Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: How many types exist in the Socion?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default How many types exist in the Socion?

    Probably not as many as there are people, but certainly a lot.

    Think of a position you could be confident about. Now abstract it. Now, imagine a counter position that is definitely not confident about yours, but is confident in that which you aren't.

    Behold, you've uncovered one of the many socionical dichotomies.

    It's all a matter of confidence. There are as many types as there are kinds of confident positions in the world. But too, there are also moral questions: if you aren't confident a position is moral, you can bet there is at least the potential for someone to think it is.

    In the end, it's all a matter of mathematics. As yet unknown mathematics, to be sure, but try cranking up the Reinin and see what comes up.... +Fe takes many, many guises.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95 View Post
    each of the 16 types have a unique set of relationships with the other 15. for example, each type has 8 dissimilar Reinin dichotomies, compared to every other type but itself. the same cannot be said for an ESFj and an "ESj" construction. These are unique positions of confidence, but only one conforms to the above. One may think of the types as striving towards some primary colors in the personality spectrum.
    Of course not. But there is a position which says logic is sound but not the interpretation of signal, and a contrary position which says that one can verify what is being signaled confidently, but not whether or not the signal will be interpreted as was meant (it's logical context and connection to the situation); which is exactly what the EFj-ITj dichotomy rests on. EFj says "I hate something", but does not necessarily understand that what is hated is "you". ITj knows that it "hates you", but is not confident in its ability to make that clear.

    But no need to restrain you intellectual horizon... I think there are more innate personality dispositions than the 16 types described by Augusta, and some people's habits tend to be "difficult enough" to break that we can make the blanket claim that whenever one expresses genuine confidence in any particle of thought, then they are using one half of a typological dichotomy, discovered or no.

    For one to feel confident about any self-conception, one must use only those personality traits which do not violate one's sense of self-being in the formulation of the concept; these constitute one's native typological spectrum. But allow me to go a step further and state that all personality is typological is nature, because personality must be effective to be adaptive. (appearance of personality =/= personage within)

    Another point worth mentioning: everyone possesses every type, but the types may be reckoned with differently from person to person.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the point I'm making is, that as far as I can tell not even all ISFps process Si equally. You've got a dance between the asthetics of the environment and the asthetics of the person, and some ISFps think that the environment should be reoriented to fit them, and others that they should fit into their environment as best they can. So you've got in that sense ISFps with Big Five "aggressive" or "disagreeable" traits, and also ISFps with "agreeable" or "passive" traits. The environment appeasing ISFps are confident that they need to fit in with the environment, because when they've tried not to then somehow or another, things went badly from their vantagepoint. Similarly, the ISFps who are confident they can keep trying to force a change in the environment have previously produced what is in their view positive change. From a vantagepoint, these are ISFps which have dissimilar "types" with regard to aggressivity and passivity. This is just one example of such types, and I've observed in my own experience many more in both others and myself.

    Let me put it this way: when you propose a plan, and people don't go along with it, are you stubborn about it and go through with it anyway, or do you try changing the plan to make it more acceptable to the non-interested parties?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well you ignored my rather thought-provoking inquiry about how you react when your plans are faced with resistance. If you knew anything about Se id, however, you'd know that it has nothing to do with aggressivity. Perhaps an ISFp might intepret hostility toward them in terms of Se, but that does not at all mean they would use Se alone as a means of aggression. That would make them rather... ineffective. (notice that I didn't ask "don't you think", because your non-response to the planning issue is telling).

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by imfd95
    Those sound like strong correlates to preexisting constructs. You might say an "aggressive" or "disagreeable" ISFp is using id Se.
    This statement demonstrates a failure to differentiate the existence of aggression as an intra-IM element dynamic from the behavior of the program function. I have observed traits already, compared them to the descriptions of the 7th function reputable socionists have given us, and determined these traits to be distinct from anything else yet described in socionics. I have thus invoked the fundamental trait of progressivism, differentiation of internl fields, and automatically conceived of a new concept. The conflict between you and I... I am undecided if I have not explained myself fully, or if you are frightened about it existing somehow and will deny it no matter what.

