# Thread: The number and nature of the Element Dichotomies

1. ## The number and nature of the Element Dichotomies

According to Wikisocion, there are 7 Element Dichotomies. On short: wrong.

In its dedicated section, it's asserted that the IEs can be separated using:
- the 3 basic dichotomies of the IAs;
- the 4 derived dichotomies out of the basic ones.

Ok, the basic three dichotomies we all know, they're fundamental to Socionics. But how comes that using "the mathematics of Reinin" we can deduce exactly four derived ones?

Assuming that by "derived dichotomies" we refer to the second tier ones:
1: Bodies + Dynamic, Fields + Static = D1A (we find it as Rational/Judging)
-- Bodies + Static, Fields + Dynamic = D1B (Irrational/Perceiving)
2: Bodies + External, Fields + Internal = D2A (Decisive and Serious - listed there as Gamma values)
-- Bodies + Internal, Fields + External = D2B (Judicius and Merry - Alpha values)
3: Dynamic + External, Static + Internal = D3A (<not known1> - Delta values)
-- Dynamic + Internal, Static + External = D3B (<not known2> - Beta Values)

Related:

I previously explained what Decisive and Serious on one hand, and Judicious and Merry on the other have in common. Let's say on short - and probably not very accurate -, that the first type of information is "generality" vs the second, "speciality". Eg:
- generality: this guy is a winner, people are mortal, this machine is working;
- speciality: this guy keeps winning, people die, this machine worked every time/the last time.

The "not known" is a dichotomy I told you about and that, from my observations, may offer a difference of suggestibility to types (I once called it: Suggestible/Non-Suggestible). Some other findings of mine revealed a property - with maybe a better naming convention for this - that I can't remember right now, but I was associating it, when it's over the Base function, with people who for example:
- after a long period of having a different lifestyle, living abroad or experiencing important events etc, they feel everything changed, that they changed, that old things are not applicable anymore to them or the new contexts. They're stereotypically accused of becoming arrogant, of "forgetting their roots", forgetting their old friends, becoming startups (esp associating them with a better career or so), while they feel that they're simply "on something else". They can't resume familiarities so easily with old acquaintances because their attitude changes. Types: LII, ESE, all Beta, SEE, ILI.
- after living elsewhere, they remain "the same", their attitude on things, people and events doesn't change much; they may come back years later after living in totally different environments and resume relationships from where they left them like nothing happened, may even tend to use old nicknames. Types: ILE, SEI, LIE, ESI, all Delta.

Note that I'm not sure about it, I have to make further observation on a larger sample and observe consistency, maybe even focusing on the information itself.
There are only three of them. Only Rational/Irrational, Gamma/Alpha values and Delta/Beta values are correct derivations of the core dichotomies, so where come Abstract/Involved from? In my opinion, it is a false, speculative dichotomy; there's currently no reasonable evidence that it actually manifests in types that I know of. It is apparently added because it was the grouping of the 8 IEs that was missing, having all other Reinin dichotomies named, but it is based on nothing else (again, that I know of) - and at least not on the three fundamental ones.

2. You forgot involved/whatever it's called. SF vs. NT.

3. Things don't need to be theoretically constructed to work. It is only "wrong" in so far as it doesn't proceed directly from Augusta's original element dichotomies you quote recently. In other words, assuming you agree with all of her writings, it isn't "proved" correct, but neither is it contradictory, "proved" false. And it doesn't seem you are otherwise limiting yourself to logical deduction based solely on her assumptions, so why do so in this case?

For the longest time I thought Abstract/Involved was a bad idea, but then I saw it working and locking in with the other dichotomies. I suspect it might be even easier to observe than Internal/External for Aristocratic types, while it's less clear to Democratic quadras, whose egos are either entirely Abstract or entirely Involved, but join Internal and External elements - and Augusta was one of those, just as you.

4. Taking Bodies/Field as a fundament is a mistake. The only reason the dichotomy exists is because people without adequate philosophical acumen mistook two unrelated terms for each other on account of their having a common name in colloquial language.

The only thing in socionics that should be associated with Object is Pe. The only thing that should be associated with Fields is Pi. Ji and Je are epistemic subjectivity and objectivity respectively. Only the name coincides where Object and Objectivity are concerned.

5. Originally Posted by Aiss
Things don't need to be theoretically constructed to work. It is only "wrong" in so far as it doesn't proceed directly from Augusta's original element dichotomies you quote recently. In other words, assuming you agree with all of her writings, it isn't "proved" correct, but neither is it contradictory, "proved" false. And it doesn't seem you are otherwise limiting yourself to logical deduction based solely on her assumptions, so why do so in this case?

For the longest time I thought Abstract/Involved was a bad idea, but then I saw it working and locking in with the other dichotomies. I suspect it might be even easier to observe than Internal/External for Aristocratic types, while it's less clear to Democratic quadras, whose egos are either entirely Abstract or entirely Involved, but join Internal and External elements - and Augusta was one of those, just as you.
First of all, it's wrong to state that it's an IA/IE dichotomy, that it's justified by the three aspectonics primitives, while it's not. At least Wikisocion states that it is - I don't remember what Gulenko - or whoever invented it - said, if there's such thing. That is the first criterion, of course, what else? At a close analysis on the eight functions alone, it is totally unjustified, there is no aspectonical reasoning supporting for it.

