Thread: smilexian socionics: can someone explain something

1. smilexian socionics: can someone explain something...

Say you want to change your type from ENTp to ESTp. Then:

Code:
```E
N >> S
T
P
EN >> ES
ET
EP
NT >> ST
NP >> SP
TP
ENT >> EST
ENP >> ESP
ETP
NTP >> STP
ENTP >> ESTP```
All the dichotomies in bold shouldn't change at all since they're the same for ENTp and ESTp. *The union of the dichotomies E, T, P, ET, EP, TP, ETP designates creating Ti.* They shouldn't be affected at all whether you are ILE or SLE.

In other words, the dichotomies E, N, T, P are linearly independent. Changing N >> S has absolutely no effect on T.

There is no such thing as "maximum Ti" among EPs, since the T dichotomy isn't affected by the change from ILE to SLE. So what's the purpose of grafting Ti to the right side of the clockface? Does this mean that subtypes are not fully defined in Smilexian socionics?

discuss!

2. The only explanation I can think of is that Smilexian subtypes shouldn't in any way correspond to absolute function strength.

Is that correct?

The way he writes is impossible for me to focus on, like getting your eyes clawed out from the inside, just kidding (not really). I've only ever skimmed through his articles.

3. Perhaps you are forgetting the "abstract"/"concrete" concepts? Abstract is where you are before a certain point; concrete is where you are after a certain point, and each has its own properties. E.g. abstract Ti is where you are "before" the strongest point of T (3:00 on the clock face) and you are concrete Ti after that point. I think the two, um, states - if you will - can extent all the way to the other side of the clock face (where Fi is strongest), but I think it's most often used in reference to the quarters (or even eighths) closest to whatever point it is.

4. If you look at the Socion as a continuum of functional strengths, rather than one of absolute relatives, it makes sense. For example, if you go from ILE to SLE, the point between them is maximum Ti in EPs, as well as maximum Te and minimum Fe and Fi. It is the maximum of Si and Se for ILEs, and maximum of Ni and Ne for SLEs.

You just have to think of the functions as "sliding" relative to the others: More T means less F, less N means more S, and visa versa.

5. Yes, I think Gilly has it right.

Don't know if they'll help at all, but here are a couple quotes from the Smilexian socionics thread with regard to the concepts of "abstract" and "concrete":

Now that we have the clock-face metaphor working I'll add the final bits of terminology that relates to moving on the clock-face. Question: Where does intuition start and not intuition begin? We see intuition reading at 12 o'clock. So, if we stand there, we're using intuition. How about one over 12? How about one second over 12? It's already something different from the absolute of intuition. True pure intuition is only at the undefinably small point of exactly 12 o'clock. So, what's 12:01? We'll need to add a definition. It's something that is close to intuition. I support the use of the word 'Concrete' to refer to something that is to the clockwise direction of a particular entity on the clock-face and 'Abstract' for something that is to the anti-clockwise direction. The idea is that when one is at the point of 11:59 one is trying to reach the perfect point of absolute intuition, but one can not have a complete understanding of something that one has not reached. Hence one's conception of the item that one is trying to reach is abstract. On the other hand at 12:01 o'clock one has a concrete memory of the characteristic of perfect absolute intuition, since one has passed it and experienced it. One can use the term 'concrete intuition' to at least the part from 12:00 to 1:30. From then on it's better to talk about abstract thinking. So at 1:30, the point of absolute 'social closedness' there also exists the border between intuition and thinking. No area of the clock-face is by itself abstract or concrete, the definitions are only in reference to something else. While the area between 12:00 to 1:30 can be called concrete intuition, it would not be incorrect to also call the same thing 'abstract social closedness'.
I understood all of that, I think. If I were approaching a stop sign, one could say that I was "abstract stop sign" since I had not yet experienced stopping at the sign. But once I started going through the intersection, I could be considered "concrete stop sign," right? Not that you can really apply that to such a situation, but that's the general idea, yes?

That's exactly the point I'm having problems with. N and T are independent. If you change N >> S, the strength of T isn't affected at all. T is basically in its own home.

I'm trying to see the socion as a sliding continuum, but there doesn't seem to be a logical basis for it.

