Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: My View of Socionics (A Metaphor)

  1. #1
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default My View of Socionics (A Metaphor)

    Terms:

    Information: The sum total of experience/reality (the potion of reality available to the individual) as relates to the human mind.

    Information Aspect: Eight perspectives on experience/reality.

    Information Element: One's experience of each of the eight perspectives.

    Function: Eight possible orientations towards not information itself, but the perspectives on information known as the Information Aspects.

    Model A: The rules that constrain how each orientation towards information

    The Socionics Portrait of Personality (Type Descriptions/Practical Socionics): The predictive model that considers the eight ways in which any one individual relates to each of the eight information elements, respectively.



    Let us imagine that information is a mountain. It is a tall mountain, so tall that one cannot possibly see the entire thing all at once. One would have to be at an incredible height to see the entire thing, so high that there would not be enough air to breathe, so high that the rays of the sun would scorch you, so high that the electricity that surrounds the earth would kill you. Each side of the mountain has different characteristics from the others: perhaps one side is filled with moss, another side with trees; perhaps one side has more plants, and another side has more animals; perhaps one side is made of hard, rough rocks, and another side is made of smooth marble, etc.

    Imagine that surrounding the mountain are eight cylindrical tubes reaching infinitely far into the sky. Each is equidistant from the mountain, and taken together they form a cylinder around the mountain (a cylinder made of cylinders). From inside each cylinder, one can see a certain side of the mountain.

    These cylinders are the information aspects.

    Now imagine that in each cylinder there is a ladder, rooted into the ground, straight, and sturdy, and sure. Now imagine that you control a team of eight droids, which can climb those ladders. By sending these droids to the top of each respective ladder in each respective cylinder, each droid will be able to see a large swath of the mountain, and by gathering the data from each droid you will be able to see almost all of the mountain. The higher up each droid is, the more data about the mountain it is capable of gathering.

    The droids in the cylinders are the information elements.

    You have a problem, however. You have a limited amount of fuel for these droids. So, you cannot send each droid to the top of the ladder. And if you try to fuel each droid equally, they will not ascend high enough up the ladder to see anything anywhere near the top. You will have a lovely, all-encompassing view of the base of the mountain, but all the useful things to know are higher up.

    So you have to send some droids higher than others, so that you will at least know some of the higher up things. But you also have to have a basic knowledge of the base of the mountain, so you can't leave any of the droids out altogether. So you fuel up your droids, and gradually, they ascend the ladders. The droids with more fuel ascend the mountain more quickly than the droids with less fuel, but they are all constantly moving.

    The relative height level of the droids are the functions.

    Also, there are certain relations between the cylinders that mean that sending one droid farther up brings some of the other droids up as well, but pushes some of the other droids down.

    The relations between the cylinders are model A.

    Now, suppose that someone knew how much fuel you had put in each individual droid, and could therefore plot out how fast each droid would rise. While they wouldn't necessarily know anything about the particular mountain (the information itself), they would know certain characteristics of the different sides of all mountains. So they could make a schematic to predict certain things about the information you will ultimately receive. They could guess that one person would see the rocky side of the mountain, while a person that fueled their droids differently would see the smooth side. They could even make predictions about how two different organizations of the droids in the tubes would produce two different pictures, and how people acting on those two different pictures might interact.

    These people are the practicioners of socionics, and the schematic is practical socionics; that is, socionics as applied to experience, socionics as a tool for making predictions and observations about the self, others, and the interactions between the self and others, (and two or more others).

    One last thing. Suppose that some individuals are either given an extra supply of fuel, or their droids can somehow generate more fuel, or perhaps their droids are particularly hard-working, or maybe they just get lucky and a gust of wind or a geyser blows one of their droids upward. But these individuals (often called geniuses), have one or two droids that are so high up that they can see almost the whole mountain from above, through the eyes of one particular droid in one particular tube. So even though they can't escape having a particular perspective, they go so far in that particular perspective that from that perspective, they cans see almost the entire mountain.

    And perhaps the tubes gradually bend inwards at the very top, so that if you get your droid to the very top of a particular tube, by pushing a particular perspective to the limit you are finally freed from your limited perspective, and see all of the information from above at a center point. These people can see the whole mountain, unbiasedly. Maybe it's only for a few seconds by pushing rocket boosters on their droids or something. But these people alone (Shakespeare, maybe Jesus Christ---if socionics applies to Him at all---started out at this stage and never left) get the full picture of the mountain, from top to bottom, all sides round.



