# Thread: temperaments are distinct processes, separate from functions

1. ## temperaments are distinct processes, separate from functions

There is a general conception the temperaments: Ji, Je, Pi, & Pe are derived from functions. If you ask a person on this board what introverted judgment is, they will tell you it is either introverted thinking or introverted feeling. But introverted judgment is not derived from introverted thinking & introverted feeling; it exists before these, on a more basic level. Infact, there is an equal amount of introverted judgment in the function Fi as there is in Fe.

Now, being the good willed person I am, I am going to show you how I know this using dimensions and probability. Here is a dimensional representation of the 8 functions:

Dimension 8: Ni - Si - Te - Fe - Ti - Fi - Ne - Se
In the above model, functions progress from Ni internal dynamics of fields to Se external statics of objects, in a step by step fashion. Ni & Se are the polar elements; they represent two kinds of extremes.
Dimension 2: subject - object
This is the most basic distinction which can be made. Ni represents an extreme emphasis on the subject, Se on the object
Dimension 4: Pi - Je - Ji - Pe
This is a representation of the 4 temperaments. Pi functions are highly subjective, Pe functions are highly objective. The Je functions have a strong subjective bias, Ji has an objective bias; but both have levels of both objectivity & subjectivity.

Now, here is what happens if these dimensions are compounded on top of one another:
______subject_______object______
_____Pi_____Je_____Ji_____Pe_____
___Ni__Si_Te__Fe__Ti_Fi__Ne__Se___

And looking at this graph, one would conclude by tracing backwards that, for example, Ti & Fi basically define introverted judgment. But there is a flaw in this, and here it is:
We have only considered dimensions 2, 4, & 8. We forgot all the dimensions in between. Now, what would such a comprehensive dimensional spread look like? It would look like this:

D1_____________________X_______________
D2_________________subj____obj___________
D3_______________X_____X_______X_______
D4____________Pi_____Je_____Ji______Pe____
D5_________X_____X_____X_______X_____X__
D6_______X____X_____X______X_______X____X___
D7____X____X_____X_____X_______X_____X_____X___
D8__Ni___Si____Te____Fe_____Ti______Fi_____Ne_____ _Se

And this ^ is the only correct way of thinking about functions, or temperaments, or any of these things. In this model the most direct descendant of introverted judgment is Ti. Fe & Fi have an equal association with Ji, and Ne & Te have slight associations. Consider that some level of introverted judgment is necessary to make any kind of moral judgment, regardless of whether it is Fe or Fi.

This is true for all temperaments, and holds true for even types and subtypes, and also reinin dichotomies.

2. There are no "in between" dimensions because the functions are only one "translation" away from temperaments; the number doubles from 4 temps to 8 functions because one binary element is added to the equation. You can actually represent this much more suitably in binary code rather than this weird unfounded pyramid thing you've created.

For example:

EP: 10
IP: 00
EJ: 11
IJ: 01

Ne: 100
Se: 101
Ni: 000
Si: 001
Fe: 111
Te: 110
Fi: 011
Ti: 010

(When you use the Abstract/Involved dichotomy for the third figure, the model works out quite evenly; notice how each pair of compatible functions shares only the middle decimal in common.)

3. Limiting yourself to a binary progression has no real geometric or mathematical basis. You can choose to write in binary, but you could just as easily choose to write like this:
0
1
2
00
01
02
10
11
12
20
21
22
etc.
And you can choose to look at the temperaments as:
00
01
10
11
Or you can just as easily look at them as:
0
1
2
3
There is no possible way of establishing one method over the other.
Considering this, the best way to model the functions is to represent all of these possibilities, hence the pyramid.

4. ...except binary code is the most salient, and it just happens to explain your dilemma perfectly.

5. What's your basis for assuming a single figure progression? Binary seems to make much more sense, given the layout of Model A and the functions.

6. Only that 1 comes before 2. Yes, model A & the functions are built on binary progression. The single progression doesn't reject model A, it just gives it a little less weight. It gives the need to explore the other dimensions. At this point model A doesn't cover these.