The basic Reinin dichotomies (E N T P) are linearly independent and don't affect each other. Continuum subtypes can't exist using this model.

Or so it seems.

7. Originally Posted by Minde
Perhaps you are forgetting the "abstract"/"concrete" concepts? Abstract is where you are before a certain point; concrete is where you are after a certain point, and each has its own properties. E.g. abstract Ti is where you are "before" the strongest point of T (3:00 on the clock face) and you are concrete Ti after that point. I think the two, um, states - if you will - can extent all the way to the other side of the clock face (where Fi is strongest), but I think it's most often used in reference to the quarters (or even eighths) closest to whatever point it is.
Yes this explanation works since it means that subtypes don't change function strength, just certain general traits associated with a type. Abstract and concrete are the traits in this case.

Thanks.

If this is true, then I think I'm beginning to understand why Smilex is against model A so much. Model A (and Rick) is all about function strength.

8. functional strength should really be called functional focus. This idea of people "increasing the strength" of functions seems kind of silly.

Perhaps function isn't even the right word, maybe element.

9. Originally Posted by jxrtes
There is no such thing as "maximum Ti" among EPs, since the T dichotomy isn't affected by the change from ILE to SLE. So what's the purpose of grafting Ti to the right side of the clockface? Does this mean that subtypes are not fully defined in Smilexian socionics?
To echo Minde: T goes from being - to being +. Smilingeyes thought of the EXTp type, with it's maximally strong Ti, as a type of it's own that a person changed "through" in between of a change from ENTp to ESTp or vice versa. He also spoke of people that spent time focussing on Ti to exclusion of other functions for long periods of time. Such a person would have a more or less stable EXTp "type".

Originally Posted by jxrtes
If you change N >> S, the strength of T isn't affected at all.
Under a sliding continuum interpretation the strength of T would first raise until the EXTp state is reached, and then drop again to reach a strength level at ESTp equal to the one it was at at ENTp. One implication of this is that T is strong but raising in ENTp, and equally strong but falling in ESTp. It's all solely academic, of course, because "raising T" is "strong N" and "falling T" is "strong S". You can drop the whole raising/falling terminology and just use strong/weak without missing anything.

10. Originally Posted by jxrtes
The way he writes is impossible for me to focus on, like getting your eyes clawed out from the inside, just kidding (not really). I've only ever skimmed through his articles.
I agree.

If you repeat your analysis and factor in ESTP = +T, -S and ENTP = -T, +N:

E
+N >> -S
-T>>+T
P
+EN >> -ES
-ET >> +ET
EP
-NT >> -ST
+NP >> -SP
-TP >> +TP
-ENT >> -EST
+ENP >> -ESP
-ETP >> +ETP
-NTP >> +STP
-ENTP >> -ESTP

then you'll see that only E, P and EP remain the same - which is consistent with the 4 temperament clockfaces. :wink:

This is interesting, you could probably make a graph of relative dichotomic strengths as you move through the types, if you set maximal T = 0, minimal T = Fi (9 o'clock) = -/+ 1, you'd get a pretty sine graph which I think is a representation of functional strength consistent with Model A.

Not that I have any idea whether I'm still adhering to smilexian principles.

11. Originally Posted by labcoat
Under a sliding continuum interpretation the strength of T would first raise until the EXTp state is reached, and then drop again to reach a strength level at ESTp equal to the one it was at at ENTp. One implication of this is that T is strong but raising in ENTp, and equally strong but falling in ESTp. It's all solely academic, of course, because "raising T" is "strong N" and "falling T" is "strong S". You can drop the whole raising/falling terminology and just use strong/weak without missing anything.
Why is Ti falling in Se egos. Can't Ti strengthen in the clockwise direction?

12. Originally Posted by octopuslove
I agree.

If you repeat your analysis and factor in ESTP = +T, -S and ENTP = -T, +N:

E
+N >> -S
-T>>+T
P
+EN >> -ES
-ET >> +ET
EP
-NT >> -ST
+NP >> -SP
-TP >> +TP
-ENT >> -EST
+ENP >> -ESP
-ETP >> +ETP
-NTP >> +STP
-ENTP >> -ESTP

then you'll see that only E, P and EP remain the same - which is consistent with the 4 temperament clockfaces. :wink:

This is interesting, you could probably make a graph of relative dichotomic strengths as you move through the types, if you set maximal T = 0, minimal T = Fi (9 o'clock) = -/+ 1, you'd get a pretty sine graph which I think is a representation of functional strength consistent with Model A.