    By the way, if anyone is interested, in my head the cylinders are ordered around the mountain in the following order, from the south end, around the compass back to the south end:

    Ni ---> Fe ---> Si ---> Fi ---> Se ---> Ti ---> Ne ---> Te ---> Ni (and so on).

    The idea is that each complementary function pair is on the opposite side of the mountain from one another. I started with Ni, cause, well, that's my base function! Also, I imagined that the droids have to tilt to one direction or the other, so if you're IEI, you tilt towards the Fe side of the Ni tube, so you have a "blind spot" at the Te side, and vice versa. That's the polr!
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  2. #2
    Hello...? somavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,474
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yup.. interesting metaphor. droids, mountain, cylinders.. nice juxtoposition
    IEE-Ne

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thank you, it cleared a lot of my doubts I've been having recently.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not sure the cylinders can have a meaningful order when spatially arranged in a 1-D line/2-D circle as you have them.

    This is a really cool metaphor though.

    Hey, what if, instead of the tubes bending in at the top, the weakening of the Earth's gravitational field with increasing height puts a limit on the total fuel needed to ascend to an arbitrarily high point? At an arbitrarily high point, one would see an arbitrarily large portion of the mountain, even with a straight transport cylinder.

  5. #5
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Igxfl View Post
    Hey, what if, instead of the tubes bending in at the top, the weakening of the Earth's gravitational field with increasing height puts a limit on the total fuel needed to ascend to an arbitrarily high point? At an arbitrarily high point, one would see an arbitrarily large portion of the mountain, even with a straight transport cylinder.
    Yeah, I rather like that modification. Actually I prefer it to my version.

    I'm not sure the cylinders can have a meaningful order when spatially arranged in a 1-D line/2-D circle as you have them.
    Why not?
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  6. #6
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ni ---> Fe ---> Si *--->* Fi ---> Se ---> Ti ---> Ne *--->* Te ---> Ni (and so on).
    if this was an IQ test where i'd have to identify the transitions that were "odd men out", the star marked transitions would be my answer. the abrupt transition from Static to Dynamic and vice versa at these arbitrary positions is impossible to justify.

  7. #7
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Now that I've read it again, I can get a picture of what you've set up.

    The part about ingenuity was interesting, I think the same can be said for people with major disorders.

    By "8 information tubes converging into one", I thought of the visible light spectrum.



    You can also say there's a vast range of information out there, yet the "Human Codec" can only encode in 8 formats, which ends up in us losing out on the "higher bitrates", we perceive reality in 128Kbps instead of 1411Kbps / lossless wave.

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    if this was an IQ test where i'd have to identify the transitions that were "odd men out", the star marked transitions would be my answer. the abrupt transition from Static to Dynamic and vice versa at these arbitrary positions is impossible to justify.
    I have to agree, I don't see any reasonable links between Static and Dynamic. All we have are Supervisory Rings.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  8. #8
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    864
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's a similar metaphor I would use for religious/philosophical perspectives (at least, as they apply to some inquiries concerning "truth"). This is all beside the point though.

    I like that geniuses have rocket boosters to get a centered perspective (temporary or not). It's similar to Jung's idea of individuation.

  9. #9
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think your metaphor makes better sense as something that describes knowledge in a more general form (not just socionics knowledge) and how that interacts with humanity. There is a cliche saying that love is blind, but there is truth to that saying. I think what you're really describing is the age old battle between man's intellect, and his moral sense.

    There are lies you have to tell yourself about anybody in order to stay sane with them, because otherwise you will just be too dissapointed. The *true reason* why you only send one Droid up there at a time, isn't because there isn't enough fuel. The true reason is that emotionally, you don't want to know more than you're willing to handle. Your ideals about humanity, however flawed as they are, are the only thing that is stopping you from slicing open your wrists right now. ((Or slicing somebody else's)) Why do you think those stuck up hollywood ceo writers can't fall in love? People call them narcissists, but what does that really mean? All it means is they know too much. They can't 'fall into anything' because they're so busy reaching for more and more knowledge. And it's not like you can selectively filter knowledge, that's being naive.

