Your type is a fractal

[Pa3s]

We have several subtype system, as you know. But maybe these don't take it far enough? There is the 2-4-8-16 subtype system and they're all linked. But why should it end after that? One major accusation socionists have to deal with is the fact that the theory can't encompass the human nature in all it's complexity. That's true, because it's just a mental abstraction of the huge amount of different personalities.

But if we think of the sociotype as a fractal, which goes on and on if you zoom in (like a mandelbrot set), we're one step closer the the real nature of personalities. This was also suggested before (probably even in jest) but maybe we should see every humans sociotype as a chain of the the known "main" types. That means you basically have all 16 types in a certain order, fitting your individual personality, your main, secondary tertiary type, ect.

What if you only behave like you idealised and standardized main type suggests about 70% of the time? You might doubt and change it, but actually you know that this one probably still fits best. But this could be the typical situation and not just an exception. If we assume that you act and feel like your main type about 70% of the time, all the other types left in the chain also have a certain percentage. Your second type maybe 7%, the next 3% and so on. Well, we have to stop after the 16th type, because after that it would just repeat itself, but the last types would have minimal importance anyway.

I actually still doubt the practical merit of the dual type theory, but theoretically, it definitely makes sense. And I came to the idea that this "second" type might influence your self as a whole to a certain extent. If I'm actually INTj-ISTp, then my dual seeking function of my main type would be my secondary type's polr. I'm seriously wondering why I believe that LII fits very well, except for that one point. The point in which INTj and ISTp extremely clash. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks this way and maybe the answer can be found in your dual type.

[Aleksei]

I'd be EIE-SLE or EIE-ILE or something, per this. It's a bit redundant though -- it doesn't cover any portion of personality that the Socion doesn't cover to begin with.

[Galen]

I don't see why socionics has to encompass everything about human nature. It's just one theory, and it'd be too ambitious and too pretentious to say that it can and should explain a person in his or her entirety.

[Pa3s]

I don't see why socionics has to encompass everything about human nature. It's just one theory, and it'd be too ambitious and too pretentious to say that it can and should explain a person in his or her entirety.

Sure, it doesn't have to. It's an abstraction which simplifies the human psyche to a level which is easily understandable. It's like compressing a bmp to a jpeg. It gets handy and small in size but something always gets lost. I only wanted to say that there could be more if we wanted "more". You can expand the theory beyound the boundaries of the 16 base types. There's nothing wrong if you prefer the normal model and accept that there are deviations from that ideal, which you certainly do. We all know that its important to remember we're not talking about actual humans if we discuss type descriptions.

[717495]

I can definitely picture a more complex system for personality relationships. But 16 is a good number, esp to learn and apply, and if lots of people can do it but all disagree with one another, then its just going to be a chaos. Imagine someone saying he's ESFJ-ISTP and the other rebuttals with ENFJ-ISTJ, or whatever it is. No one's going to know what each person is referring to in his own mind. There has to be some few fundamental concepts to tie to either way, or else there can be many concepts which aren't nearly universally postulated.

You can have a head start and come to think of some valid differences which affect relationships between people of the same type, and see if they have things in common with their conflictor, to pair them into some new kind of function or dichotomy.

[Galen]

Sure, it doesn't have to. It's an abstraction which simplifies the human psyche to a level which is easily understandable. It's like compressing a bmp to a jpeg. It gets handy and small in size but something always gets lost. I only wanted to say that there could be more if we wanted "more". You can expand the theory beyound the boundaries of the 16 base types. There's nothing wrong if you prefer the normal model and accept that there are deviations from that ideal, which you certainly do. We all know that its important to remember we're not talking about actual humans if we discuss type descriptions.

Why would you want to? Unless you want to go into exponentially more discrete and less understandable subtypes, I don't see much of a point in going past the type schema that already exists. People around here don't really know how to use these new-fangled subtype systems anyways, so why humor them with even more convoluted systems?

[Gilly]

The problem with the fractal comparison is that human psychology is by no means neat and formulaic, at least not to the standards of a fractal equation.