Not that I have any idea whether I'm still adhering to smilexian principles.
This is actually very mathematically sound. :wink:

But you're not adhering to Smilex's principles. +ET and -ET should stay the same for both ENTp and ESTp. ET is the yielding Reinin dichotomy, which is the same for both ESTp and ENTp, as are TP and ETP. They designate what ENTp and ESTp have in common -- which is creative Ti.

13. Originally Posted by jxrtes
This is actually very mathematically sound. :wink:
Thank you Linear Algebra 1001!

But you're not adhering to Reinin principles. +ET and -ET should stay the same for both ENTp and ESTp. ET is the yielding dichotomy, which is the same for both ESTp and ENTp, as are TP and ETP. They designate what ENTp and ESTp have in common -- which is creative Ti.
I'm not well versed in Reinin dichotomies, I think that's just a definitional difference - Reinin takes the absolute value (-/+T both = 1) whereas smilex differentiates -/+T. In other words, Reinin dichotomies are a true dichotomy (0 or 1) whereas smilexian works on a continuum basis. For example, ENXP (i.e. peak Ne) would be balanced between yielding and obstinate. I'm going to make a pretty graph now to show how to define Reinin dichotomies (now continuums) in smilexian terms.

14. Sorry, they're not sine graphs at all, they're tangent graphs D'oh!

15. All right... inverse tan graphs for Ep types! I change my mind so much... This is so 0 = weakest and infinity = strongest, it seems better that way but obviously it's an arbitrary designation. N/S and T/F are negative inverses of each other. Happily the types all correspond to the clockface, if you interpret the clockface as a unit circle.

x-axis: Balanced types
ENXp = 0
ENTp = 0.25π
EXTp = 0.5π
ESTp = 0.75π
ESXp = π
ESFp = 1.25π
EXFp = 1.5π
ENFp = 1.75π
ENXp = 2π

y-axis:
0 = lowest strength, infinity = peak, -/+ corresponds to -/+, scale otherwise is arbitrary

E.g. ENXp has maximal (infinite) Ne, equal amounts of -T and +F, no Se. ENTp (balanced subtype) has equal +Ne and -Ti, and smaller, equal amounts of -Se and +Fi.

16. OK, so I've mucked around with absolute values and stuff, but for dichotomies involving N/S/T/F the only way to work out the Reinins using this graph is to calculate the ranges that values fall in and arbitrarily assign y > a = process, y < a = result. Gah. That is as far as my mathematical ability/patience goes.

17. Originally Posted by jxrtes

That's exactly the point I'm having problems with. N and T are independent. If you change N >> S, the strength of T isn't affected at all. T is basically in its own home.
But an ILE-Ne is closer to IEE, whereas an ILE-Ti is closer to SLE. The intuitive subtype will have stronger ethics and weaker logic; logic is still stronger than ethics, because it's a logical type, but an Ne-ILE would have stronger Fi and Fe than the ILE-Ti, whereas the ILE-Ti would have stronger Se and Si.

18. Originally Posted by Gilly
But an ILE-Ne is closer to IEE, whereas an ILE-Ti is closer to SLE. The intuitive subtype will have stronger ethics and weaker logic; logic is still stronger than ethics, because it's a logical type, but an Ne-ILE would have stronger Fi and Fe than the ILE-Ti, whereas the ILE-Ti would have stronger Se and Si.
My argument is that this system of subtypes is somewhat presumptuous, given the linear independence of the Reinin dichotomies. N and T are independent of each other. Why? Because it's only possible to get ESTp from ENTp by varying one dichotomy -- N >> S. T can be anything. And as long as it is present (over 50%), you'll still get an ESTp.

The Reinin dichotomies are predicated on the assumption that the Jungian dichotomies are linearly independent and do not overlap.

Say you have an ENTp with N at 100%. We put him at 12:00 on the clockface.
ENTp with N at 66%. We put him at 2:00 on the clockface.
ENTp with N at 51%. We would have to put him near 3:00. He's almost an ESTp.