    And it's a bitter and lonely place to be, and something that only the next explosion or next fight scene can temporarily quench, and it's really a hunger that never dies. How could you fall in love with anything knowing everything about it? When all your perceptions are broken open the only thing left is stuff. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The trade-off of always being interesting is that you can't just settle into something and be loyal with anything. You have to create wreckage/drama out of people's lives just to churn your own sense of self-worth. And with a dismissing huff, they have a tendency to blame the whole thing on the victims. I really like Aimee Mann's music, because she talks about this a lot.

    When people say they want to get to know somebody, I don't know about that. Do I really want to know all about somebody's dirty laundry. Would it really help me trust them more , or help me in anyway- is it really necessary for anything, other than to create drama? And there isn't anybody on this planet that hasn't done things that even their best friend would want to hear. The more droids you send up the ladder to 'know stuff', the more that's going to get relayed back to you.

    I hate to be all sad and somber and solemn, but you're sorta I don't know what's the word or phrase...you're not really overly romanticizing anything. It's actually the opposite. You're like, trying to intellectualize what is really emotional or something. As if there really was mountains with droids climbing ladders up to this ideal knowledge sky. There are just people and their crazy feelings.

    haha I sound so cynical and daria ish. Oh well bite me. I'm in a bitchy mood.
    Last edited by bnd; 04-03-2011 at 04:43 PM.

  10. #10
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's why I think you know, powerful people are kinda interesting in a comical sense. I mean, like Tyra Banks, she's obviously looking for some really naive girls with low self-esteem to worship her and to kiss her stinky feet....all the while trying to fight and decapitate people who are on to her little game and her fake compassion. She's just looking for people dumb enough to take advantage, and people smart enough to argue with her. Ugh.

    Then I think 'well aren't we all that way, am I really better?' I'd like to think that I'm better than some bitchy shrew woman that just shrills at people. I'd like to think that I'm better than Oprah, Dr. Phil, Tyra Banks and all the crazies. I'm just tired of them always wanting people to be sad so they can be the ones to save them. But they don't really want anything to do with you once you're actually happy. There is no really relating to them there. What fucked up freaks.

  11. #11
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,135
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "You have a limited amount of fuel for these droids... if you try to fuel each droid equally, they will not ascend high enough up the ladder to see anything anywhere near the top. You will have a lovely, all-encompassing view of the base of the mountain, but all the useful things to know are higher up."

    Although i totally agree with you here Internet Identical, I would argue that anyone who reaches the top of the mountain, would really have the best perspective of where they started. The base of the mountain, and not the mountain itself. Maybe its my taoist slant, but i think anyone that reaches the top of the mountain would almost immediately start climbing down. The base of the mountain becomes the useful things to know.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's a model though, it's not a theory. The problem with model A is that it is just a labeling system based on things some mental modules have in common. The two variants of Se work together, but they have nothing to actually do with each other. They are completely different concepts (rights =/= will, although you need will to assert rights and ownership does reinforce will).

    Plus I think Augusta's use of the terms "information aspects" and "information elements" is completely off. It should be looked at from a chemistry standpoint: elements are categories. Information elements are the chemistry of the mind. Instead of information "aspects", the word "atom" should be used, as in chemistry.

    Bottom line is, we don't have to hold to Augusta's original uses of terms to understand and discuss what she discovered, particularly when the nomenclature is culturally inconsistent.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post

    You can also say there's a vast range of information out there, yet the "Human Codec" can only encode in 8 formats, which ends up in us losing out on the "higher bitrates", we perceive reality in 128Kbps instead of 1411Kbps / lossless wave.
    That's a stipulation, but by its nature it's completely unprovable and as such, probably is not worth even exploring. As far as mankind is concerned, 16 IM elements are it.

    There are lies you have to tell yourself about anybody in order to stay sane with them, because otherwise you will just be too dissapointed. The *true reason* why you only send one Droid up there at a time, isn't because there isn't enough fuel. The true reason is that emotionally, you don't want to know more than you're willing to handle. Your ideals about humanity, however flawed as they are, are the only thing that is stopping you from slicing open your wrists right now. ((Or slicing somebody else's)) Why do you think those stuck up hollywood ceo writers can't fall in love? People call them narcissists, but what does that really mean? All it means is they know too much. They can't 'fall into anything' because they're so busy reaching for more and more knowledge. And it's not like you can selectively filter knowledge, that's being naive.
    Yeah definitely. It's not about "information overload", just fear, pure and simple.

Posting Permissions

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