The other day I came across a socionics site that refers to "Dimension Functions": http://translate.google.com/translate?sourceid=navclient&hl=en&u=http%3a%2f%2f www%2esocionicasys%2eru%2f (click button theory on the left, then TIM Model on the left, Then Functions on the left, then Dimension Functions on the left). (I don't know why the link didn't take directly to the page )
It's an alternative way of looking at Model A, types, and informational functions and supposedly provides a means of actually measuring a person's functions. (dependent, of course, on how you define the function)
Basically, the suggestion is that the more parameters a person includes when dealing with certain information, the more flexible they are in dealing with (or maybe expressing) that information, and the more likely that this information is a natural part of the person.
While the less parameters the person utilizes, the less flexible they are with that information, and the less likely that this information is a natural part of the person.
What are the parameters?
- Time (Tm): (not to be confused with Ni): Can/does the person recognize/envision how this informational situation likely developed and/or where the development is likely to go? (Uses the information across time.)
- Situation (St): Can/does the person recognize/respond to the subtleties of specific informational situations? Are they flexible enough in the usage of the information to apply differently in different situations? Does the person recognize how the "environment" (social/physical/individual) affects the situation and the information?
- Norms (Nr): Can/did the person adopt and apply social/individual rules, regulations, customs, practices, and other standards to be followed in assessing the information? Are they rigid in assessing/using the information, reliant on rules/standards to guide them around using this information? Do they focus on and prefer to deal with the "usual" or the "expected" rather than the actual situation? Note: these kinds of standards for assessments come from generalizations of personal experiences, education, traditions, etc. It is "transferable knowledge".
- Experience (Ex): Can/does the person draw on own personal experiences? ("nontransferable knowledge") This does not include education, customs, etc.
- This one is kind of like "I need to see it for myself to understand what you are talking about".
- Also like:
- A: "It's there, it's there, can't you see it?"
- B: "What's there? What are you talking about?"
- A: " . . . I can't tell you . . , but I swear it's There!"
According to the site, here is how the parameters fit into Model A:
1. Ex, Nr, St, Tm
2. Ex, Nr, St
3. Ex, Nr
6. Ex, Nr
7. Ex, Nr, St
8. Ex, Nr, St, Tm
In my opinion, regardless of Model A ordering, these parameters give higher insight into a person's usage of specific information, and places focus back onto information metabolism instead of non-relevant traits and biases. It also brings to light some of the issues and arguments between people on this forum, and can even help explain some of the biases.
Example: Person A's parameters in a informational function are limited to Ex & Nr. They are attempting to describe use of that informational function. People who use St/Tm in that informational function try to tell Person A that Person A is wrong, that the informational function isn't that limited, that it's not based on A's rules/assessments, but are indeed dependent on situation and development over time (which of course, goes beyond Person A's abilities and applications of that information function).