The model expects T in the first case to be at 50% and rising for all subsequent cases, until it reaches 100% in the third case.

But what if there is an ENTp with N at 51% and T at 51%? This is entirely plausible given the linear independence of the Reinin dichotomies. We would have to put him near 3:00, even though he has poor Ti. This is an unaccounted for subtype of ENTp that contradicts the smooth progression of the model.

The model assumes that you'll be altering both dichotomies (N and T) simultaneously while moving along the clockface and doesn't really account for all possible subtypes.

19. An ENTp-Ti subtype wouldn't necessarily look like an ESTp. He could just as easily seem like an ENFp.

N -76% S-24%
T - 88% F-12%

Much closer to ENFp than ESTp.

N -55% S-45%
T -51% F-49%

Much closer to ESTp than ENFp.

20. Btw, pay attention that the notation is partially tautological, because creative-Ti is not defined as equal to base-Ti, since the two don't share the same reinin dichotomies. What do I mean by tautological? Well, a maximally-creative-Ti can only be understood in its own context, it cannot be compared easily to other Ti types.

It is my understanding that maximum-Ti-EP is a type that is defined as EP, maximally construct-creating, maximally merry, maximally yielding. The other dichotomies should not be easy to identify, since they do not define the type. In relation to other EP types. The tool to understand these points is the sinusoidal waves-based graph that was created by smilingeyes in a topic I cannot find at the moment. Functional strenght is meant to be a synthetic symbology for subset of reinin dichotomies, in a way.

21. Originally Posted by jxrtes
An ENTp-Ti subtype wouldn't necessarily look like an ESTp. He could just as easily seem like an ENFp.

N -76% S-24%
T - 88% F-12%

Much closer to ENFp than ESTp.

N -55% S-45%
T -51% F-49%

Much closer to ESTp than ENFp.
I don't understand where are you getting these numbers from, to be honest. The mechanism works in the reverse direction: if an ENTp seems more like an ENFp, then he is ENTp-Ne. You can't work out types from purely logical reasoning, you're inferring from reality.

22. Originally Posted by octopuslove
All right... inverse tan graphs for Ep types! I change my mind so much... This is so 0 = weakest and infinity = strongest, it seems better that way but obviously it's an arbitrary designation. N/S and T/F are negative inverses of each other. Happily the types all correspond to the clockface, if you interpret the clockface as a unit circle.

x-axis: Balanced types
ENXp = 0
ENTp = 0.25π
EXTp = 0.5π
ESTp = 0.75π
ESXp = π
ESFp = 1.25π
EXFp = 1.5π
ENFp = 1.75π
ENXp = 2π

y-axis:
0 = lowest strength, infinity = peak, -/+ corresponds to -/+, scale otherwise is arbitrary

E.g. ENXp has maximal (infinite) Ne, equal amounts of -T and +F, no Se. ENTp (balanced subtype) has equal +Ne and -Ti, and smaller, equal amounts of -Se and +Fi.
Mmm. Really nice. I think that the sinusoidal is a little bit more intuitive,though. I haven't slept enough to think about it deeply, but I guess you can derive that tangent function dividing cos and sin waves of large-cycle and small-cycle reinin dichotomies. Kudos for the idea, anyway.

23. Uhm... I don't even want to know.

24. Originally Posted by jxrtes
Why is Ti falling in Se egos. Can't Ti strengthen in the clockwise direction?
Smilingeyes believed that movement to the right in the sequence of types as he displayed it was "special" somehow. Ti was something that turned Ne into Se, Fi something that turned Se into Ne, and so on... If a person type changed "to the left", it was seen as a more inactive kind of change, something that didn't happen during the course of an activity but was more like a return to a state in which one had been before. Backtracking. He often implicitly assumed the change always happened "to the right" to the point of omitting the leftward movement entirely in his terminology.

Originally Posted by FDG
I think that the sinusoidal is a little bit more intuitive,though.
I think the tangential function makes sense when the "maximal Ti" state is seen as something unattainable and requiring increasingly much energy to maintain as one approaches the central nexus of it.

ps. what is it about smilexian socionics and people wanting to make graphs all of a sudden?

