Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Intratype functional differences

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

    Default Intratype functional differences

    It is possible to understand personality differences between people beyond those assumed by socionics. Here's how.

    First, find people who are insistent on resisting the influence of their personal experiences on their person. Of course experience shapes everyone, but it so happens that some people allow traumatic events to mold them more so than others. To deduce the riddle of personality, focus on people who resist being altered by tragic events. This will allow you to see the "core" about which the personality interprets themselves and their being.

    Once you have found these people, ask how they make decisions using socionics as a base. Type them first -- the MBTI can help in this regard. Some people have a great deal of anxiety about which category they fall into -- these are bad subjects because they can't give you a confident answer. Instead, find people who are confident in their responses.

    Once you are in agreement with the subject about their type, it's time to challenge assumptions. This board is a great place to find such assumptions, but so are the MBTI boards scattered across the web (this boards are also much bigger than this one). If you know the rules, you can do socionics analysis using MBTI data, because the two systems model exactly the same phenomena. On the matter of MBTI, there are two variants, the official variant (which Keirsey also uses) and the Jungian-compliant variant. The Jungian compliant variant produces a 1:1 correlation with socionics; the official variant, in contrast, requires a J/P switch in the case of an introverted type.

    One assumption that people tend to make is that type corresponds with prowess. For example, you might think that an ESFJ would be particularly bad at programming. Yet, there are such people out there even though programming is a heavily NiTe skill. Skill does not require originality -- in fact, the only study ever done on correlation between MBTI diagnosis and programming aptitude found that sensors actually more skill at programming than intuitives, and the aptitudes difference between T and F were discovered to be statistically insignificant. Although being T and N may be useful in helping you to conceive of a new program, it is apparently irrelevant. Data such as this guides one in the direction of thinking that there must be a further difference level possible between people of the same type with respect to the aptitude question.

    One must use socionics as the base for expanding one's understanding of personality, because socionics is beyond question. Why? Because our experience show it to be true -- socionics is proven through subjective experience. The relations hold and the people do identify with the types, therefore they must be real. Just as they must be real, so must the elementology of Augusta be valid, to the extent that it is understood.

    Let us consider the implications of Augusta's elementology. What Augusta asserts is no less than this: there existist a supreme categorical system that man can observe and understand. This system is defined by three dichotomies of being: externals/internals, statics/dynamics, and bodies/fields. All concepts are divisible between these poles.

    Augusta gives broad but non-overlapping descriptions of these elements. Indeed, the way she describes them, having strength in a certain element implies a level of skill, the ability to observe immediate things and their immediate relationships. There is a problem in this regard however, which expresses itself in terms of the uneven skill aptitudes between people of the same type. Although a function may indeed be described under Augusta's terms, the assumptions of skill implied in ascription of recognizable concepts to it do not hold universally, or even at all. Experience shows that they do, in fact, contradict each other. This does not mean Augusta's definition is wrong, only that skill using functions in certain ways is not an implication of type diagnosis under the rules Augusta stipulates. (meaning, competence in one measure of intellect at the notable expense of another).

    Skills are related to energy, particularly the effective use of energy to change the environment around oneself. On the one hand, we must contend with Augusta's elementology; on the other, we must contend with the self-contradictory nature of its definition. Given that Augusta's elements are ubiquitous, we can safely assert that they are everywhere and define everything -- even energy. At first glance, the definition of Te as "work" encompasses energy; however, we are allowed a certain level of leeway due to the nature of the functions which process the elements -- no one ever said the functions were beholden to the elements, because the elements are by definition what the functions process. We observe the elements only because we have functions to process them; without them, we would be wholly ignorant and blind to them. We can take this thesis a step further and observe that all reality perceived by a man exists as a simulation created by the information processing functions. However we also know that we know of the functions only because of disparities of choice between two alternatives, therefore the observation of disparate choices of energy expenditure, if these are themselves desparing of decision making criteria upheld as the indicators of type, are indicative of a further personality dimension on basis of the rules by which we reckon the functions in the first place. The response to conflict at either level, as it were, is uneven given the disparate preferences. However we can still categorize either of these preferences, and their alternatives, under Augusta's categorization system, and that alone indicates that this second personality dimension can be reckoned with in manner striking similar to that used in the case of the dimension proposed by Augusta/MBTI -- it is assumed, of course, that in any system where the elements are processed, their relationships WILL hold, thus there is a differentiation process and relations set inherent to this new dimension as well. Because we have identified a new processing level, we are thus allowed to observe the existence of reality simulation within the simulator: we end up with Ne that is good at dealing with Ni conditions, Te conditions, Si conditions, etc. all as independent modules of Ne that do, in fact, have their own differentiation process not unlike that faced by Ne itself relative to the other functions.

