Missing Smilexian dichotomies

[Brilliand]

On the observation that Smilingeyes created single-function analogs to several of the whole-type dichotomies, I went through the dichotomies to see if he covered everything:

For the Judging function:
(null/nonnull)
E (static/dynamic) [introtim/extrotim]
T (thinking/feeling) [=]
P (rational/irrational) [accepting/creating]
A (democratic/aristocratic) [abstract/concrete]
ET (merry/serious) [=]
EP (hot/cold) [limiting/empowering]
EA (narrator/taciturn) []
TP (constructivist/emotivist) [=]
TA (intuitive/sensing) [=]
PA (process/result) []
ETP (obstinate/compliant) [=]
ETA (judicious/decisive) [=]
EPA (positivist/negativist) []
TPA (tactical/strategic) [=]
ETPA (carefree/farsighted) [=]

[] -> He never covered this, afaik
[=] -> The dichotomy already refers to a specific function (it's its own analog)

OK, the three missing dichotomies... these are:

• Judging subtype xor Narrator
• Judging subtype xor Process
• Judging subtype xor Positivist

After some thought, I realized that he had a reason for ignoring these dichotomies: every one of them would predict a change in temperament, under the same rules that he uses for his other dichotomies.

• That which moves from Static to Dynamic
• That which moves from Rational to Irrational
• That which moves from Cold to Hot

(This basic rule is that abstract/concrete always moves from Abstract to Concrete. Each dichotomy moves the dichotomy equal to it XOR abstract/concrete.)

As there are now several people (Labcoat at least, but i'm sure there's more) looking into cross-temperament type changes, I think that these dichotomies deserve a second glance.

[Brilliand]

In Smilingeyes' type change system, those three dichotomies are alternating dichotomies, similarly to Democratic/Aristocratic. Democratic/Aristocratic moves [judging/perceiving] (the analog to null/nonnull). Abstract/concrete moves null/nonnull, which is theoretically impossible, so that can never be more than an alternating dichotomy.

[krieger]

You need to explain yourself better in this thread.

As there are now several people (Labcoat at least, but i'm sure there's more) looking into cross-temperament type changes, I think that these dichotomies deserve a second glance.

I'm not even sure what you're refering to with this.

[krieger]

E (static/dynamic) [introtim/extrotim]
T (thinking/feeling) [=]
P (rational/irrational) [accepting/creating]
A (democratic/aristocratic) [abstract/concrete]

Why did you use these 4 dichotomies as the fundaments? This is almost random.

edit: ok; I can see the use of Static/Dynamic, Rational/Irrational and Democratic/Aristocrat as ways of dividing up the socion, and you need one out of Thinking/Feeling, Intuiting/Sensing, Reasonable/Resolute and Merry/Serious to make the final division, among which it doesn't matter much which you pick.

[Smilingeyes]

Agree with everything said in this thread.

The "ignored" dichotomies are exactly because they don't exist unless temperament can change. I've never said it can't, but I'm not convinced it can. More to the point, I've never registered a phenomenon that would seriously imply the existence of temperament change. So, if you choose to persist in this line of research, as you seem to, I wish you all the luck. I hope your pursuit bears fruit.