Thoughts on interpreting symbols in socionics 3

[krieger]

Imported from socionics.ws where it was first posted due to server issues. This thread will contain random thoughts about progressive ways of interpreting socionical signs. All of the following is experimental, provided as is, unsupported and supplied without responsibility taken on my part. Read and believe it at your own risk.

Quick Re-cap:
Reinin dichotomies are interesting, but they don't speak to the imagination as much as functions do. While one might wish to conceive of the processes in socionics as an interplay between successive mental stages, aka functions, one would miss an extensive part of the truth in not incorporating the wisdom provided by the Reinin traits when using the functional symbols conventionally used. Without radical alterations, the conventional set of terms can not explain all Reinin traits in terms of functions.

The solution is to come up with symbols that merge Reinin's claims with a functional model. Preferably, these new symbols would be as few as possible in number. The smallest number of new dichotomic introductions that I've been able to find is 2:
Limiting/Empowering
+/- (aka Concrete/Abstract)

Notice that neither of these is strictly new in that people have used these before. Limiting/Empowering was first mentioned by user Smilingeyes to my knowledge, and +/- is extensively being used by Gulenko.

Their definitions are as follows:
Limiting = Accepting Dynamic or Creating Static
Empowering = Creating Dynamic or Accepting Static
+ = in any combination of two blocked functions, the leftmost in the sequence N T S F N relative to the other
- = in any combination of two blocked functions, the rightmost in the sequence N T S F N relative to the other

The definitions of the reinin dichotomies in terms of functions are then as follows:
Taciturn: +Object, -Field
Narrator: +Field, -Object
Process: +Accepting, -Creating
Result: +Creating, -Accepting
Positivist: +Empowering, -Limiting
Negativist: +Limiting, -Empowering
Democrat: +Perceiving, -Judging
Aristocrat: +Judging, -Perceiving
Reasonable: Valued Si and Ne, Unvalued Ni and Se
Resolute: Valued Ni and Se, Unvalued Si and Ne
Merry: Valued Fe and Ti, Unvalued Te and Fi
Serious: Valued Te and Fi, Unvalued Fe and Ti
Obstinate: Valued Limiting F, Valued Empowering T (Limiting F = interest protecting); opposites Unvalued
Compliant: Valued Limiting T, Valued Empowering F (Limiting T = resource protecting); opposites Unvalued
Emotivist: Strong Limiting Serious, Strong Empowering Merry; opposites Weak
Constructivist: Strong Limiting Merry, Strong Empowering Serious; opposites Weak
Carefree: Valued Limiting S, Valued Empowering N; opposites Unvalued
Calculated: Valued Limiting N, Valued Empowering S; opposites Unvalued
Tactical: Strong Limiting S, Strong Empowering N; opposites Weak
Strategic: Strong Limiting N, Strong Empowering S; opposites Weak

So this is why you want Limiting/Empowering and +/-: it allows you to use the knowledge in the Reinin dichotomies without using dichotomies of types. You can just stick to functions while incorporating anything you might have learned from Reinin's work.

Of course, the challenge is to find the right interpretations of the terms, but this is also half the fun.

[krieger]

I've been thinking about whether it is a good idea to extensively revise the terms in my writing. Most of the names I have used for the function traits so far do not match the semantics I have in mind for them. On the plus side, a revision would make the writings more intuitively accessible. On the minus, it would disspell the dreadfully sparse familiarity people have with the terms in the first place.

Right, another downside is that all of the semantics is only expressable in philosophical jargon, so the average Joe will only find them confusing.

In the hypothetical case I would engage in such a revision, a few candidate terms would be the following...
Limiting = Focal
Empowering = Diffuse
Accepting = Subjectivating
Creating = Objectivating
Static = Noumenological (in the pre-Kantian sense of "object of thought")
Dynamic = Phenomenological ("object of the senses")
Internal = Type (a not-well-defined object is a type of object)
External = Token (a well-defined object is a token object)
Rational = Distinction
Irrational = Entity

Yup. It's probably a terrible idea for a lot of reasons. I somehow doubt it would make people think the terms were any more confusing than the current ones are, though.

[krieger]

Since I can not edit my posts, Rational and Irrational refer to traits of functions in the above, not traits of types.

[krieger]

Maybe I should explain some of the terms, though.

What do I mean by Subjectivating and Objectivating?

Subjectivating means shifting the focus more towards the subjective, the privately available data, the appearance of things from a point of view.

Phenomenology means the study of appearances; subjective experience.

In Subjectivating function axes, the Focal point is on Phenomenology.

In Objectivating function axes, the Focal point is instead on Noumenology, the interest in reality independent of experience; or just their representations as objects-of-thought.

So that is instead the departure from the subjective.

This is basically my practical message to socionical practitioners: Accepting/Creating (Base/Creative) is in large part about subjectivity and objectivity. The former does "all it needs for its own purposes", the latter seeks a view in which the "own purposes" are eliminated as a factor.