I find that supposing its existence from the model combinations of the eight functions as flawed, a post hoc Aiss, but correct me if I'm wrong. One can split the types according to certain observable type dichotomy (putting aside their theoretical emergence from Reinin), but when finding that the functions can be split into two halves by this, can we conclude that this is a property of information itself?

In fact I made a little omission in my previous post, there can possibly exist observable type dichotomies that can be associated with it that anyone could acknowledge, they're just caused by the arrangement in the Model. But these type dichotomies are already explained by other means, by the true dichotomies depending on the block positioning! To become higher-level Information Aspect dichotomies, they need proof. We do know that a type is determined by exactly two functions, not one, don't we? We do know what a block consists in, therefore we can observe how the function dichotomies affect types, for example, the Aristocratic/Democratic is caused by the paring of Internal/External elements in a block. The same with the actual definition, N,T/S,F, to conclude that the IEs blocked in whatever types have something in common just because the types themselves have respectively things in common is a gross fallacy of division (like "atoms of water are wet" - from Wikipedia).
---

In my opinion, the extended problems with these "element dichotomies" are:
- they can't be explained independently, as actual information properties;
- they're arbitrary choices, based on an erroneous reductionism and a conventional selection of premises;
- we don't have descriptions and names for the two second-tier dichotomies, besides Rationality, apart from my writings on the forum, which might also be inaccurate;
- people are inclined to - and do make use of - speculative combinatorics and fictional descriptions to mask their lack of understanding/explanations or apparent lack of coverage; especially the ones with authoritative and business goals;
- blind adoption and lack of what are professionally called "analysis" and "peer review".

6. Originally Posted by labocat
Taking Bodies/Field as a fundament is a mistake. The only reason the dichotomy exists is because people without adequate philosophical acumen mistook two unrelated terms for each other on account of their having a common name in colloquial language.

The only thing in socionics that should be associated with Object is Pe. The only thing that should be associated with Fields is Pi. Ji and Je are epistemic subjectivity and objectivity respectively. Only the name coincides where Object and Objectivity are concerned.
The closest thing to a relation between this Object and Objectivity is that in Rational types, both the Pe and Je functions are Focal in all positions in the model A. In a sense, Rationals could be called the types that "focus" on Objects and Objectivity.

7. Originally Posted by Bolt
First of all, it's wrong to state that it's an IA/IE dichotomy, that it's justified by the three aspectonics primitives, while it's not. At least Wikisocion states that it is - I don't remember what Gulenko - or whoever invented it - said, if there's such thing. That is the first criterion, of course, what else? At a close analysis on the eight functions alone, it is totally unjustified, there is no aspectonical reasoning supporting for it.

I find that supposing its existence from the model combinations of the eight functions as flawed, a post hoc Aiss, but correct me if I'm wrong. One can split the types according to certain observable type dichotomy (putting aside their theoretical emergence from Reinin), but when finding that the functions can be split into two halves by this, can we conclude that this is a property of information itself?

In fact I made a little omission in my previous post, there can possibly exist observable type dichotomies that can be associated with it that anyone could acknowledge, they're just caused by the arrangement in the Model. But these type dichotomies are already explained by other means, by the true dichotomies depending on the block positioning! To become higher-level Information Aspect dichotomies, they need proof. We do know that a type is determined by exactly two functions, not one, don't we? We do know what a block consists in, therefore we can observe how the function dichotomies affect types, for example, the Aristocratic/Democratic is caused by the paring of Internal/External elements in a block. The same with the actual definition, N,T/S,F, to conclude that the IEs blocked in whatever types have something in common just because the types themselves have respectively things in common is a gross fallacy of division (like "atoms of water are wet" - from Wikipedia).
---

In my opinion, the extended problems with these "element dichotomies" are:
- they can't be explained independently, as actual information properties;
- they're arbitrary choices, based on an erroneous reductionism and a conventional selection of premises;
- we don't have descriptions and names for the two second-tier dichotomies, besides Rationality, apart from my writings on the forum, which might also be inaccurate;
- people are inclined to - and do make use of - speculative combinatorics and fictional descriptions to mask their lack of understanding/explanations or apparent lack of coverage; especially the ones with authoritative and business goals;
- blind adoption and lack of what are professionally called "analysis" and "peer review".
What is your point? No one actually uses this dichotomy anyways.

All of the dichotomies have an equal standing mathematically, but it's not obvious (IMO) which ones are most important empirically. (With type dichotomies I'm much more comfortable saying Jungian dichotomies are more important, but again there's no way to "prove" this mathematically. It's just a matter of how well it works to explain behavior and stuff.)

In fact I made a little omission in my previous post, there can possibly exist observable type dichotomies that can be associated with it that anyone could acknowledge, they're just caused by the arrangement in the Model. But these type dichotomies are already explained by other means, by the true dichotomies depending on the block positioning!
Mind explaining this a little further? I don't see why this doesn't also apply to external/internal, for example.

8. i wish these threads didn't confuse the shit out of me.

