Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Socionics as a 16 dimensional space

  1. #1
    Juvenile shindaiwa21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    TIM
    H-ILE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    114
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Socionics as a 16 dimensional space.

    Thus far, we consider socionics as a set of 16 basic types, a 16 element set, and each person is assigned a single type. Tcaud has extended this to two types, under his so-called "dual-type" theory. While this is a step in the right direction, it isn't going far enough, extending a set to a continuous space. I posit that any persons type may only be accurately expressed by a linear combination of the 16 types, each type acting as a unit vector in the sociospace, just as (0, 0, 1), (1, 0, 0), and (0, 1, 0) do in three dimensions. Thus a type is now expressed as the set of coefficients (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p) weighting each type's relative value in the total type. This new type shall be called the "degenerate" type, after the combinate states in quantum mechanics.

    Finally we may account for the fluctuating traits that may have once seemed to defy typing

    As a future adjunct to this this theory, I hope to express sociotypes in 16 dimensional spherical polar coordinates, as I believe it will reveal a pattern to the underlying structure of the space. This will give credence to mono-type approximation we now use.

    This is an exciting new frontier in socionics and I appreciate all comments and thoughts. Even now when applying early iterations of this theory to my friends and family, I feel it portrays a more accurate representation of the fundamental nature of human personality.

    Arctures: delta just produces boring people
    Arctures: but that's how we like it

    vero: who needs a real person
    vero: That's why I date an SLI

    dolphin: someone tell gulanzon adjusting shower water to the right temperature is not si

    Kraezz: you just have to do the Hitler thing sometimes

  2. #2
    Airman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,556
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shindaiwa21 View Post
    Thus far, we consider socionics as a set of 16 basic types, a 16 element set, and each person is assigned a single type. Tcaud has extended this to two types, under his so-called "dual-type" theory. While this is a step in the right direction, it isn't going far enough, extending a set to a continuous space. I posit that any persons type may only be accurately expressed by a linear combination of the 16 types, each type acting as a unit vector in the sociospace, just as (0, 0, 1), (1, 0, 0), and (0, 1, 0) do in three dimensions. Thus a type is now expressed as the set of coefficients (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p) weighting each type's relative value in the total type. This new type shall be called the "degenerate" type, after the combinate states in quantum mechanics.

    Finally we may account for the fluctuating traits that may have once seemed to defy typing

    As a future adjunct to this this theory, I hope to express sociotypes in 16 dimensional spherical polar coordinates, as I believe it will reveal a pattern to the underlying structure of the space. This will give credence to mono-type approximation we now use.

    This is an exciting new frontier in socionics and I appreciate all comments and thoughts. Even now when applying early iterations of this theory to my friends and family, I feel it portrays a more accurate representation of the fundamental nature of human personality.
    what the hell have you been taking to get high lately? PLEASE tell me I want to trip like this lol.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shindaiwa21 View Post
    Thus far, we consider socionics as a set of 16 basic types, a 16 element set, and each person is assigned a single type. Tcaud has extended this to two types, under his so-called "dual-type" theory. While this is a step in the right direction, it isn't going far enough, extending a set to a continuous space. I posit that any persons type may only be accurately expressed by a linear combination of the 16 types, each type acting as a unit vector in the sociospace, just as (0, 0, 1), (1, 0, 0), and (0, 1, 0) do in three dimensions. Thus a type is now expressed as the set of coefficients (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p) weighting each type's relative value in the total type. This new type shall be called the "degenerate" type, after the combinate states in quantum mechanics.

    Finally we may account for the fluctuating traits that may have once seemed to defy typing

    As a future adjunct to this this theory, I hope to express sociotypes in 16 dimensional spherical polar coordinates, as I believe it will reveal a pattern to the underlying structure of the space. This will give credence to mono-type approximation we now use.

    This is an exciting new frontier in socionics and I appreciate all comments and thoughts. Even now when applying early iterations of this theory to my friends and family, I feel it portrays a more accurate representation of the fundamental nature of human personality.
    Uh no. You have no justification in asserting a continuum when dealing with dichotomies. Continuums are only relevant when dealing with varying magnitudes of a very SPECIFIC and UNITARY quality.

    Besides, have you ever heard of a quantized-space hypothesis?

    Why not try to make a continuum chart using the dual-types, with respect to abilities to deal with specific kinds of information?

    What you seem to be describing is a modeling of the way a type that is strong with an element "enhances" a person who is weak in it (e.g. duality). You are 1) completely unprepared for that and 2) I don't see the practical use. You might be able to use it to treat discordancy in a clinical setting (measure a person's respect for the importance of a given function, and then work on improving their respect), but that's the only use I see for it and besides, ...wow there would be so much work involved in that... who would do it all?
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 03-25-2011 at 04:23 AM.

