aristocratic.
But I'm borrowing from it. I'm just trying to render the model more relevant to the objective truth.

14. Recent research :

Information has 4 levels of dimensionality : Ex, Nr, St and Tm

Information has 4 levels of complexity : .g, .l, *g, and *l

.g : simple global - focusing on one object as a whole
.l : simple local - focusing on specific details of one object
*g : multiple global - focusing on many objects as a whole
*l : multiple local - focusing on specific details of many objects

For example, Function A1 is Tm*l, Function B4 is St.g, and so on.

Tm = block A
St = block B
Nr = block C
Ex = block D

*l = sub-block 1
*g = sub-block 2
.l = sub-block 3
.g = sub-block 4

For example, LII :

Tm : Intuition-Logic
St : Intuition-Ethics
Nr : Sensing-Ethics
Ex : Sensing-Logic

*l : Statics Result
*g : Statics Process
.l : Dynamics Result
.g : Dynamics Process

I can explain like that : I think that if you focus on rotating gears, you're likely to see rotating gears individually and the gears themselves as a whole.

15. Originally Posted by dee
that's to do with +/-, yes? 'cos i've seem something like that on them, like an attempt to generalise them or smth. "system socionics" "school" in russia did it or smth.
No. Systemic Socionics is a non-symmetrical model.

16. I wonder where he got the inspiration from this model from...

17. Originally Posted by UDP
I wonder where he got the inspiration from this model from...

(shows physical correlation between a SNES pad and Model C)
You think like a LSI

18. Looking at the layout of Model B as described at Functional Revise on Wikisocion (hopefully I was right to connect that to this), it seems that the Mirror relationship is a sort of "internal duality," and the Activation relationship is a sort of "external duality." Conflict relationships are external only... I hunted in vain for a "total conflict."

I guess I've skipped right over the question of whether this is accurate... hmm, the relationships don't seem to match up with Model A at first glance. But that might be a gripe with all of Model B...

19. Originally Posted by glamourama
no, I don't think they are connected.

the functional revise page I believe is based on hitta's interpretation of socionics, which I don't think machintruc subscribes to.
I think Functional Revise is fuckshit, because according to Hitta, it says I'm ILI, and I'm not ILI.

#### Posting Permissions

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