[The Ineffable]

Sure, it doesn't have to. It's an abstraction which simplifies the human psyche to a level which is easily understandable. It's like compressing a bmp to a jpeg. It gets handy and small in size but something always gets lost. I only wanted to say that there could be more if we wanted "more". You can expand the theory beyound the boundaries of the 16 base types. There's nothing wrong if you prefer the normal model and accept that there are deviations from that ideal, which you certainly do. We all know that its important to remember we're not talking about actual humans if we discuss type descriptions.

Calling it simplification appears to me you have a different focus than what Socionics is about - the way I see it. Socionics deals with specific aspects, it does not try to simplify the whole human personality to make it understandable, there are some patterns that were discovered and investigated, and fortunately some further uses came out of this - eg types of relationships. Going ahead of things and trying to "determine" all combinations using the sociotypes is not the way to go, IMO. Why don't you combine all the 8 IEs do obtain a huge number of base types in the first place? Because there are reasons to be 16, the IEs mean something, there are rules, natural laws, like the valences in chemistry, you can't just combine the elements the way you like it. Of course, you can combine them on paper to have fun with, that doesn't mean you obtained something real or useful, when these natural constraints don't mean anything anymore, you enter the domain of fiction, IMO.

[Aleksei]

Pinocchio, are you implying that people are actually simple enough that subdividing them into more than 16 discrete types would result in non-existing type models?

[EyeSeeCold]

Sure, it doesn't have to. It's an abstraction which simplifies the human psyche to a level which is easily understandable. It's like compressing a bmp to a jpeg. It gets handy and small in size but something always gets lost. I only wanted to say that there could be more if we wanted "more". You can expand the theory beyound the boundaries of the 16 base types. There's nothing wrong if you prefer the normal model and accept that there are deviations from that ideal, which you certainly do. We all know that its important to remember we're not talking about actual humans if we discuss type descriptions.

Why would you want to? Unless you want to go into exponentially more discrete and less understandable subtypes, I don't see much of a point in going past the type schema that already exists. People around here don't really know how to use these new-fangled subtype systems anyways, so why humor them with even more convoluted systems?

I'm pretty sure you've got the wrong idea. Think if types actually became clearer, like zooming in on a bunch of bugs, to find out not only are there different kinds of bugs, but there are different kinds of the different kinds of bugs; precision.

The problem with current subtype systems is that the 16 types we already have aren't as distinct and perceptible as they need to be, in order to consider a divide within a type.

[The Ineffable]

Pinocchio, are you implying that people are actually simple enough that subdividing them into more than 16 discrete types would result in non-existing type models?

There's nothing even close to such thing in my post.

[717495]

You guys can do it, I just know you can.

[Aleksei]

A model of reality should only be as complex as it needs to be. The more complex a model, the less useful/useable it is.

No no, the less practical application it has, the less useful it is. I actually have some recent experience with a core analytical model of Jungian typology, which is very simple, but has no relationship whatsoever to behavior and is damn near impossible to analyze. That one wasn't very useful, even if it was simple.

[Pa3s]

Why would you want to? Unless you want to go into exponentially more discrete and less understandable subtypes, I don't see much of a point in going past the type schema that already exists.

I don't say we all should go that deep and try to form our typings in that molecular dimension. As I said, it's totally fine to use the system as it is right now. You could say that 16 types might be exactly the correct "zoom" into this. I mean it's not totally accurate, but easy to handle, teh middle of the road between "everyone is unique" and the 4 temperaments by the ancient greek so to speak. We want to use this system in practice, and it works pretty good in this regard.

But besides that, if we wanted a more scientific approach, we'd need a more complex approach and "zoom in" to define a human's psyche accurately. I agree that this is might not the purpose of a typology, though.

The problem with the fractal comparison is that human psychology is by no means neat and formulaic, at least not to the standards of a fractal equation.

Yes, math is also a man-made construct. Just like socionics.

Think if types actually became clearer, like zooming in on a bunch of bugs, to find out not only are there different kinds of bugs, but there are different kinds of the different kinds of bugs; precision.

Yeah, nature is very complex and if we want to get closer to the natural features, we'd have to increase the precision. I only wanted to say that socionics could do that, if we wanted it to. So it's not just a system which stands alone, but rather a link in a huge chain itself.