7. I think you're making up dimensions. But nonetheless I am curious. Go on.

8. OK, I will write up more later then

9. I will also say that binary progression is valuable for concretely understanding a thing; that is, understanding something in terms of something else.. It gives things in your mind relatability to one another. With singular progression, things are understood qualitatively. Any relatability comes afterwards.

If you think about physics, the typical way most people model progress from an infinite line to an infinite plane to a cubical world is a binary progression. The line is D2, the plane is D4, the cube is D8. And you naturally skip over D3 & other dimensions. This is because conceiving of D3 requires qualitative thinking, where jumping from D2 to D4 is easy: just think of an infinite line of infinite lines; that forms an infinite plane. But why did I skip a point of infinite lines? Think about a point which culminates an infinite series of lines. What you have is a point of relative emphasis radiating outward with diminished emphasis. This is actually on a lower dimension than a plane; it is spherical and transient. It's like an exacerbated point. It's a gradient of radiation. This dimension can be expressed mathematically using a basic function which you will see in any kind of calculation where energy is transformed or some kind of radiation occurs: A/B = C(B), where B is transitory for A & C.

10. Originally Posted by crazedratXII
D1_____________________X_______________
D2________________subj____obj____________
D3_______________X_____X_______X_______
D4____________Pi_____Je_____Ji______Pe____
D5_________X_____X_____X_______X_____X__
D6_______X____X_____X______X_______X____X___
D7____X____X_____X_____X_______X_____X_____X___
D8__Ni___Si____Te____Fe_____Ti______Fi_____Ne_____ _Se
As Gilly stated, this should really be a binary progression... but as a demonstration of the problems that this raises, the ordering of this graph is extremely arbitrary. For instance, why would this graph not be just as good:

Code:
```D1_______________________________X_________________________________
D2_______________subj____________________________obj_______________
D3___________X____________________X____________________X___________
D4_______Pi______________Je______________Ji______________Pe________
D5______X____________X____________X____________X____________X______
D6____X__________X__________X__________X__________X__________X_____
D7__X_________X_________X_________X_________X_________X_________X__
D8___Si______Ni______Fe______Te______Fi______Ti______Se______Ne____```
Besides adjusting the formatting, not that I've changed the order of the elements slightly - now there is now longer any function halfway between and ; instead, there is a function halfway between and ! There are several ways of correcting this, but all make the graph more than one-dimensional, which results in essentially a binary progression.

11. The ordering of the elements is not arbitrary. The function is a placeholder for a logical expression which represents its precise placement in the chart. Pretend the chart consisted of equations:

__________________A_______________
_____(A+B)A_____________(A+B)/A________
___X________(A+B)/A=(C+B)C_________X_____

It progresses by combining two functions into one compound function. The new function is placed directly below the two from which it came. On the sides, the new function is generated by taking the previous function and compounding it with itself. You could rearrange it but you'd have to rearrange the entire chart accordingly in order to preserve the step by step progression which the chart abides by. This is just how dimensions evolve out of one another.

12. Originally Posted by crazedratXII
The ordering of the elements is not arbitrary. The function is a placeholder for a logical expression which represents its precise placement in the chart. Pretend the chart consisted of equations:

__________________A_______________
_____(A+B)A_____________(A+B)/A________
___X________(A+B)/A=(C+B)C_________X_____

It progresses by combining two functions into one compound function. The new function is placed directly below the two from which it came. On the sides, the new function is generated by taking the previous function and compounding it with itself. You could rearrange it but you'd have to rearrange the entire chart accordingly in order to preserve the step by step progression which the chart abides by. This is just how dimensions evolve out of one another.
Uh... what formula? I find myself trying to derive the function that generates elements from their predecessors, but I don't think that that makes sense, as it isn't my idea. Oh well, for the heck of it I made this chart using averaging (obviously the real function values would need some multi-dimensional notation):

Code:
```D1_______________________________________0______________________________________
D2_________________________________-1_________1_________________________________
D3____________________________-1_________0_________1____________________________
D4_______________________-1_______-0.5_______0.5________1_______________________
D5__________________-1_______-0.75_______0_______0.75________1__________________
D6_____________-1_______-0.88_____-0.38_____0.38______0.88________1_____________
D7________-1_______-0.94_____-0.63_______0_______0.63______0.94________1________
D8___-1_______-0.97_____-0.78_____-0.31_____0.31______0.78______0.97________1___
=___Ni________Si________Fe________Te________Fi________Ti________Ne________Se___```