9. Originally Posted by laghlagh
i wish these threads didn't confuse the shit out of me.
You're not alone...

10. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
What is your point? No one actually uses this dichotomy anyways.
LOL! Well I'm annoyed by the falseness, not necessarily that there's some current misuse. Wait a little and see how many hypotheses it will generate.
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
Mind explaining this a little further? I don't see why this doesn't also apply to external/internal, for example.
Because Internal/External is a fundamental information dichotomy, this is how the IAs/IEs are composed, defined and explained, by Bodies/Fields, Dynamic/Static and External/Internal.

If you also want me to explain to you the erroneous inference made to conclude that Abstract/Involved is an element dichotomy, you should first provide me your understanding in it, because I don't see how could you understand my explanation as long as you don't even have reasons to believe that this dichotomy exists in the first place.
I told Aiss what generates Aristocratic/Democratic traits, but in your case I don't know what exactly are you refering at.

11. Originally Posted by Bolt
LOL! Well I'm annoyed by the falseness, not necessarily that there's some current misuse. Wait a little and see how many hypotheses it will generate.

Because Internal/External is a fundamental information dichotomy, this is how the IAs/IEs are composed, defined and explained, by Bodies/Fields, Dynamic/Static and External/Internal.

If you also want me to explain to you the erroneous inference made to conclude that Abstract/Involved is an element dichotomy, you should first provide me your understanding in it, because I don't see how could you understand my explanation as long as you don't even have reasons to believe that this dichotomy exists in the first place.
I told Aiss what generates Aristocratic/Democratic traits, but in your case I don't know what exactly are you refering at.
ok, well if you take the "fundamental" dichotomies you can add them together to get other ones (2^3 - 1 = 7 in all). Same idea as Reinin dichotomies. But once you have all the other ones it doesn't matter which dichotomies you take as fundamental. You could have started with rational/irrational, bodies/fields, external/internal, for example. (Rational/irrational is just about as fundamental as static/dynamic, wouldn't you say?) All of the dichotomies are essentially on an equal footing (and "exist") mathematically. As for whether they mean anything or can be described in an empirically meaningful way, that's up for debate. I'm guessing you mean that abstract/involved is not empirically meaningful, rather than nonexistent mathematically. However it's not really possible to prove this.

12. Originally Posted by Bolt
First of all, it's wrong to state that it's an IA/IE dichotomy, that it's justified by the three aspectonics primitives, while it's not. At least Wikisocion states that it is - I don't remember what Gulenko - or whoever invented it - said, if there's such thing. That is the first criterion, of course, what else? At a close analysis on the eight functions alone, it is totally unjustified, there is no aspectonical reasoning supporting for it.
Why would you need theoretical reasons for its existence, as long as it's descriptive power justifies it? The point is, SF and NT - as information aspects, not types or clubs - have distinguishing qualities which might be summed up as experiential and conceptual respectively. Would deriving SF from static/fields/external plus dynamic/bodies/external plus static/bodies/internal plus dynamic/fields/internal explain these? Seems like overcomplicating the issue.

The thing is, Augusta made an arbitrary categorization. And it is socionics canon, as you keep reminding us. It doesn't mean there's nothing more to it.

I find that supposing its existence from the model combinations of the eight functions as flawed, a post hoc Aiss, but correct me if I'm wrong. One can split the types according to certain observable type dichotomy (putting aside their theoretical emergence from Reinin), but when finding that the functions can be split into two halves by this, can we conclude that this is a property of information itself?
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. If we see observable differences between information aspects, it makes sense to consider it a property of information itself. There's no need to drag types and functions into it beyond the reality check, unless you dismiss information aspects and only consider elements, that is aspects as functions in types. For me, information aspects are a huge part of socionics, it's biggest advantage over Jung or MBTI, which only describe the effects of taking a certain perspective, effects which may vary, rather than the perspective itself.

It's easy to abstract and extrapolate it to a point where it no longer applies in any way to types or functions, which is why I mentioned reality checks, but working with the conceptualization itself might be useful, offer explanatory power beyond purely descriptive profiles.

In my opinion, the extended problems with these "element dichotomies" are:
- they can't be explained independently, as actual information properties;
- they're arbitrary choices, based on an erroneous reductionism and a conventional selection of premises;
- we don't have descriptions and names for the two second-tier dichotomies, besides Rationality, apart from my writings on the forum, which might also be inaccurate;
- people are inclined to - and do make use of - speculative combinatorics and fictional descriptions to mask their lack of understanding/explanations or apparent lack of coverage; especially the ones with authoritative and business goals;
- blind adoption and lack of what are professionally called "analysis" and "peer review".
This. Augusta's choice of three dichotomies was, in fact, arbitrary. That she chose them made them socionics canon, as you keep reminding us, but it didn't make them more real. In essence, the dichotomies might be defining for socionics elements, but they're only descriptive for what she took from Jung's works. Taking it as gospel and following to the point where they no longer resemble the original is an example of losing sight of a big picture, a stray from reality I mentioned earlier as a risk.

