The Belief Elements and their relation to Model A
I introduced the belief elements in the http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...immanence.html thread. In this thread I will try to list the belief processors for each function. But first, I want to explain why belief elements are important to understanding the socionics trait system. Particularly, it explains the reason for dimensionality.
Dimensionality is an effect of not being comfortable using all the belief element processors for a function. The dimensions follow a set pattern with respect to each of the archetypal subprocessors.
4D functions can access all eight belief processors. They can use these processors to understand not only whether information comes from, but where it is going. They can both take in the big picture and work with it to shape it.
3D functions must choose between access to either the individualist processors or the collectivist processors. The 4D functions are able to determine the correctness or incorrectness of information by putting individualist and collectivist information in the context of one another. If something is true of each individual of a group that isn't true for an observed individual, then that means that the individual is either not a part of the group, or the individual doesn't actually have that characteristic. (an indication of error) The 4D functions process error by using this basic rubric. (I've not yet deduced the entire error deduction process). The 3D functions cannot contrast group characteristics with individual characteristics and as such, cannot process error. I believe it goes back... yes, it comes right down to material fallacy. "All socionics enthusiasts use the internet. Bob uses the internet. Therefore, Bob is a socionist." Not just a 3D function but an odd-dimensional function, as a rule, will be prone to this error. 4D functions check themselves by going back and forth in their "web" to affirm and reaffirm conclusions drawn. (what Boukalov calls "globality") But the 4D functions have this ability only because they can contrast group properties with properties of individuals.
The finest example I can offer is the case of LIE Alpha Ti. LIE Ti says, "A is true about object C". Although the only way to know that A is true about object C is to offer a logical reason for A being true about C, an LIE will not check this. Consider quantum mechanics as an example: although it is accepted as true that atoms have valence levels of electron energy, there is no known reason for this being so. The same is true for many other things that are accepted as true in physics. But QM is a Te field... this has been known for quite some time.
The 2nd dimension forces a choice between the dominant and the inferior. It is unable to reconcile the divide between the self and shadow, and as such, cannot transform dominant belief content into inferior content. The practical upshot is that the static and dynamic belief processors can't work with each other. This limitation doesn't show up much at the IM level because of our tendency to rely on cultural norms to cope with the shortcoming (e.g., we don't even try to figure things out with these functions). However it is probably THE main idea at the EM level: a man simply cannot become proficient at any skill which requires his weak EM functions.
There is a certain tendency to be "taken in" by discordant individuals if you use the weak functions too much.
The 1D vector cuts off both the perspective and state belief dimensions. You get a "perspective" with these functions, but you can't tell if it's right or wrong. It's not even a coherent system of belief. If you use these functions too much, you risk being brainwashed because these functions lack for any sense of independent purpose or direction.
Now I'd like to discuss what the belief elements, and their relation to model A, means for dual-type theory.
The EM type is the determinant of ability to meet a specific standard of skill. However, it's worth asking what these standards are and how they come about. There are some cartoonists who cannot hold a pen straight, and yet they draw anyhow. And there are some artists who can hold a pen straight, but nonetheless don't have the mastery of distance and space necessary to quickly produce a figure drawing. All of the above are cartoonists, but only the latter two groups would be considered commercially competitive. A person who pushes their own limits to produce work, by using weak functions, courts controversy. We say that a person is "good" at something because they have achieved a universal acclaim for their demonstration of the skill considered -- no matter where you are on the political compass, or what views you hold, you know good work when you see it. Anything less is amateurish, and less than amateurish is mediocre. For a person to say they are good at something which for which their ability does not demonstrate the standard of skill expected by the consensus is to take an assertive and controversial stance on the same -- someone, you can promise, is going to say your work is crap. Maybe many people. If you're going to put your squiggly line drawings on MTV, you'd better have a reason, and a justification. Not because your work is bad, of course, but because it may be so difficult to relate to that it loses out to work that can be related to easier. But EM type goes beyond artistic merit -- it also extends to the ability to hit the broad side of a barn. Time is money, and people who do not have strong sensing and thinking at the EM level are likely to be fetching tools to nailing boards. (which is probably where they would prefer to be). Using weak EM functions never goes rewarded for long -- there will always be somebody around with real talent to show you "how it's done", and the moment you try to brag about your talents, this is exactly what will happen. Using weak EM functions -- especially unvalued ones -- is tantamount to embarrassment.