13. they are equations for fibonacci ratios, and they progress by adding steps in the calulating process of the sequence. So you start with 1 or 0. And which of those you start with is transitory. You actually start with both of them. From there you use the formula to generate the sequence: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 >>> etc. (and this sequence is actually only an approximation; the true ascending sequence starts infinitely close to zero) Or you can do a descending sequence toward zero. Then you can create compound sequences. 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, etc. In D3 you have the middle sequence, which represents two inverse sequences canceling eachother out, which is called reverse sequencing. Calculated alone, this sequence just shows: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, >>>etc. If you are progressing through the chart, it stops a sequence which has already started; for example: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, >>>etc. When you get further down you can create compounds of compounds, and sequences which start and stop at fixed rates to create curves. Eventually you can create pretty much any shape of sequence. All this that I'm showing you is actually how you write music using the fibonacci sequences; through compounding them. You can use it for a number of other things like predicting stocks. But it's all socionics.
Since the chart is based on fibonacci ratios, this gets around your problem of needing a multi dimensional chart, since there is no longer any imbalance you can find in it. The idea that the elements of a dimension are balanced with one another is something you should start out with regardless of the formulas.

14. I've been trying to figure out the correct derivation for some time.

We have:

Attitudes: I/E
Functions: N/S, T/F
Rationality: J/P

How did the final element structure evolve? I have some thoughts depicted in microsoft paint:

Idea 1

Idea 2

I prefer the former, partially because it might include the latter as a sub-system.

Alot of this topic may be muddled with conceptual distinctions that are irrelevant.

15. I was wrong about 2 things in this thread. First, the 3rd dimension in physics is not a gradient sphere, it is a gradient circle around a single point. The 5th dimension is if you take an infinite series of gradient circles and line their central points up along an infinite line, creating a line with perpendicular lines radiating outwards from every point on the line, which basically looks like a beam which radiates heat or light. The gradient sphere is either dimension 6 or 7, not sure which. Second, I am not sure about how introverted judgment relates to the other functions. In binary, Fi & Ti still relate wholly to Ji. But in base 1, I'm wondering if there is simply "no relation". It's either that or the relationship has to be expressed as a percentage.

16. Originally Posted by crazedratXII
I was wrong about 2 things in this thread. First, the 3rd dimension in physics is not a gradient sphere, it is a gradient circle around a single point. The 5th dimension is if you take an infinite series of gradient circles and line their central points up along an infinite line, creating a line with perpendicular lines radiating outwards from every point on the line, which basically looks like a beam which radiates heat or light. The gradient sphere is either dimension 6 or 7, not sure which.
In physics, dimensions are not shapes of any sort; they are the infinite space in which shapes occur. You can think of them in whatever infinitely-espanding shape you like and describe the space equally well - although some shapes are easier to think in terms of than others.

Anyhow, I think that laying the elements out on a single-dimensional (in the physics sense) line is a distinctly bad idea, and the suggestion that and have vastly more in common than and do is ridiculous. There may be some value in this evolutionary-formula stuff, but unless you're working in a space of at least four dimensions (three for the elements, one for the expansion), you're going nowhere.

17. yeah the circle is infinite, the shape really just describes the gradient when you center infinite lines around a single point. basically you have a point, and then diffusion outward in a circular manner. I don't really know why you keep misinterpreting me. Maybe it's because there's a struggle for memes that people just can't get past? I'm really getting bored with it.

18. Originally Posted by crazedratXII
yeah the circle is infinite, the shape really just describes the gradient when you center infinite lines around a single point. basically you have a point, and then diffusion outward in a circular manner. I don't really know why you keep misinterpreting me. Maybe it's because there's a struggle for memes that people just can't get past? I'm really getting bored with it.
I get the concept of an infinitely expanding gradient... I just don't see how that can be considered the "correct" view of physics' fifth dimension (which is irrelevant to Socionics anyway).