Consider this: if Augusta looked at distinguishing traits of SF vs NT (meaning aspects), and not those of ST and NF, would socionics be so different? We'd have, to paraphrase your beginning:

1: Bodies + Dynamic, Fields + Static = D1A (we find it as Rational/Judging)
-- Bodies + Static, Fields + Dynamic = D1B (Irrational/Perceiving)
2: Bodies + Abstract, Fields + Involved = D2A (Delta values)
-- Bodies + Involved, Fields + Abstract = D2B (Beta values)
3: Dynamic + Abstract, Static + Involved = D3A (Gamma values)
-- Dynamic + Involved, Static + Abstract = D3B (Alpha values)

13. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
ok, well if you take the "fundamental" dichotomies you can add them together to get other ones (2^3 - 1 = 7 in all). Same idea as Reinin dichotomies.
LOL, what? The total 8 combinations of the core dichotomies are the 8 Information Elements/Aspects. Those are not the dichotomies, the others appear when there's a relationship between the partitions of the basic ones (eg Rational = Bodies + Dynamic and Fields + Static). They're all three written by me above.
You may, of course, combine them further, for example Rational/Irrational + Bodies/Fields to obtain Je, Ji, Pe, Pi, or Rational/Irrational + External/Internal to obtain Logic, Ethics, Sensing, Intuition. But first, they're not actual dichotomies, as you can see, there are four each, then they will be in total more than 7 or 8.
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
But once you have all the other ones it doesn't matter which dichotomies you take as fundamental.
It matters, unless you see them just as numbers or arbitrary labels void of meaning/reason.
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
You could have started with rational/irrational, bodies/fields, external/internal, for example. (Rational/irrational is just about as fundamental as static/dynamic, wouldn't you say?) All of the dichotomies are essentially on an equal footing (and "exist") mathematically.
No, Rational/Irrational (Schizotymic/Cyclotymic) is emergent, the fundamental dichotomies of the Information Aspects - this is what I told you all along - are in Socionics defined by the three I told you about. Read the basics .
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
I'm guessing you mean that abstract/involved is not empirically meaningful, rather than nonexistent mathematically.
Please be more careful to what I write, it's both. As far as I can tell there's no way you can prove them mathematically as well, take a pen and paper and try it yourself, maybe I'm not seeing the obvious.
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
However it's not really possible to prove this.
If we put the problem like this, it should be proven that this dichotomy exists in the first place (fallacy of negative proof), at least an explanation that makes sense, based on information instead of some vague type similarities - which again, are explained by other means. There is, as far as I can tell, nothing to justify them, it's just asserted that some functions have them in common and some vague, possibly fictional descriptions - the only descriptions that I know of are made by anndelise and are apparently based on her view on human attitudes on the environment, emotions, reactions, energy, etc (http://forum.socionix.com/topic/2606...-the-abstract/).

14. Originally Posted by Bolt
LOL, what? The total 8 combinations of the core dichotomies are the 8 Information Elements/Aspects. Those are not the dichotomies, the others appear when there's a relationship between the partitions of the basic ones (eg Rational = Bodies + Dynamic and Fields + Static). They're all three written by me above.
You may, of course, combine them further, for example Rational/Irrational + Bodies/Fields to obtain Je, Ji, Pe, Pi, or Rational/Irrational + External/Internal to obtain Logic, Ethics, Sensing, Intuition. But first, they're not actual dichotomies, as you can see, there are four each, then they will be in total more than 7 or 8.
There is a formal, mathematical way of adding them as elements in a vector space. The addition operation is exclusive or (XOR), so e.g. Rational = Dynamic XOR Introverted.

It matters, unless you see them just as numbers or arbitrary labels void of meaning/reason.
OK, so you are talking about semantics rather than syntax.

No, Rational/Irrational (Schizotymic/Cyclotymic) is emergent, the fundamental dichotomies of the Information Aspects - this is what I told you all along - are in Socionics defined by the three I told you about. Read the basics .
As Aiss mentioned above, they are only fundamental by convention. You could go through all of Augusta or whoever's works and replaced the original basis with the other one, define the semantics appropriately, and have external/internal be a derived dichotomy. What is your reason for calling those ones fundamental? I see no compelling reason other than convention. (I'm not arguing that every dichotomy is equally fundamental, but rational/irrational is up there with static/dynamic.)

Please be more careful to what I write, it's both. As far as I can tell there's no way you can prove them mathematically as well, take a pen and paper and try it yourself, maybe I'm not seeing the obvious.
I'm not sure how much math you know, but basically the set of information elements is a vector space under the operation above. The "fundamental dichotomies" are a basis for that vector space (they generate all the other dichotomies in exactly one way, via XORing), but you can just as easily take another set of four (independent) dichotomies to produce a new basis.

It's obvious that this grouping of information elements exists, but the fact that it's an element of the vector space means that it's coherent with the "fundamental" dichotomies, and can be taken as fundamental itself, if you so choose.

What is your opinion on Reinin dichotomies? Do they "exist"?

If we put the problem like this, it should be proven that this dichotomy exists in the first place (fallacy of negative proof), at least an explanation that makes sense, based on information instead of some vague type similarities - which again, are explained by other means.
IMO there is a clear difference between involved and abstract elements. The former are about the more personal, immediate side of reality, the latter are about the removed, distant side of reality.