[tcaudilllg]

*barf*

[Aleksei]

I'll rephrase. The more complex a model, the less practical application it has, the less ability it has to make predictions or explain past behaviours in any meaningful way, and the less useful it is.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[rat1]

That's not a fractal that's an exponent 2^X. And yeah, obviously type is based on that structure - I think that's apparent to anyone who looks at the information elements, and then considers Je/Ji/Pe/Pi, and then the 8 functions, and then the 16 types. Any person can see there is a pattern there.

People exaggerate the significance of fractals. Things will always defy your attempts to organize them, but you act like a fractal can organize everything. Well then how do you explain things that defy organization?

With more fractals regulating the relationships between exponents and fractals?

What you end up with is a complex of exponential and fractal relationships where the predictive capability of these patterns is lost and the complex itself becomes paramount (and defies all predictive mechanisms).

[DividedsGhost]

Assuming you typed yourself correctly (and I have no strong opinion so this is completely based on trust of your self-typing and it doesn't then invalidate this if your self-typing is then false):

I've actually already predicted and explained why you might get confused as ISTp. In short, it basically means your demonstrative and creative are underutilized or simply ineffective or unneeded to the point that your HA is emphasized over them.

Purely theoretically speaking, it's probably not a good state to remain in for too long because the Jungian Ti+Ne ego (that would rather be realized) is gimped (and focusing on the unconscious is strenuous). But maybe this is a good thing for people to do in short bursts to work on developing their HA to eventually reduce overall energy spent into it. But somehow I doubt it's really a good thing.

DISCLAIMER: This also assumes cognitive types exist independent from personality and that is what this is for, so spare me the stupid socionics Si is just about comforts and blah blah bullshit.

[Gilly]

Yes, math is also a man-made construct. Just like socionics.

Right but what I'm questioning is the broader applicability of the Socionics system to areas outside its current application. I think its present uses are already questionable enough that assuming it can accurately model anything else is highly suspect.

[krieger]

tcaudilllg and i first discussed this idea about 3 years ago. i suggested that the EM type and the political orientations he always spoke about were just two additional symmetrical layers in the type structure.

one interesting question to ask yourself is; why is the socionics type easier to notice than any of the other layers... here's the answer i've come up with:

the TOP layer is for all intents and purposes the most influential, but it is so strongly intertwined with the person's identity that it is a topic of extreme controversy and mental discomfort to the person. to study this type layer is to confront something incredibly deep within your personality. conflicts on the top layer seem like true battles between good and evil.

the MIDDLE layer (socionics type) is reasonably influential but still capable of being abstracted from and studied as something apart from oneself.

the BOTTOM layer is difficult to see simply because it is lacking in influence, i.e. it operates on too small a scale to be well noticeable.

could there being more than three layers? maybe, but three seems like an easy point to start from, considering the two additional layers are just one step removed from the one we are familiar with.

[Creepy-]

If a system is built on a reasonable degree of uncertainty and then more and more layers are added to that system which rely on the original premise to exist, then the system will gradually grow chaotic and unstable, and exponentially irrelevant to reality.

[Gilly]

If a system is built on a reasonable degree of uncertainty and then more and more layers are added to that system which rely on the original premise to exist, then the system will gradually grow chaotic and unstable, and exponentially irrelevant to reality.

Yeah, this.

[rat1]

I dont think 16 is the critical mass for this theory. I think it can be pushed higher without losing applicability. Sure there is a critical mass, if that's your point.

[tcaudilllg]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Not an extraordinary claim, a basic tenet of scientific modelling. You use the simplest model you can for your needs. Increasing the complexity of a model has diminishing returns, and largely will just increase precision of predictions. This is useful when predicting a particle's trajectory, but if you're trying to precisely model something with as many variables as human personality... you're an idiot.

If a system is built on a reasonable degree of uncertainty and then more and more layers are added to that system which rely on the original premise to exist, then the system will gradually grow chaotic and unstable, and exponentially irrelevant to reality.