    Yet for the universality of these submodules, can we really say they are subordinate? Observing the persistence of fixation on strong elements of environmental response in spite of the function used at any moment (and only one such function can be used, per Gulenko's ordering rules), it is clear that the strength of the submodules is shared between functions: Ni's Fi submodules is just as strong as Si's Fi submodule compared to all the other submodules in either function. Therefore is hardly incorrect to propose that the differentiation systems of information metabolism and environmental response are independent of each other, under which reasoning the environment response structure is a wholly different typological system which just happens to be employed by the information metabolizing system. But in what way?

    Having performed the necessary divestiture of immediate condition observation duties to the environmentally responding structure, what is left for the information metabolizer? The apparent answer is the duty of relating environmental data and observing patterns in it, things the data have in common. We would thus speak of the Ne potential of a certain set of Ni dates, or of the potential of a person to have a certain sensation given surrounding sensory conditions. Far from being displaced, information metabolism is redefined as the function of conceptualization, the relations between its functions being a factor of varying degrees of self-competence in the understanding of these conceptualizations. To understand why conceptualization competence varies, we must look a little deeper into the nature of the functions themselves.

    One way to look at the functions is to see functions inside function: see the elements of elements by asking how elements are themselves composed of elements. They are by no means fundamental, being divisible by themselves, and by this further division we can learn more about them. There is reason to believe that a structure may exist for processing these "subelements", because we do not all see the actual realities created by the functions alike.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 01-10-2010 at 03:20 AM.

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

    Default

    Lets look at it from a perspective of time. Time is change -- one moment is superseded immediately by the next. However, objects themselves do not change completely -- there is always something about them that is preserved. Time is the observation that at one moment an object was like this, and another, it's like that -- it's a record of changes. But there is a certainly timelessness in everything. Some things persist, remain the same. Some of the properties of an object change, but others may not. But to really grasp "time" one must understand that time is not merely as you perceive it. The human mind does not interpret its reality perfectly -- you may not believe something is changing, but it might actually be. An example is society itself. When society wants change, it changes. When it doesn't want change, it doesn't change. You may want to believe it is ready for change; or even that it is changing in the way you desire; but if it is not actually changing then there will not be change. It is also important that society is ready for the changes that are desired, or else those changes will not pan out as expected.

    The matter of molecular stability is also instructive. Although molecules in a same compound are always exchanging electrons between themselves, the actual balance of these electrons does not appreciably shift from moment to moment because for every electon going there is one coming. Thus the compound itself does not seem to change, even though its relationship to other atoms does indeed change ever so slightly as soon as it "loses" an electron. The idea is that nothing is ever completely still, even when it seems to be so. Our brains however function on probability (see the "empirical foundations" thread), so we assume that something that has a low probability of change is not changing at all.

    In general, any time the absence of work by one object is filled with functionally equivalent work by another object, we say that there is no change. The situation appears "static", as per the phrase "the more things change, the more they stay the same". But when the work of an object is removed without a replacement, the existing functional relationship between the objects it supported changes -- "thrown into chaos", as it were -- and everything begins breaking down. To an extent this breakdown can be predicted; but outside the range of the planning one cannot say what the effect will be, because the plan can never be comprehensive enough to account for all effects of its implementation. The situation has become fluid and dynamic, and will regain (local) stability once the range of precomputed actors is expanded. This is why Ni processes the "internal dynamics of fields": its grasp is always relative and local, never absolute and global.

    The brain deals with subelements differently than it does the elements. You might say that the system is not as well developed, although we don't really know where the subelement processors are located, nor even how they are work, so it may be a bit premature to say that their functionality is archaic. What is evident is that the subfuctions are tied up with the archetypes: one of our worst tendencies is to project onto people who disagree with us on the matter of aspect change or stasis as "evil". The shadow, in particular, seems to rely more strongly on the subfunctions that the ego relies least on, even to the point of identifying with their elements.