15. To find out what is the most fundamental distinction in human psychology, just look at the way we express our intent in language.

All sentences expressed in human language are composed of two parts:
- the noun-phrase, denoting some topic of discussion; an entity that a fact is being expressed about
- the verb-phrase, denoting some proposition that is true or false of the entity under consideration

I claim these two link up with terms in socionics. If they are of such importance to language, they are likely also to be to psychology as a whole.

The two most obvious terms to link these to are Irrational and Rational, i.e. on one hand the apprehension of an entity independent of it's factual relation to other things and on the other the appreciation of factual distinctions between such entities. Rational is focussed on decisions because it seeks to approximate these factual distinctions.

This is one of the reasons why I place the highest importance on the Irrational/Rational distinction in evaluating function characteristics.

16. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
There is a formal, mathematical way of adding them as elements in a vector space. The addition operation is exclusive or (XOR), so e.g. Rational = Dynamic XOR Introverted.
...
I'm not sure how much math you know, but basically the set of information elements is a vector space under the operation above. The "fundamental dichotomies" are a basis for that vector space (they generate all the other dichotomies in exactly one way, via XORing), but you can just as easily take another set of four (independent) dichotomies to produce a new basis.
I fucking know what "XOR" is and I use it, here's an excerpt of the mail I prepared for KeroZen:
So now we can determine what F is ("^" is "xor"):
J is: [B/F] == [D/S] ([B/F] ^ [D/S] == 0)
Internal is: [Ext/Int] == 0
---
therefore the formula of Ethics is: [B/F] == [D/S] && [Ext/Int] == 0
...

So as J/P is [B/F] ^ [D/S], the same way Cum/Spo is [B/F] ^ [Ext/Int].
So dude, shut up and show me how! Spare me of this bullshit, I do not need to know that there are somewhere somehow some mathematical rules that can make different combinations. Prove how you can mathematically deduce the IE dichotomies - you may use Rational/Irrational as well - to obtain what's called "Abstract/Involved", namely [Ne, Ni, Te, Ti] vs [Se, Si, Fe Fi].
---

And remember the primary issue of this thread: the claim that these four dichotomies, including Abstract/Involved, are based on the three fundamental dichotomies of the Information Aspects. It's irrelevant what you consider to be fundamental or not, it's about the erroneous claim on the nature of this dichotomy we debate.

17. Any statement involving a socionical claim and the word "mathematical" are bogus almost by default, lol.

18. Originally Posted by Bolt
I fucking know what "XOR" is and I use it, here's an excerpt of the mail I prepared for KeroZen:

So dude, shut up and show me how! Spare me of this bullshit, I do not need to know that there are somewhere somehow some mathematical rules that can make different combinations. Prove how you can mathematically deduce the IE dichotomies - you may use Rational/Irrational as well - to obtain what's called "Abstract/Involved", namely [Ne, Ni, Te, Ti] vs [Se, Si, Fe Fi].
Easy: External XOR Rational = Involved, External XOR Irrational = Abstract. Happy now?

Or are you going to write me another essay?...

19. I think I skipped over the last paragraph in your first post - that may be where this misunderstanding originated.

20. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
Easy: External XOR Rational = Involved, External XOR Irrational = Abstract. Happy now?
Hmm that's technically correct, but something's odd, something stinks, between our premises and conclusion... I'm gonna find it and tell you.

21. Ok here are the big problem that I can see so far: depending on the nature of Rational/Irrational, we are left with several possibilities:
1. if we acknowledge this fact - which is "by chance" official in Socionics, then Rational/Irrational is a derived dichotomy, as are Gamma/Alpha and Delta/Beta values. 6 dichotomies in total which do not include Abstract/Involved. This is what I relate to, 8 IAs/IEs and 6 Element Dichotomies, in which 3 are fundamental and 3 are XORs (or the compatibility dichotomies).
2. if we acknowledge that those three are fundamental information dichotomies and that Rational/Irrational is a fundamental one as well (four in total), then not only that we obtain more than 7 "Element Dichotomies" (10 in total) but we obtain 2 ^ 4 = 16 Information Elements! The choice of the 8 real ones is just arbitrary. From B/F, D/S and Rat/Irr, one of them is emergent, redundant, to have these 8 IAs/IEs.
3. If we acknowledge Bodies/Fields, Rational/Irrational and External/Internal as fundamental, then the other three dichotomies are: Gamma/Alpha values, Dynamic/Static, Abstract/Involved; we miss the Delta/Beta values.
4. If we acknowledge Dynamic/Static, Rational/Irrational and External/Internal as fundamental, then the other three dichotomies are: Gamma/Alpha values, Dynamic/Static, Abstract/Involved; we miss the Delta/Beta values again.