I agree. Well put. And it's worth keeping in mind that using discrete personality types to model human personality is a minority view in personality psychology, so slapping a type on every aspect of personality is probably not possible/sensible/valid.

no no no no no you're talking with weak Ti now. Ask your strong Ti friends, they will set you straight.

Only weak Ti people take this stance. You question our ability... bad octopus, bad....

[rat1]

I don't think it is. Not if it has a well defined scaffolding to it. You guys just underestimate how far discrimination can go. You say personality is this impossibly complex thing, and then leave it at that. Yes it's complex but it still has basic roots. And by the way, increased specificity also allows increased recognition. That's something you didn't mention. More types will create more accurate typings, up to a certtain point. After that point, excessive specificity causes overwhelming complexity and confusion, but 16 is not excessive it's pretty conservative, and 64 is still pretty conservative. I dont think the typing problems we have now come from complexity I think they actually come from oversimplicity. Now the problem with increasing the complexity of the system is doing so with clarity. And since you have no knowledge of such a complex system of course your gut reaction is going to be "that's too complex.. it doesn't compute". Of course it seems overly complex before you figure it out and define it.
That's kind of how science works, too. Look at how complex our scientific knowledge has become. It's progressed into that. If you rewound the clock 100 years and told people things we know today they'd laugh at you. But here we are and our scientific knowledge has slowly advanced, with clarity and precision, into something extremely complicated and yet it makes perfect sense and works perfectly.
We have human behavior, we have an ideal for how thought must work which we can infer logically - what prevents us from slowly and progressively modeling these things?
Today 256 may seem insane to you. Well if we continued to define things and you followed along, in 10 years maybe it would seem extremely obvious. You know how thick the DSM-V is? Behavior can be defined, so can thinking - anything can be defined.

[rat1]

Well what is the point of progressing any kind of logical system? Why not just perceive reality blankly for what it is? Why did we create the first computer out of vaccuum tubes and slowly evolve that into PCs and now modern computers? Why do we continue to perfect graphics software to where we've almost reached photorealism?
Back when they were dealing with vaccuum tubes you could of speculated on the possibilities for what computers may one day accomplish, but you would probably underestimate the potential just due to your perspective. So you ask me what is the use in knowing the difference - how could I tell that to you without first achieving the development of that system, and then explaining how it worked to you?

[rat1]

We are modeling information and then correlating it to people. Socionics is the model, not the person. The information is what we model, the application is the leap of faith we make afterwards. As the system increases in specificity, that leap becomes smaller. But people being complex doesn't mean the system doesn't work, or should be abandoned, because the system defines itself.. it's not defined by people. It's a logical system that is developed progressively - that is what socionics is at its core. The human behavior is a correlation. If you are interested in the raw phenomenon of human behavior, unlimited by perspective, then I have to ask why you are even using 16 types at all. You should be using zero types. As of now socionics is much more a theory than an application. Despite that, behavior still has a root pattern to it which can be vaguely predicted using the models we have now.. which is why everyone is here. So I think there is truth in socionics, and that we all know it.
But I wouldnt just progress the model exponentially. That isnt going to fully capture human behavior. Right now socionics is too idealistic with its exponential structure. It needs to model flaws and imbalances in the system better. So I see the system changing alot, not just growing into this bigger and bigger number of types. That could happen too, but there are other ways it can grow.

[tcaudilllg]

The problem isn't so much the extra splitting of types, it's whether splitting the types has a point. How does distinguishing between SLE-LII and SLE-LSI help you when you meet one? Wouldn't it be easier to just get to know their personality holistically?

One is much better at biology... the other at statistics. Now which one would you hire for your sociology lab?

[Brilliand]

http://johanneskopf.de/publications/blue_noise/

(EDIT: I think this post is basically rehashing what the last three people said while I was typing it. Oh well.)

Not an extraordinary claim, a basic tenet of scientific modelling. You use the simplest model you can for your needs. Increasing the complexity of a model has diminishing returns, and largely will just increase precision of predictions. This is useful when predicting a particle's trajectory, but if you're trying to precisely model something with as many variables as human personality... you're an idiot.

no no no no no you're talking with weak Ti now. Ask your strong Ti friends, they will set you straight.

