Revolutionary Socionics Concept

[Nexus]

I would like to announce my contribution to the field of socionics: The SSS (or Socionically Stable Strategy, modeled after the similar concept introduced by geneticist John Maynard Smith). The SSS acts as a chaotic attractor for certain behaviors, and justifies how each type (no matter how functionally unbalanced) may have a set of absolutely exclusive behaviors (expressed idiosyncratically) rather than a continuous divergence in tendency. This new tool will allow future practitioners to devise theories of cognitive ætiology much in the same way that modern evolutionary biologists often speculate with regard to the possible ultimate pressures that lead to the the development of proximate responses in the field of Genetic Neuroethology.

[FDG]

Let's hear it.

[Nexus]

Let's hear it.

It basically says that the order of each information element is the most efficient solution for the constraints of any particular niche (type), and that each type has unique motivations (ultimate) that are independent of the ordering of functions (proximate); it accounts for the way sensing acts differently if introverted or extroverted, if it is leading or creative, or if it is paired with thinking or feeling. In fact, it suggests a framework by which each type can be characterized according to it's own particular motivations (somewhat analogous to Nick's 'basic fixation' formulation of enneagram) rather than the effects of the combined IM elements which are really only in the order they are in order to to satisfy an SSS for that niche, where the subtypes account for multiple but equally valid SSS's.

This seems like it's already an assumption in many type descriptions for specific descriptors. It's an assumption in the popular approach to socionics on this forum in many ways as well. But I do like the theoretical angle.

Thank you. You are right that it is just an innovation to an already prominent methodology, however I feel that if it is to be applied behaviorally it should be used in situations where the outcome is failure and not death (evolutionary psychology, for instance, is highly speculative and usually not falsifiable). Socionics seems like a very unique and relevant application whose potential has been only subconsciously realized and otherwise overlooked. I am not proposing a trend in developing individual hypotheses, but rather an entire reworking of the characterization of forces affecting the socion (possibly leading to type and subtype adjustments in the theory itself due to multiplicity and similarity among SSS's; socionics is perfect for this - the built-in structure of intertype relations already incorporates a foundation by which to juxtapose both the types themselves and the sources of significant change in society to which all types must somehow adjust internally and so provides a platform on which to test each SSS). This covers the ground not covered by my epistemological theorem of socionics; IM Elements that are not primarily chosen to suit the most efficient disposition promoted by contextual circumstances (SSS) are likely to represent personal inferential biases (that are either reasoned or conditioned). The structure will resemble this crude simulation:

Common Social Force -> Unique Internal Conflict -> Interpersonal Interaction Imbalance (III) -> Socionically Stable Strategy (SSS) -> Model A

This idea (unlike MBTI) is in line with socionics trend of delegating only cognitive rather than behavioral significance to the dichotomies - this is good because conflictors do not necessarily have an opposite SSS (IJ and EP are opposites, but they are both static). The way that each IM element supports the SSS is not polarized along a functional spectrum, it plays a unique role in every SSS and every type and socionics is well aware of this. The number of unique, significant forces affecting the socion is certainly larger than the number of personality types; for this reason, it is likely that a number of subfields of socionics may spring up with reference to these different circumstances (just as physics uses Relativity Theory for large objects and Quantum Mechanics for small objects). While exhausting, for typing purposes the consistent and unambiguous isolation and defense of a significant SSS is far more reliable than the highly speculative nature of the circumstantial inductive observations that commonly float among the type descriptions.