So all the cases are inconsistent, apart from the "coincidental" first one.
---
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
As Aiss mentioned above, they are only fundamental by convention. You could go through all of Augusta or whoever's works and replaced the original basis with the other one, define the semantics appropriately, and have external/internal be a derived dichotomy. What is your reason for calling those ones fundamental? I see no compelling reason other than convention. (I'm not arguing that every dichotomy is equally fundamental, but rational/irrational is up there with static/dynamic.)
No, they were not chosen by convention. They are the fundamental properties of Information Aspects that Aushra could find and explain their nature, which are based on other conclusions in related sciences/fields. It's easy to say that as long as you don't understand what they are. However, when the IEs were explained by Aushra, she did not acknowledge that there are four dichotomies that can be primordial, so "let's pick these three because we need a convention" - no, she asserted that there are three IA dichotomies fundamental to Socionics and that it's a mistake of Jung's to consider the functions as "Rational" and "Irrational", explaining that this is a type attitude (Cyclothym/Schizotym) explained by a mechanisms based on the psyche positioning, Dynamic/Static, right/left brain hemispheres, and so on. Aushra dismissed both Extroversion and Rationality from the functions/IEs, for example Si was called White Sensing - aka "external dynamics of fields".

There's no such thing as "Rational/Irrational information", the information itself cannot "judge" or "perceive", cannot be planned or spontaneous, and basically nothing else from the descriptions of the Rational/Irrational types. In fact, did you ever read a description of what R/I information is? All of them are about the attitudes of types, the Reinin dichotomies are type attitudes as well - eg Extroverted = Bodies Base; Dynamic = Dynamic Ego (Reinin Dynamic is not exactly the element dichotomy "Dynamic", although related).

You can't just replace them like that. The "convention" you talk about was made later by the lazy "socionists" who borrowed the dichotomy directly from Jung without questioning its validity, although Aushra was aware of its usage, it's about using it for convenience, not as a foundation and justification - this is what I do myself.
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
What is your opinion on Reinin dichotomies? Do they "exist"?
Not all of them. The descriptions of those that I don't acknowledge (but also some that I do) are IMO too explicit, amateurish and purely fictional, for example it is stated that ILE among others, as a Process, type reads books from from start till the end, which is something that one cleary can decide that it's not true just by studying their behavior; the same with Negativist/Positivist, I actually made some tests on my relatives. They often contradict type descriptions.
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
IMO there is a clear difference between involved and abstract elements. The former are about the more personal, immediate side of reality, the latter are about the removed, distant side of reality.
Well the descriptions I read refer to the types, what makes you think that they fit the elements? They are based on something that not only that Socionics denies, but IMO also obviously false: that Information Aspects/Elements themselves depend on the subject. Who's this "subject" without a psyche?
This issue is not immediately clear, but if you take it shallowly you can't tell the difference anyway.
---

22. Originally Posted by Bolt
Ok here are the big problem that I can see so far: depending on the nature of Rational/Irrational, we are left with several possibilities:
1. if we acknowledge this fact - which is "by chance" official in Socionics, then Rational/Irrational is a derived dichotomy, as are Gamma/Alpha and Delta/Beta values. 6 dichotomies in total which do not include Abstract/Involved. This is what I relate to, 8 IAs/IEs and 6 Element Dichotomies, in which 3 are fundamental and 3 are XORs (or the compatibility dichotomies).
2. if we acknowledge that those three are fundamental information dichotomies and that Rational/Irrational is a fundamental one as well (four in total), then not only that we obtain more than 7 "Element Dichotomies" (10 in total) but we obtain 2 ^ 4 = 16 Information Elements! The choice of the 8 real ones is just arbitrary. From B/F, D/S and Rat/Irr, one of them is emergent, redundant, to have these 8 IAs/IEs.
3. If we acknowledge Bodies/Fields, Rational/Irrational and External/Internal as fundamental, then the other three dichotomies are: Gamma/Alpha values, Dynamic/Static, Abstract/Involved; we miss the Delta/Beta values.
4. If we acknowledge Dynamic/Static, Rational/Irrational and External/Internal as fundamental, then the other three dichotomies are: Gamma/Alpha values, Dynamic/Static, Abstract/Involved; we miss the Delta/Beta values again.
False...in both cases Delta = External xor Static. There are always 7 dichotomies if you start with an independent set of 4 3.

No, they were not chosen by convention. They are the fundamental properties of Information Aspects that Aushra could find and explain their nature, which are based on other conclusions in related sciences/fields.
IMO this is in the realm of "things that Aushra claimed but are basically bullshit". At best she came up with interesting metaphors that partially clarify the dichotomies, but they don't totally characterize the information elements when put together.

It's easy to say that as long as you don't understand what they are. However, when the IEs were explained by Aushra, she did not acknowledge that there are four dichotomies that can be primordial, so "let's pick these three because we need a convention" - no, she asserted that there are three IA dichotomies fundamental to Socionics and that it's a mistake of Jung's to consider the functions as "Rational" and "Irrational", explaining that this is a type attitude (Cyclothym/Schizotym) explained by a mechanisms based on the psyche positioning, Dynamic/Static, right/left brain hemispheres, and so on.
I'm sorry, I read the latter article (it's only partially translated) and couldn't find any statement to that effect. Perhaps you can provide another citation or the particular passage.