    I do not believe that the subfunctions have a differentiation process. I don't think their relation system is like that. Rather I think we choose to "believe in" their elements based on how accurately we reckon them. I personally rely on dynamic subelements -- I believe in positive change. I sometimes make the mistake of assuming that there is an authority figure keeping watch over things even when there is no such figure. I do this often enough to be sorely disappointed -- I look for signs of perfect control as opposed to control that is "sufficient for the time being for most purposes" and push the limits only to find myself in territory for which there exists no information. My disappointment with people's inability to provide the perfect explanations I seek just makes me feel less confident in the existence of supremacy of any kind, and as such I've learned not to rely on it. Instead I push ahead confidently -- believing in pushing ahead mostly for its own sake, for what more is there? Certainly there is no evidence for a supreme answer of any kind... supremacy is, alas, relative to the observer, and what we believe is the ultimate answer today will only be the first step towards a "new" ultimate answer once it is uncovered. The subfunctions play off each other in this way in my mind, the limits of the "supreme states" of the functions disappointing me and empowering my search for not a new supreme state, but for the next step forward and with it a richer experience.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 01-10-2010 at 03:22 PM.

  3. #3
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    well, I only read the first post. But if I understand you correctly.. (and I probably don't)
    the subelement "Ni in Ne".., Ni within the world of Ne, is Ni from the point of view of Ne, but from a universal point of view it is NeNi. But since people do not possess this universal point of view, their mental processing is different from their actions? Their mind is processing Ni, and not recognizing themselves in the world of Ne..
    If this is what you are saying I have to remind you awareness itself requires a constant energy to maintain, prior to the person using Ni they are operating as Ne, constantly. This might happen on a subconscious level for the person.. it might be felt as constant anxiety.
    INTp

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

    Default

    You are trying to connect things that aren't connected. The subelement system and the energy system are completely different.

    Three different things discussed above:
    - Information metabolism
    - observation of immediate environmental conditions
    - elements of information elements

    These three systems do work together, but they are completely different entities. You cannot assert (correctly) that they are the "same" in any way, shape, or form. They are completely distinct.

    It's most intuitive to think of it as a hierarchical component system.
    - The functions are made up of eight subfunctions each
    - the subfunctions are themselves made up of eight subfunctions each

    That may be more intuitive for you. It depends on your vantagepoint though, because you could just as well say that the subfunctions of the subfunctions are themselves the key components of a belief model from which the sociotypes emerges as variants. There are INTp perspectives on social progress, ENTp perspectives, ISFp perspectives, etc. Depending on what you are using the core system for, you present it differently. (it's the same basic technique as is used in quantum mechanics, sometimes thinking of subatomic particles as waves, and other times as physical bodies depending on which is more helpful to the researcher's immediate needs).

    I prefer to see the whole thing as a triad:
    Code:
                  ______________
                  | INFORMATION |
                  | PROCESSORS  |
                  |_____________|
                 /               \
    ____________/__           ____\_________
    | ENVIRONMENT |           |   BELIEF    |
    | PROCESSORS  |           | PROCESSORS  |
    |_____________|___________|_____________|
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 01-10-2010 at 05:24 PM.

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

    Default

    Compare what I wrote about Ni above with this rant by B&D:
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tml#post600028

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenantler View Post
    How does this fit into the dual-type theory?

    The information processors= Information metabolism
    Environment processors= Energy metabolism
    Belief processors= Conviction?
    That's it.

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

    Default

    To understand what the subelements are, it's important to first understand what the elements are.

    The elements are categories of object attributes. That the three axes of categorization (externals/internals, dynamics/statics, objects/fields) exist must mean that the brain uses multiple axes together to a get a sense of concept's properties. To get a sense of its place in time, for example, it observes its dynamics, internals, and relationships: it takes data from all of these and looks for a connection, for a sign that a specific change is always associated with a definite internal and a definite relational characteristic. This connection is a prototype: it must be placed in the context of another set of three relational characteristics (an externality, a change, and a definite body) for it to be given a recognizable form. (in this case, its place in time). At root there is Ni, then it is put into context with Te and Fe to produce gamma Ni and beta Ni, respectively.

Posting Permissions

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