  6. #6
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i remember a while ago going off about a complex IM type and complex dual type, when we discussed how the theory could theoretically model any given information. if that's what you're talking about then i agree with you to a certain extent.. but not in that there are infinite types- the array of possible function formations would still be limited by itself.. it couldn't become redundant. there would be kind of like a 'typology molecule' for each person & each situation. There would be something like 32^32-32=x possible IM types (considering each subtype as a seperate function readout, resulting in 32 distinct possible functional notations), & the same number of dual types & cross types.. however, dual type & cross type would change subtley as the situation surrounding the individual changes; they are, in some way i have not yet figured out, an agreement between the world and the person
    INTp

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedrat View Post
    i remember a while ago going off about a complex IM type and complex dual type, when we discussed how the theory could theoretically model any given information. if that's what you're talking about then i agree with you to a certain extent.. but not in that there are infinite types- the array of possible function formations would still be limited by itself.. it couldn't become redundant. there would be kind of like a 'typology molecule' for each person & each situation. There would be something like 32^32-32=x possible IM types (considering each subtype as a seperate function readout, resulting in 32 distinct possible functional notations), & the same number of dual types & cross types.. however, dual type & cross type would change subtley as the situation surrounding the individual changes; they are, in some way i have not yet figured out, an agreement between the world and the person
    I didn't say they were infinite in number; I only said that there are as many types as there are kinds of positions to be taken.[/i]

    You seem to have taken a position that the passive information processor corresponds to a variable type.

  8. #8
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,782
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Probably not as many as there are people, but certainly a lot.

    Think of a position you could be confident about. Now abstract it. Now, imagine a counter position that is definitely not confident about yours, but is confident in that which you aren't.

    Behold, you've uncovered one of the many socionical dichotomies.

    It's all a matter of confidence. There are as many types as there are kinds of confident positions in the world. But too, there are also moral questions: if you aren't confident a position is moral, you can bet there is at least the potential for someone to think it is.

    In the end, it's all a matter of mathematics. As yet unknown mathematics, to be sure, but try cranking up the Reinin and see what comes up.... +Fe takes many, many guises.
    Another example of how a logical type corrupts classical Socionics by adding stuff to it that has nothing to do psychological types.
    The future of Socionics:
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Many black Americans are SEE type.

  9. #9
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    well, i'm not sure on your language and what exactly you mean half the time. i skip over alot of it, because it doesn't absorb for me. i try and extract a general idea from a few things you say and reconstruct it in my mind if i'm replying to you.. that seems to work better. reading in detail just turns off my own thinking. so if you read something i say which is a bit off, it is probably because of this
    INTp

  10. #10
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post

    You seem to have taken a position that the passive information processor corresponds to a variable type.
    yes. although i think the passive information processor you are describing is actually a lower dimensional awareness (namely the first dimension) which consists of two types- one for space and one for time. space is crosstype, and time is dualtype.
    space type (or crosstype) is an awareness of the instantaneous moment; and how everything relates to everything else at this moment. within this frozen moment still exists an awareness of time; it takes the form of an awareness of distance between two objects, and how this distance is defined using other objects. Thus, it is possible to think of the first dimension (or any dimension) from the point of view of a different dimension.
    Dualtype is a timeline type, or an exertion type.
    These two types are a measure of the coherence of the situation. together, both being dual to the IM type, you have an XXXx ... example INTp-ESFp-ESFp.
    This system at hand is free to vary- but partially dependent on the situation which came before it ... by this i mean, the flow of time creates the space at hand, and the space at hand dictates the preceding flow of time. For this reason I can't really say to what extent crosstype and dualtype are situationally determined, and to what extent they determine one anothers potential. To answer this question may require going down another dimension in thought, where time and space are simply the universe & we are thinking in dimension 0, but I haven't gotten there yet.
    Vaguely, I suspect an investigation into this dimension will reveal a general tendency to return thought to chaos- that there is a natural drawing toward, for example, INTp-ESFp-ESFP (which I think would be Thanatos, a death instinct), but that the realization of this potential is somehow hampered by a life instinct.. what explains this life instinct functionally I am not sure.
    This situation described is not physical reality, it is mental reality

    My notes on dimensional awareness are:
    Dimension:
    0- XXXx; the simple universe
    1- Space/Time, dualtype/crosstype
    2- space/time/matter/energy; space & time become organized, rationality & introversion/extraversion introduced
    3- 8 functions; relations between objects are explained. the central dimension, where thought converges. only from this dimension can you conceive of all other dimensions simultaneously.
    4- 16 IM types; functions grouped into material formations
    5- 32 functional notations; functions are organized relative to one another in the course of unfolding space & time; subtype functional notation
    6- anti-logic, free creation; the functional process of XXXx
    Last edited by crazedrat; 08-03-2008 at 09:08 PM.
    INTp

Posting Permissions

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