25. Originally Posted by labcoat

ps. what is it about smilexian socionics and people wanting to make graphs all of a sudden?
lol i was wondering the same.

26. Originally Posted by FDG
Btw, pay attention that the notation is partially tautological, because creative-Ti is not defined as equal to base-Ti, since the two don't share the same reinin dichotomies. What do I mean by tautological? Well, a maximally-creative-Ti can only be understood in its own context, it cannot be compared easily to other Ti types.

It is my understanding that maximum-Ti-EP is a type that is defined as EP, maximally construct-creating, maximally merry, maximally yielding. The other dichotomies should not be easy to identify, since they do not define the type. In relation to other EP types. The tool to understand these points is the sinusoidal waves-based graph that was created by smilingeyes in a topic I cannot find at the moment. Functional strenght is meant to be a synthetic symbology for subset of reinin dichotomies, in a way.
The -Ti/+Ti thing is misleading in this case. I think it's more accurate to say that MAX Ti-EP would be perfectly balanced between +Ne and -Se. Since the ET, ETP, TP dichotomies which represent creative T-EP don't change. Rather than say creative +Ti or creative -Ti, it's more accurate to say base +Ne or base -Se.

I don't understand where are you getting these numbers from, to be honest. The mechanism works in the reverse direction: if an ENTp seems more like an ENFp, then he is ENTp-Ne. You can't work out types from purely logical reasoning, you're inferring from reality.
These are subtypes that are completely possible under the reasoning that the reinin dichotomies are independent.

Originally Posted by labcoat
Smilingeyes believed that movement to the right in the sequence of types as he displayed it was "special" somehow. Ti was something that turned Ne into Se, Fi something that turned Se into Ne, and so on... If a person type changed "to the left", it was seen as a more inactive kind of change, something that didn't happen during the course of an activity but was more like a return to a state in which one had been before. Backtracking. He often implicitly assumed the change always happened "to the right" to the point of omitting the leftward movement entirely in his terminology.
Why?

27. Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
lol i was wondering the same.
Makes them feel like they're discussing something complex. Also because smilex liked to do that kind of thing. He was so full of shit.

28. Originally Posted by Gilly
Makes them feel like they're discussing something complex. Also because smilex liked to do that kind of thing. He was so full of shit.
I'm questioning its central precepts.

29. Reading the posts in this thread, I take back what I said about smilex not liking function strength.

So as far as I can tell, the criteria for assigning "strength" to a creative function as you move along the clockface is rather arbitrary.

There is no reason that the point between Ne and Se is maximum Ti. This is only the point where ENTp's Ti blends with ESTp's Ti. Nothing could possibly suggest that this is where Ti is strongest, only where it is least differentiated ---> which ironically could imply that it is weak/useless.

The whole clockface analogy seems wrong. Creative function strength doesn't move in any kind of continuum.

30. The problem is that Smilex is trying to alter one dichotomy, in order to create a two subtype system.

You need to alter at least two dichotomies to arrive at 2x2 = 4 subtypes. This is a model in which talking about function strength is actually a well-defined proposition.

And no, I'm not trying to be a DCNH ideologue or anything.

31. Originally Posted by jxrtes
I'm questioning its central precepts.
The basic idea of types as being on a continuum is valid; type shifting, on the other hand...

32. Originally Posted by Gilly
The basic idea of types as being on a continuum is valid; type shifting, on the other hand...
Not according to Reinin.

33. Originally Posted by jxrtes
There is no reason that the point between Ne and Se is maximum Ti. This is only the point where ENTp's Ti blends with ESTp's Ti. Nothing could possibly suggest that this is where Ti is strongest, only where it is least differentiated ---> which ironically could imply that it is weak/useless.
I don't see your point. There is no strict reason to postulate anything in the model. It's all there to give structure to a set of intuitions smilingeyes had about the types. The whole thing about Ti being maximal in between of ENTp and ESTp is one of those intuitions.

Why would Ti be undifferentiated between ENTp and ESTp? It's Intuition/Sensation dichotomy that would be undifferentiated at that point.

Originally Posted by jxrtes
Creative function strength doesn't move in any kind of continuum.
Do you think these problems do not exist for the Accepting variant of Ti? Is Accepting Ti maximal in between of INTj and ISTj?