There's no such thing as "Rational/Irrational information", the information itself cannot "judge" or "perceive", cannot be planned or spontaneous, and basically nothing else from the descriptions of the Rational/Irrational types. In fact, did you ever read a description of what R/I information is? All of them are about the attitudes of types, the Reinin dichotomies are type attitudes as well - eg Extroverted = Bodies Base; Dynamic = Dynamic Ego (Reinin Dynamic is not exactly the element dichotomy "Dynamic", although related).
Yes, my impression is that Augusta was only criticizing Jung's definition of rational/irrational, not claiming that the actual grouping of elements is less fundamental. Call it shizotyme/cyclotyme or whathaveyou if that makes you happy.

although Aushra was aware of its usage, it's about using it for convenience, not as a foundation and justification - this is what I do myself.
You say it doesn't exist in one sentence, and then in the next you admit to using it? ok...

There's no such thing as "Rational/Irrational information", the information itself cannot "judge" or "perceive", cannot be planned or spontaneous, and basically nothing else from the descriptions of the Rational/Irrational types. In fact, did you ever read a description of what R/I information is?
Again, you are using Jungian/MBTI definitions.

Not all of them. The descriptions of those that I don't acknowledge (but also some that I do) are IMO too explicit, amateurish and purely fictional, for example it is stated that ILE among others, as a Process, type reads books from from start till the end, which is something that one cleary can decide that it's not true just by studying their behavior; the same with Negativist/Positivist, I actually made some tests on my relatives. They often contradict type descriptions.
OK, but all that proves is that the stated definitions of the dichotomies don't actually describe the groupings of types. You could potentially come up with alternative definitions (not saying that it's plausible, just possible).

It is definitely interesting that certain dichotomies seem to be more apparent than others.

Well the descriptions I read refer to the types, what makes you think that they fit the elements? They are based on something that not only that Socionics denies, but IMO also obviously false: that Information Aspects/Elements themselves depend on the subject. Who's this "subject" without a psyche?
I agree that this is obviously false. You are asking me to vouch for other people's descriptions, which I can't do (especially if you don't provide them).

23. thehotelambush, are you trying to piss me off? First of all you don't check the numbers yourself and tell random bullshit. Second, you misrepresent what I say a lot then you support the rest of your post on that.
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
There are always 7 dichotomies if you start with an independent set of 4.
Here:
- 4 dichotomies:
1 B/F
2 D/S
3 Int/Ext
4 Rat/Irrat

1:2, 1:3, 1:4, 2:3, 2:4, 3:4
The four basic + the 6 XORs = 10, exactly what I told you. Where's your seven?
- 3 dichotomies: 3 + 3 XORs = 6; in fact you can find that in the OP.

So either 6, or 10 - never 7.
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
False...in both cases Delta = External xor Static.
False. In case number 3 in my list, there's no such thing, because it was supposed that Rational/Irrational is taken as fundamental instead of Dynamic/Static.

In case number 4, it's my mistake, is the Alpha/Gamma value that is missing - but the same conclusion.
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
IMO this is in the realm of "things that Aushra claimed but are basically bullshit". At best she came up with interesting metaphors that partially clarify the dichotomies, but they don't totally characterize the information elements when put together.
Unfortunately for you, these "metaphors" were used in explanations and Socionics is built upon them. I told you this already, even if you name these "metaphors" otherwise, they're the same, in the same number, supporting the same view.
Say that Aushra's view was wrong, but it states that Jung's "metaphors" are inappropriate. This is Socionics, you should get used to it if you really want to do this.
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
I'm sorry, I read the latter article (it's only partially translated) and couldn't find any statement to that effect. Perhaps you can provide another citation or the particular passage.

Yes, my impression is that Augusta was only criticizing Jung's definition of rational/irrational, not claiming that the actual grouping of elements is less fundamental. Call it shizotyme/cyclotyme or whathaveyou if that makes you happy.

You say it doesn't exist in one sentence, and then in the next you admit to using it? ok...

Again, you are using Jungian/MBTI definitions.
"When checking [in observations] it appears that all the elements of MI, both rational and irrational, as the extra-and introtimnye [both in extroverts and introverts] and "perceive" and "talk" [judge], but some of these kinds of activity predominates, depends only on the occupied part of space in blocks of the Model A - ie".

That means, what we know as Rational/Irrational (Schyzo/Cyclo, which are not even exactly Jung's) is a type dichotomy, not a function one. Hence why they may be used by both knowledgeable Socionists and dumb-asses like you, it is just you who can't tell the difference, although I repeated this quite few times .
---

Nevertheless, this is not the point in this thread, you may use the one I opened for this, in case you have further questions; so far, either if you include J/P, exclude it, or replace D/S or B/F with it, you won't obtain the assessed 7 "Element Dichotomies". So it doesn't matter here whether J/P is fundamental or not, that was for your information because you asked, not an argument.
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
You could potentially come up with alternative definitions (not saying that it's plausible, just possible).
Of course. I would gladly read them, although, as long as I understand how type emerges, and have their traits on my mind (well not all, of course), I'm very sceptical. But who knows...

So far, they did not match my understanding on the Model, neither observations on people. As for proving them on the forum, this is very hard to do because we're in a "cache 22": both are incomplete and people have often divergent opinions, though they expect someone to support one with the other.
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
You are asking me to vouch for other people's descriptions, which I can't do (especially if you don't provide them).
Well I thought that you know what Abstract/Involved mean, because you said that they're this and that. They're built on this idea of subjectivity, aren't they? I linked the one I know in this post: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...624#post726624

24. Originally Posted by Bolt
thehotelambush, are you trying to piss me off? First of all you don't check the numbers yourself and tell random bullshit. Second, you misrepresent what I say a lot then you support the rest of your post on that.