  4. #4
    Creepy-Snaps

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Air View Post
    what the hell have you been taking to get high lately? PLEASE tell me I want to trip like this lol.
    Haha.

    I'm curious to know how exactly we can help... I mean, if you want to observe each type in some sort of new methodology, a linear view as you described, ok... but what are our thoughts/comments going to do to help?

    Information about the types is readily available everywhere. If you want to do your own research and observe the dynamics in a new way on your own, you're more than welcome to, it's your life and your time. Not sure how our thoughts or comments can help ya.

  5. #5
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The third type is not characterized by degeneration. If it were to exist, it would be characterized by its ability to mitigate information between the 2 dual types. It would be a gateway between subjective & objective thinking. Something that checks for whether the information you take in is accurate, & whether you're expressing yourself to your fullest potential.

    What you have up there has no useful details, and no value. It's just renaming everything into coordinates and putting it into a sphere. How is this remotely insightful or useful to anyone?

    Details a third type would need included are new "reinin" dichotomies, specifications on how the third type mitigates the other two types, and descriptions of the new functions and how they combine, among other things. Only if you have these things worked out can you claim to have created a new "third" type.
    Also, the 16 types are more complicated than 16 points. You would need more points for them. with just 16 points you'd just be modeling 8 functions in both their subjective and objective forms. As it stands each coordinate of your "sphere" is a complex bundle of things which you've packed together.

    Also, your sphere doesnt even have 16 dimensions. It has 16 points. A point is not a dimension.

    There is also that if you are dealing with 2 or 3 distinct types, they cannot be modeled within the same sphere. You would need 3 of these "spheres", and each sphere would just have a dot it in representing where a given type was allocated. Your sphere doesnt even make sense.
    If you are modeling various types within the same sphere, then you are just breaking the information metabolism; essentially saying 'We are omniscient types'. You are not modeling dual type or tri type, since these exist within different realms. Actually I think you're modeling a complex cross type. But not modeling it very well at this point.

    The only new / interesting thing you say is this:
    Quote Originally Posted by shindaiwa21 View Post
    Thus [the new] type is ... weighting each type's relative value in the total type.
    Which sort of suggests you have some vague idea of what the third type is like.
    Last edited by crazedrat; 03-25-2011 at 03:29 AM.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratsghost View Post
    Something that checks for whether the information you take in is accurate, & whether you're expressing yourself to your fullest potential.
    Dimensionality already accounts for this (with Ti as the crutch).

  7. #7
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Im talking about information transfering between subjective & objective realms. I dont think dimensionality can account for that because dimensionality only deals within the realm of the type.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratsghost View Post
    Im talking about information transfering between subjective & objective realms. I don't think dimensionality can account for that because dimensionality only deals within the realm of the type.
    OK here's how it works: Ti conceives of long-lasting long-term potentiation-type data. That's what Ti IM does, basically, is create concepts which are stored via long-lasting long-term potentiation. The other functions take bits of data in working memory ("information aspects") and make correlations with it via IM and EM functions, validating it by use of Ti organizational schemas. Like say you like the sound of birds chirping. This would be an Si element (the sound) that correlates with another Si aspect (your perception of it as pleasing) and thus with a specific Fe aspect (the liking). Now let's say someone argues that you don't like the sound. You would know this to be false because you actually do like it. So the proposed Si and Fe states relating you to the sound in question cannot be true, because they are definitely the opposite state.

    Now let's consider an interpersonal scenario. Imagine meeting someone who says they dislike the sound of birds chirping. This comes as quite a surprise to you because you had heard that they liked the sound of birds chirping from a friend. Imagine that you like this person, and don't want to make a bad impression. Wouldn't you feel embarrassed if you bought them a CD full of the sound of birds chirping? Here is the difference between extrovert Fs and introvert Ts: the introvert T won't risk betraying their intentions by asking if their admired like bird chirping; as such they will make the discovery based on 1) their gullibility, and 2) their willingness to go through with the gifting enterprise at all. The extrovert F, wanting to create a pleasant emotional atmosphere, will not only make the effort to find out if their admired wants the CD, but will go the additional mile of setting up a scenario for popping the question. Now let's add a touch of Ti to the mix. Feeling types may know what a person does like and they don't like, but out of emotional impulse they might try to "make" a person like something they dislike in a fit of irrational idealism. This is where Ti comes in as the referee, pointing out that because this person like B, they definitely don't like C which is the antithesis of B. An F type wouldn't necessarily want to accept this if they liked something the other person didn't, and wanted a relationship with them even still. A hard dose of reality that would rather be overlooked, if not for Ti rigor (not even mentioning Ti's possible ability to infer all sorts of unpleasing truths in the context of that one single fact).