34. Originally Posted by labcoat
I don't see your point. There is no strict reason to postulate anything in the model. It's all there to give structure to a set of intuitions smilingeyes had about the types. The whole thing about Ti being maximal in between of ENTp and ESTp is one of those intuitions.
I like to learn about stuff by criticizing it.

Why would Ti be undifferentiated between ENTp and ESTp? It's Intuition/Sensation dichotomy that would be undifferentiated at that point.
If S/N are undifferentiated at this point, then so are +Ne and -Se, which means that -Ti and +Ti creative (which are the result of S/N ego blocking) are undifferentiated as well.

"Creative Ti" as the general category, however, still exists. The dichotomies ET, TP, ETP etc. stay constant. Ti is qualitatively undifferentiated (ie. the same) between ESTp and ENTp, which share those dichotomies.

I can see how Ti would be the strongest function at this point (relative to other ego function), but it's erroneous to attribute absolute strength to it.

Do you think these problems do not exist for the Accepting variant of Ti? Is Accepting Ti maximal in between of INTj and ISTj?
I would think acc Ti is maximal between ISTj and INTj, unless there's a reason I shouldn't. The model does work with only one dichotomy T-F. But it contradicts the basic linear independence premise if you add a 2nd dichotomy.

35. Originally Posted by Gilly
Makes them feel like they're discussing something complex. Also because smilex liked to do that kind of thing. He was so full of shit.
They're pretty! Also heuristically useful.

OK, so we've established that Reinin dichotomies as per classical definitions aren't compatible with the Smilexian clockface, which makes perfect sense since Reinin dichotomies proceed on the basis that N/S and T/F dichotomies are independent and smilexian clockfaces operate on the basis that they're dependent. E/I and J/P are independent in both systems.

I'm still undecided about smilexian socionics as a whole, but this thread has made me even more sceptical about typing using Reinin dichotomies. Alpha Ti/Ti blocked with Ne/-Ti/whatever label you want to put on it is completely different from Beta Ti, simply by virtue of the fact it can never occupy the same block of the psyche as Se. At best Reinin dichotomies are just post hoc observations of similarities between types.

As for DCNH... I still have problems with the "close energization" pairing of functions. Someone needs to explain to me how this doesn't directly contradict the Ne/Ni, Ti/Te etc. pairing from Model A... but I guess that's a discussion for another thread.

36. Originally Posted by jxrtes
Not according to Reinin.
What does Reinin have to say? What doesn't make sense about temperament continuums?

37. Originally Posted by Gilly
Makes them feel like they're discussing something complex. Also because smilex liked to do that kind of thing. He was so full of shit.
Socionics in general can do that

But w/e, sounds interesting, although I admit to not understanding [smilexian] intuitively yet.

38. If the point of this thread is to point out that you can't arrive at the "clockface" interpretation by just using plain Reinin, this is kicking in an open door. The clockface interpretation was smilingeyes' personal addition to the model, not something he proved by juggling mathematical terms or something. That part of the theory rests only on his authority and the degree to which people agree with him that the stuff it describes is real.

Originally Posted by jxrtes
I would think acc Ti is maximal between ISTj and INTj, unless there's a reason I shouldn't.
How does this conform to your initial conclusion? Changing N to S in INTj > ISTj does not affect the T function any more than changing N to S in ENTp > ESTp does.

39. Originally Posted by labcoat
If the point of this thread is to point out that you can't arrive at the "clockface" interpretation by just using plain Reinin, this is kicking in an open door. The clockface interpretation was smilingeyes' personal addition to the model, not something he proved by juggling mathematical terms or something. That part of the theory rests only on his authority and the degree to which people agree with him that the stuff it describes is real.
Well yeah, but there is no reason not to have the thread. I wasn't around when smiley was. I'm not criticizing him personally, I don't hate the guy, and I think his assumptions could be true. I'm just testing some suspicions and also transmitting some of knowledge about the dichotomies.

How does this conform to your initial conclusion? Changing N to S in INTj > ISTj does not affect the T function any more than changing N to S in ENTp > ESTp does.
I had a brain fart when I wrote that. +Ne and -Ne should also reach some undifferentiated middle ground, where dichotomies like process are at 50%.

Posting Permissions

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