Only weak Ti people take this stance. You question our ability... bad octopus, bad....

I suspect you're not talking about the same thing. Increasing precision does provide value, ad infinitum, but that precision is not of immediate practical value; it's research value, and the more these "diminishing returns" take effect, the larger a scale (usually a scale of time) the knowledge has to be used on to pay for itself. So you use the simplest model that will work, but the existence of more complex models is still valuable, insofar as it adds accuracy. Of course, as per Occam's Razor, complexity that does not provide accuracy has a negative value.

The human mind, being an extremely complex thing, warrants quite a bit of complexity in theories describing it, I'd think. Of course this is not necessarily a defense of increasing the number of types in Socionics; I actually think that the evidence that we can increase accuracy by doing so at this point is rather weak.

[krieger]

i don't think there are any factors among religion, interests, nationality, occupation and ethnicity that has any effect on how well i get along with a person. if i'm at some root level compatible with a person, the difference in interests (etc) is a reason to exchange information, not a deal breaker of any kind; quite the contrary. there is also the fact that many of these factors are under strong influence of fundamental personality traits. the surface manifestations are irrelevant in their own right.

this is one of those "conventional wisdom" bullshit myths that tend to keep getting propagated despite being fundamentally wrong.

[The Ineffable]

Purely theoretically speaking, it's probably not a good state to remain in for too long because the Jungian Ti+Ne ego (that would rather be realized) is gimped (and focusing on the unconscious is strenuous). But maybe this is a good thing for people to do in short bursts to work on developing their HA to eventually reduce overall energy spent into it. But somehow I doubt it's really a good thing.

Each arrangement of the 8 IEs is a type of judgment. Namely, when you say something (anything), some related information of a different type is directly denied, other is indirectly assumed, other is indirectly rejected. Ignorants (99.99%) don't understand the theory hence they reificate everything and joggle with the notions as if they were marked balls. They believe that the functions, conscious and unconscious (In Socionics) are some sort of brownies in the back of your brain who do different things for you, perhaps combining them further you obtain something else. In Socionics, the type of a person is more of a preference for such class of judgments, the IM, relationships and whatnot come directly out of it.

So basically some new hypotheses are justified, others are not. The ones that come out merely through the undiscriminate combination of existing elements/types as if they were scrabble tiles are false by default, that is not refinement, it is a false pretense, it is like the "gems" that clueless pupils write/say in exams. Research is a different thing, it is when we study personalities further - *real people* - and find new patterns, analyze them and, understanding how they connect, we create new models or refine the existing (*if* there's a reason for it).

[The Ineffable]

To conclude, the problem with these subtype systems is not that they try to refine the 16 types - they don't even do it - it is that they're bullshit. There are exactly 16 types because this is how the model can logically work together, this is how it is constructed, precisely like the classification of natural kindgoms, you can't just say "this is a plant partially animal" (eg some carnivorous plans) or that "a bat is partially an animal partially bird", especially since you don't even research, you need to find different and consistent criteria. You can write such "gem" in an exam, though that doesn't make it biology. The criteria we use in Socionics (that I know of) can acknowledge only 16 types. The rest is sham, don't believe it.

The only useful kind of addition that I know of so far is something like Gulenko's DCHN system (*if* it is true). However, that is still not Socionics, Socionics is like the biological classification, while DCHN is more like separating life in terrestrial/aquatic, or wild/domesticated. The same goes for social roles, classes, styles, gender and whatnot.



I reiterate, in order to make sure everyone gets it: double types, IE subtypes, EM subtypes are not "subtype systems" and have no base in Socionics, they are bullshit.

[Birdie]

To conclude, the problem with these subtype systems is not that they try to refine the 16 types - they don't even do it - it is that they're bullshit. There are exactly 16 types because this is how the model can logically work together, this is how it is constructed, precisely like the classification of natural kindgoms, you can't just say "this is a plant partially animal" (eg some carnivorous plans) or that "a bat is partially an animal partially bird", especially since you don't even research, you need to find different and consistent criteria. You can write such "gem" in an exam, though that doesn't make it biology. The criteria we use in Socionics (that I know of) can acknowledge only 16 types. The rest is sham, don't believe it.