[Nexus]

A strong example of an SSS that is fundamental to socionics and concerns the need for easy communication during interpersonal interactions, focusing on the role of dual-seeking functions in the determination of type during early childhood:

A strong example of an SSS that is fundamental to socionics and concerns the need for easy communication during interpersonal interactions, focusing on the role of dual-seeking functions in the determination of type during early childhood: The undeveloped id awakens and begins to explore the environment. Upon encountering others, the most pleasing IM elements expressed by people (perhaps the ones used by the others to convey understanding and communication or for comforting a baby) are reinforced and become the superid, which is essentially receptive and attentive to the wants of others as the id learns behaviors by imitation and identification (for static types the id learns to associate the extroverted judging of others with itself because it is directed at the id, and becomes an introverted judger; likewise the id associates introverted perceiving in others with extroverted perceiving in itself and becomes an extroverted perceiver); when the id is reproached for not being 'better' at the quasi-identical functions of the superid (which are suppressed in order to give more attentive power to the superid) then the id, which has only IM elements with which to relate and organize, associates the consistently negative functions in itself with inferiority and they collectively become the superego (which begins to take precedence over the superid during the Oedipus Complex). These are constantly accommodated by ego functions, which are used to exploit perceived weaknesses in the superego that eventually accumulate with use. The remaining unused IM elements remain in the id, where they are available at the 'desire' of the id but are not used continuously or systematically. Thus the Primary SSS focuses on the most efficient fixation of the attention on others (which happens to involve dual-seeking functions that are both least resistant and most reinforcing of continuous attention), and the Auxiliary SSS is the exploitation of the superid by the ego. One might ask, 'Why then does not seek ?' This has to do with selfish exploitation. Obviously one extreme in any dichotomy is best exploited by the other (it is not so easy to hide an element-specific SSS from someone who already understands its subtleties and advantages). This tendency is present even in the DNA, where the X chromosome is constantly trying to manipulate the weaker Y chromosome for its own selfish benefit. There is also a symbiotic benefit in complement functions, where positive long-term relations (requiring functional territory as personal space) are naturally selected over others. In a sexually reproducing, socially interacting species as ours, it is not surprising that fitness trends are replicated in the psyche (culminating perhaps in genetic dual-seeking predispositions to aid in sexual selection and conspecific diversity). I hope that from this discussion that it has become conspicuously evident that the superid is ultimately the most important factor in early type determination, because it dictates which IM elements will be used for understanding other people (which is the most important behavior for both young children and for social relations in general, and is also powerful factor in the manifestation of learning preferences and disabilities), and subsequently for adapting to social constraints.

[tcaudilllg]

It basically says that the order of each information element is the most efficient solution for the constraints of any particular niche (type), and that each type has unique motivations (ultimate) that are independent of the ordering of functions (proximate);

This sounds to me like you're saying that:
1) the function order is irrelevant.
2) Motivation is determined by socionics type (as defined by Augusta)
3) niche equates with socionics type, suggesting that type arises from the external environment and finding one's place in it. Either that, or niche arises from the innate disposition of type. Which is it?
4) The order of IM elements is independent of the ordering of functions.

I agree with 4. I don't think type determines motivation; I think those are seperate. Type is the way of self-confidence and therefore, the tool by which motivation is obtained. A function order in which one does not have confidence does not define a type the way Augusta described it. Augusta's, like Jung's, was a theory of confidence of operation.

[Gilly]

...So what is it?

[Nexus]

This sounds to me like you're saying that:
1) the function order is irrelevant.
2) Motivation is determined by socionics type (as defined by Augusta)
3) niche equates with socionics type, suggesting that type arises from the external environment and finding one's place in it. Either that, or niche arises from the innate disposition of type. Which is it?
4) The order of IM elements is independent of the ordering of functions.

I agree with 4. I don't think type determines motivation; I think those are seperate. Type is the way of self-confidence and therefore, the tool by which motivation is obtained. A function order in which one does not have confidence does not define a type the way Augusta described it. Augusta's, like Jung's, was a theory of confidence of operation.

I am saying that function order is irrelevant to type, but type is relevant to SSS and SSS is relevant to function order (likewise type does not determine motivation, but SSS determines motivation and motivation determines type). If you are suggesting that motivation can be derived from functions outside of the ego block, you are correct: different activities may require the activation of different IM elements (paying attention to other people involves use of the dual-seeking functions). However, most excess energy is derived from the creative and PoLR functions.

...So what is it?

I just explained it...what do you mean?

Catchy thread title.

Thanks.