[krieger]

Edit: I would reframe the last sentence as "the former involves knowledge that applies to a single point of view, the latter seeks a view from which the 'point of view' is eliminated as a factor."

Reason for edit: involving motivations in theories of information processing is bad practice.

[krieger]

Other associations with terms in proffesional philosophy:

Pi: Sense
Pe: Reference

I never hear anyone mention that Sense and Phenomenon are terms that are so strongly related that they may as well be synonyms. Same going for Reference and Noumenon (although more in the Kantian sense of "thing in itself" rather than "object of thought" or "representation").

Je: Expression
Ji: Fact

[krieger]

ST = quantification of tokens
SF = qualification of tokens
NF = qualification of types
NT = quantification of types

S = token
N = type
T = quantification
F = qualification

[krieger]

Statics: extension (how it is)
Dynamics: intension (what we know it as)

[Aiss]

Limiting = Focal
Empowering = Diffuse

What does this dichotomy represent, not only in combination with others, but overall?


Also, do you mean static/dynamic elements, or types? As in, are empowering functions of ILE Ne, Se, Fe, Te or Ne, Se, Si, Ni? That is, "accepting and static, creating and dynamic", or "accepting in static type"? I've asked this before but as far as I recall I never got a clear answer.

[krieger]

What does this dichotomy represent, not only in combination with others, but overall?

Focal (or Limiting) represents a mental state of certitude and absoluteness. Diffuse (or Empowering) represents a mental state of wonder and/or chaos; the sense that something is frivolous in light of something more encompassing.

In Creating Perceiving function axes, for example, the certain and absolute is the object that is being represented, and the frivolous is any single image or impression that the object transmits to the subject. This sense of certainty and absoluteness is given rise to entirely by the person's expectations. The person wants to have a mental representation of the object, and this makes any mere "shallow" impression seem insufficient, "frivolous", to the person.

are empowering functions of ILE Ne, Se, Fe, Te

Yes, those are the ones. Static/Dynamic relates to the functions themselves, not to the types.

[Aiss]

Focal (or Limiting) represents a mental state of certitude and absoluteness. Diffuse (or Empowering) represents a mental state of wonder and/or chaos; the sense that something is frivolous in light of something more encompassing.

In Creating Perceiving function axes, for example, the certain and absolute is the object that is being represented, and the frivolous is any single image or impression that the object transmits to the subject. This sense of certainty and absoluteness is given rise to entirely by the person's expectations. The person wants to have a mental representation of the object, and this makes any mere "shallow" impression seem insufficient, "frivolous", to the person.

Eh, as usual I disagree in that I totally don't see it working in my case. Ni as certitude and absoluteness?

I realize you're referring to element's function rather than its nature - which is reversed in case of Ni and Ti dominance here - but it seems to me you may be going in the wrong direction with it and other dichotomies. Looks similar to Reinin ones - a hypothesis unchecked against all possible combinations, likely to fail against them. Plus, and please don't take it personally, you don't have a way with words. It requires a lot of interpretation to get your meaning. This "state of certitude and absoluteness" as base is practically impossible to get to work, though.

Yes, those are the ones. Static/Dynamic relates to the functions themselves, not to the types.

OK. So fields are for rationals what bodies are for irrationals - empowering, and the reverse for limiting.

In light of your earlier definition, I fail to see anything in it.

[krieger]

Ni as certitude and absoluteness?

It means that INTps trust their understanding of terms more than anything else. They are similar to INTjs in this regard (they have a Focal/Limiting Intuitive function too). But where INTjs go through great lenghts to construct representations of objects, INTps instead try to understand problems or issues (more generally: points of view), without focussing to as great an extent on the objects that are refered to in these.

This "state of certitude and absoluteness" as base is practically impossible to get to work, though.

Whenever you try to understand a problem, you need some sort of basis to build on. A starting point of certainty. This is the kind of thing the Dynamic/Accepting/Focal functions, including your Ni, comprise.

[krieger]

Imported from main discussion forum:

Divergence vs. convergence is what Accepting vs. Producing is all about, particularly when applied to Irrational functions.

In Accepting Irrational function axes, there is first a phenomenological percept (Accepting/Focal Pi) and then an explosion of hypotheses as to what kind of objects in reality might be hinted at by it (Accepting/Diffuse Pe).

In Producing Irrational function axes, there is a collection of phenomenological percepts (Producing/Diffuse Pi) that isolate a single object that can be hinted at by all of these (Producing/Focal Pe).

I've decided to start calling Accepting "Divergent" and Producing "Convergent" from now on because of this.

[ArchonAlarion]

ST = quantification of tokens
SF = qualification of tokens
NF = qualification of types
NT = quantification of types

S = token
N = type
T = quantification
F = qualification

Cool

[Jarno]

Cool

Why have you shifted from gamma to alpha?