    Finally, let's reconsider the question itself.

    "Do you like the sound of birds chirping?"

    Looking at the anatomy of the above sentence, we see that the subject is "you", the verb is "like", and the direct object is "the sound of birds chirping". The sentence intends to substantiate a proposed correlation between the favor of the subject and the aural experience of a bird chirp. In socionics terms, it can be expressed as an Si datum which correlates with/determines an Fe state. Where in that sentence is room for a "third type"?

  9. #9
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    WHen you ask the question, I will think of reasons why I would or wouldn't like the sound. I do this by relating the world with my subjective experiences.

    The subjective reaction to the birds is dislike. Si & Fe. The person dislikes the actual physical sound of the birds. But you assume this is self explanatory for why they dislike the sound.

    Ask a variety of people who all dislike birds to tell you why, and they all give different answers. The bird chirp remains the same, the reaction remains the same. But the reason is always different.

    One person will tell you the birds interfere with their ability to concentrate and read the news paper. Another may tell you it keeps them awake. Another may tell you it's not something they care to pay attention to. Another may tell you they're trying to enjoy the silence.

    This third type is a relationship between the IM and the EM.

    Just structurally speaking, there's no reason the third type cannot exist. After you realize that it just becomes a matter of finding examples of it.
    Last edited by crazedrat; 03-25-2011 at 11:07 AM.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratsghost View Post
    WHen you ask the question, I will think of reasons why I would or wouldn't like the sound. I do this by relating the world with my subjective experiences.

    The subjective reaction to the birds is dislike. Si & Fe. The person dislikes the actual physical sound of the birds. But you assume this is self explanatory for why they dislike the sound.

    Ask a variety of people who all dislike birds to tell you why, and they all give different answers. The bird chirp remains the same, the reaction remains the same. But the reason is always different.

    One person will tell you the birds interfere with their ability to concentrate and read the news paper. Another may tell you it keeps them awake. Another may tell you it's not something they care to pay attention to. Another may tell you they're trying to enjoy the silence.

    This third type is a relationship between the IM and the EM. The explanation of why is neither completely objective or subjective.
    Right that's individual differences. But that's not information processing, but as you say a matter of individual reaction to a stimulus. I don't think you can model that with Model A.

  11. #11
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It can be modeled. How does a person expect to influence their environment? In what ways must the environment suite the person? Its all about regulating the relationship between the subject & the object. That regulation is information processing.

    The person reading the newspaper is interested in efficiency. Efficiently taking in the information. Te
    The person not interested in the birds sees nothing to be gained from listening in the long run. Ni
    The person trying to sleep is regulating their physical state through controlling the environment. Si
    Last edited by crazedrat; 03-25-2011 at 11:26 AM.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedratsghost View Post
    It can be modeled. How does a person expect to influence their environment? In what ways must the environment suite the person? Its all about regulating the relationship between the subject & the object. That regulation is information processing.

    The person reading the newspaper is interested in efficiency. Efficiently taking in the information. Te
    The person not interested in the birds sees nothing to be gained from listening in the long run. Ni
    The person trying to sleep is regulating their physical state through controlling the environment. Si
    Well OK, but why either of those reasons instead of the others? There must be some kinda negative viewpoint responsible for the choice of alternatives, if there is a priority system regulating such peculiarities.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 03-25-2011 at 12:09 PM.

  13. #13
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Lets look at the 2 Te dominants:
    The guy avoiding the birds so he can read the newspaper efficiently (Te) is making the reading experience more comfortable for himself (creative Si). He may also get through reading it more quickly (creative Ni). There are the two function blocks for Te.

    If the man is reading through it quickly (creative Ni), through his inflexibility he is neglecting his personal comfort (polr Si). If he's reading it comfortably and indulging himself (creative Si), he is not being expedient (polr Ni).

    The man longs for his personal space where he can work efficiently (Fi DS).
    In this personal space the man will not be interrupted (Ne HA), and he will not have to deal with anything besides his task of reading his newspaper (Se HA)

  14. #14
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    I don't see the practical use. ...wow there would be so much work involved in that... who would do it all?
    WHS.
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  15. #15
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, the type would specify a persons routine, sort of. It's closely linked with verbiage and functionality. The pattern a person is stuck in, on an everyday level. That's the practical use. It'd help a person look at their everyday life patterns and think about them. The work... yeah, it would take a while. We'll see if I get a burst of inspiration.

    Quote Originally Posted by pianosinger View Post
    WHS.
    go away.

Posting Permissions

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