It's true that I'm finding your explanation very confusing. Archon mentions a problem that I've been aware of for some time as something that we've made little progress on (no more than Labcoat's decisions on which Reinin dichotomies matter) and have no promising avenues of investigation ATM. Although...

It may be that the question of which dichotomies is the "real" one is meaningless, just as it's meaningless to ask which of the various metrics we can use to describe space is the "true" shape of space. If they are all equivalent, then they may as well be the same thing.

19. Given that Fi&Fe, Ti&Te, Ni&Ne and Si&Se work, more or less, in pairs; this graph seems more sensible. Still problems, though.

20. Originally Posted by Brilliand
I get the concept of an infinitely expanding gradient... I just don't see how that can be considered the "correct" view of physics' fifth dimension
Well, it is. 3rd dimension actually
Originally Posted by Brilliand
(which is irrelevant to Socionics anyway).
No it's not.
Originally Posted by Brilliand
It's true that I'm finding your explanation very confusing. Archon mentions a problem that I've been aware of for some time as something that we've made little progress on (no more than Labcoat's decisions on which Reinin dichotomies matter) and have no promising avenues of investigation ATM. Although...
I can't make any sense out of archons diagram.

21. I would favor something that split along Static/Dynamic first, then did something approximately Smilexian as it moved toward dimension 8.

Static/Dynamic as two sides of a coin with only 4 dimensions would be even better. I think we can find a way to divide the Static elements into 3 instead of 4...

Come to think of it, base and creative are separate elements. So sixteen elements = sixteen dimensions? Ack, I've almost derived precisely Smilexian Socionics. Ah well. (Yes, I skipped, as in didn't bother to type, a step there.)

22. Either there is a meme conflict or you're wrong, but I'm not really interested in trying to figure out which.

23. Originally Posted by crazedratXII
Well, it is. 3rd dimension actually

No it's not.
What the heck? You're making claims about physics? I know physics pretty well, and the shape of the gradient of space happens to depend, as per relativity (note that I would consider other models acceptable, provided they gave the same results), on the actual masses in the area (in three dimensions with time ignored and gravity as the gradient, it tends to be somewhere between a sphere and the shape of the mass involved).

You may be able to create a decent analogy for the functions if you try arranging them as masses in space, although that would likely just raise more questions.

Originally Posted by crazedratXII
I can't make any sense out of archons diagram.
I read it as fruitlessly pondering the question of what fundamental rules cause the elements to exist (apparently he also tried to come at it from the direction of how the brain physically works, although I can't quite see what he did there).

24. One thing particular to thinking of dimensions in the standard sense is you can clearly see demonstrations of them through looking at matter. And your post is talking about the shape of space - a reference to matter. That's not what I'm talking about. I am not attempting to describe the shape of space. I am attempting to describe the way waves / particles are allowed to move. Stretching space will change this, but not on the most basic level. The most basic level of this is the aether. To get what I am trying to say you will have to think of mass as transient waves / particles. You cannot directly see the dimension I am describing through thinking of mass in terms of particles or waves alone. This is because I am describing dimensions on a level of singular progression, not binary progression.
also:
You need to explain what dimension you are thinking of in more detail. There are many ways of labeling a dimension. If I started off by saying a point is dimension 0, and then continued with a binary progression, I would end up with an infinite plane as dimension 2 and an infinite "cube" as dimension 3. The conventional spatial dimensions come from binary thinking. What I am talking about right now is from aether physics. Aether physics is about singular progression. What conventional spatial dimensions show as dimension 3 I would show as dimension 8. I am not rejecting those dimensions, just requalifying them. The rest of the debate is about what is actually labeled as dimension 3, or 2, or 8, or whatever. Keep in mind I started with dimension 1 and then worked up in a singular, progressive way. I labeled a point as dimension 1 and a line as dimension 2 and then a culmination of lines around a point as dimension 3. Then I described this as a "gradient circle", and you started talking to me in some foreign language. I could just as easily have labeled a point as dimension 0. So if I am going to respond to you I will need to know what exactly you're talking about, and if you even know what I'm talking about.

25. Here is a link will explain what I am talking about better than I did: Definition of Dimension

#### Posting Permissions

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