The only useful kind of addition that I know of so far is something like Gulenko's DCHN system (*if* it is true). However, that is still not Socionics, Socionics is like the biological classification, while DCHN is more like separating life in terrestrial/aquatic, or wild/domesticated. The same goes for social roles, classes, styles, gender and whatnot.



I reiterate, in order to make sure everyone gets it: double types, IE subtypes, EM subtypes are not "subtype systems" and have no base in Socionics, they are bullshit.

What if they do?
Will your mind be blown?
Will you say sorry?

[Aleksei]

but if you're trying to precisely model something with as many variables as human personality... you're an idiot.

...why?

[Pa3s]

Right but what I'm questioning is the broader applicability of the Socionics system to areas outside its current application. I think its present uses are already questionable enough that assuming it can accurately model anything else is highly suspect.

You're probably right about that.

If a system is built on a reasonable degree of uncertainty and then more and more layers are added to that system which rely on the original premise to exist, then the system will gradually grow chaotic and unstable, and exponentially irrelevant to reality.

Yes, exactly. It becomes irrelevant for us, because we can't use the system anymore in the way we did before, because it became more cluttered and chaotic. But that's also how reality is: chaotic. A system to categorize anything necessarily omits information or it doesn't help anyone. You just have to find the right balance if you want to create a working one.

[The Ineffable]

What if they do?
Will your mind be blown?
Will you say sorry?

How?

That ^ is the question, while they don't, they don't. I would change my mind, of course, though I find that - the demonstration - unlikely to ever happen, since I don't remember in the history of science for the exact (1) criteria that were used to distinguish between classes to apply in distinguishing between subclasses. Eg what distinguishes between birds and mammals (pertaining to class) is not used to distinguish different orders of mammals apart.

But like I said before, since there are no rules, it can be done in the field of fiction, eg you can distinguish between pegasus and cerberus using the same dichotomy that distinguishes between hydra and dragon. All the current "subtype systems" I know of, as presented by their creators (2) are built the "what if" way, like fiction: just mix-up what you know to obtain funny combinations, then pretend you find them in reality. In the end, some real people are objectively more vampires than others...
---

(1) - don't confuse with "analogous";
(2) - except DCHN, which is not even a Model A subtype system, but a different classification of personality.

[DividedsGhost]

So basically some new hypotheses are justified, others are not. The ones that come out merely through the undiscriminate combination of existing elements/types as if they were scrabble tiles are false by default, that is not refinement, it is a false pretense, it is like the "gems" that clueless pupils write/say in exams. Research is a different thing, it is when we study personalities further - *real people* - and find new patterns, analyze them and, understanding how they connect, we create new models or refine the existing (*if* there's a reason for it).

I forgot about this thread, but I strongly agree. One without the other lacks logical connection. Both are needed. Logic is the lens for the research.

Also, you're mistaking what I was saying with senseless subtypes. There's a logical consistency inherent to the Jungian elements that I used from observation (Benefit Ring phenomenon) to come to that conclusion based on the basic Jungian function rules where if you are using say Ti, you aren't using Fe and if you are using Ti, you aren't using Fi, applied to each function but put into subtypes and analyzed mathematically in Model A. It's very revealing and I know types aren't static, but there does seem to be some inherent cognitive bias towards a particular set of types of a benefit ring.

[The Ineffable]

Also, you're mistaking what I was saying with senseless subtypes. There's a logical consistency inherent to the Jungian elements that I used from observation (Benefit Ring phenomenon) to come to that conclusion based on the basic Jungian function rules where if you are using say Ti, you aren't using Fe and if you are using Ti, you aren't using Fi, applied to each function but put into subtypes and analyzed mathematically in Model A. It's very revealing and I know types aren't static, but there does seem to be some inherent cognitive bias towards a particular set of types of a benefit ring.

This is intriguing, have you developed it somewhere (thread) in detail? I have a hard time understanding what you mean by that consistency in the Benefit ring, neither do I know what do you understand by Jungian functions. In case you did not already, maybe you can create a user article detailing this principle?