Here:
- 4 dichotomies:

The four basic + the 6 XORs = 10, exactly what I told you. Where's your seven?
- 3 dichotomies: 3 + 3 XORs = 6; in fact you can find that in the OP.
Excuse me, that was a typo - I meant to say independent set of 3.

So either 6, or 10 - never 7.

False. In case number 3 in my list, there's no such thing, because it was supposed that Rational/Irrational is taken as fundamental instead of Dynamic/Static.

In case number 4, it's my mistake, is the Alpha/Gamma value that is missing - but the same conclusion.
By now it's obvious that you don't understand the math at all. Good job!

Take case 3.

Bodies/Fields
Rational/Irrational
External/Internal
Bodies/Fields XOR Rational/Irrational = Static/Dynamic
Bodies/Fields XOR External/Internal = Alpha/Gamma
Rational/Irrational XOR External/Internal = Involved/Abstract
(Bodies/Fields XOR Rational/Irrational) XOR External/Internal = Beta/Delta

Notice Dynamic/Static = Bodies/Fields XOR Rational/Irrational.

Similar reasoning applies to every other case.

Unfortunately for you, these "metaphors" were used in explanations and Socionics is built upon them. I told you this already, even if you name these "metaphors" otherwise, they're the same, in the same number, supporting the same view.
Say that Aushra's view was wrong, but it states that Jung's "metaphors" are inappropriate. This is Socionics, you should get used to it if you really want to do this.
Whatever, I have no need to rely on Aushra's definitions.

"When checking [in observations] it appears that all the elements of MI, both rational and irrational, as the extra-and introtimnye [both in extroverts and introverts] and "perceive" and "talk" [judge], but some of these kinds of activity predominates, depends only on the occupied part of space in blocks of the Model A - ie".

Say that Aushra's view was wrong, but it states that Jung's "metaphors" are inappropriate. This is Socionics, you should get used to it if you really want to do this.
I don't give a shit about Jung's obviously incorrect metaphors. That horse has been dead for a long time and has very little to do with my understanding of socionics.

Nevertheless, this is not the point in this thread, you may use the one I opened for this, in case you have further questions; so far, either if you include J/P, exclude it, or replace D/S or B/F with it, you won't obtain the assessed 7 "Element Dichotomies".
False, as explained above. You obviously don't understand how the Reinin dichotomies are derived, or you would be able to apply it to information elements.

n basic dichotomies result in 2^n - 1 derived dichotomies.

25. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
Take case 3.

Bodies/Fields
Rational/Irrational
External/Internal
Bodies/Fields XOR Rational/Irrational = Static/Dynamic
Bodies/Fields XOR External/Internal = Alpha/Gamma
Rational/Irrational XOR External/Internal = Involved/Abstract
(Bodies/Fields XOR Rational/Irrational) XOR External/Internal = Beta/Delta

Notice Dynamic/Static = Bodies/Fields XOR Rational/Irrational.
I see now what you mean, you're not limiting yourself to the second tier combinations, but go further to the third... Indeed, I was not considering this because to me, the three fundamental dichotomies are some fundamental aspects of information, while the others are emergent properties. Yes, formally you can do what you did, assuming that you may assign binary values to the first array and obtain also binary values (true/false).

Now let me tell you this thing: IMO that's not the case. If you combine them formally, on paper - which seems to actually be the trend in this so-called typology on the Internet - you don't obtain dichotomies of the same nature that you can XOR again with the basic ones - nothing guarantees that they're true/false values. These operations can be used only up to a certain extent, where the real nature of these does not matter - for example one level of combinations.

Besides, IMO the nature of the primary partitions determine other properties, can determine such thing as "concordance" between them. Fields, Static and Internal are similar, they're "negative", an "absence" of an instance or occurance, that is to be found in their "positive" counterparts: Bodies, Dynamic, External. That will point out quite some other things, like similaritiles between Rational and Decisive,Serious.

I'm telling you, they are not just binary arbitrary values, they are specific properties in a specific structure, so to speak. Because of their abstractness, I'm not really capable to explain this to you right now, but I will hopefully think to an example, comparison, so that you can make an idea.

26. Originally Posted by Bolt
I see now what you mean, you're not limiting yourself to the second tier combinations, but go further to the third... Indeed, I was not considering this because to me, the three fundamental dichotomies are some fundamental aspects of information, while the others are emergent properties. Yes, formally you can do what you did, assuming that you may assign binary values to the first array and obtain also binary values (true/false).

Now let me tell you this thing: IMO that's not the case. If you combine them formally, on paper - which seems to actually be the trend in this so-called typology on the Internet - you don't obtain dichotomies of the same nature that you can XOR again with the basic ones - nothing guarantees that they're true/false values. These operations can be used only up to a certain extent, where the real nature of these does not matter - for example one level of combinations.
OK, that's reasonable.

#### Posting Permissions

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