Results 1 to 37 of 37

Thread: point-chemical foundation discussion

  1. #1
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default point-chemical foundation discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    Possibly the simplest translation of what I was saying though is basically, if you're a clear irrational Se-dom then I'm not sure how much I worry if you're SLE or SEE unless you show a significant preference for logic/ethics in focus. f.
    I would not really say this at all. Process/result is really important cognitively and even without a distinct information preference in the creative function the cognitive functions will show the direction of information transformation. One of the reasons cognitive style is really interesting.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by point
    I would not really say this at all. Process/result is really important cognitively and even without a distinct information preference in the creative function the cognitive functions will show the direction of information transformation. One of the reasons cognitive style is really interesting.
    I think I already covered this though, and my point is separate, because if you're going to call a clearly irrational type with relatively undifferentiated logic preference or ethics preference an SLE/SEE simply to choose between holographic-panoramic and CD cognition, starts getting hazy, no?

    I could agree about still trying to select a cognitive style and said so previously I think:

    my personal weighing in is sometimes what really matters is your main function, and you can be a little less worried about logic/ethics and decide on other things, like cognitive style/quadra or whatever if necessary.
    Which sounds like exactly your position, namely try to isolate a cognitive style even if the secondary preference is relatively undifferentiated.

    This is something you have to be careful about though, because the Reinin dichotomies were basically derived using the properties of a 16 type model, and from a psychological perspective it's unclear if you should look at it always as 16. Meaning yes the dichotomies formally exist as a consequence of various calculations, but what they mean psychologically depends on the differentiation pattern of the functions, and the reason we consider 16 in the first place is when there's a certain pattern of differentiation I think.

  3. #3
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    I think I already covered this though, and my point is separate, because if you're going to call a clearly irrational type with relatively undifferentiated logic preference or ethics preference an SLE/SEE simply to choose between holographic-panoramic and CD cognition, starts getting hazy, no?

    I could agree about still trying to select a cognitive style and said so previously I think:

    Which sounds like exactly your position, namely try to isolate a cognitive style even if the secondary preference is relatively undifferentiated.
    Apparently undifferentiated logic/ethics is not the same as undifferentiated.

    I believe it's actually quite rare for someone to be undifferentiated(it would be a major problem), however a inert subtype does have accentuated Base + Vulnerable function. In this situation cog-style is apparent but preference is not. And once you know the cog style you have a idea of the type, if not the exact type.

    My position is that cognitive styles is always in play, Static/Dynamic and Process/Result are two of the most important dichotomy in socionics and is the central thread of the model. The Jungian dichotomies is merely the surface of the expression. Quadra values another expressive differentiation. However cognitive styles are at play way before these expressions become apparent.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by point
    Apparently undifferentiated logic/ethics is not the same as undifferentiated.
    I believe it's actually quite rare for someone to be undifferentiated
    In this situation cog-style is apparent but preference is not.
    This last sentence is exactly where I personally have to hold that I prefer a cautionary stance. The cognitive styles, again, come from Reinin, which derives from the formal properties of a certain 16 type model by calculation.

    The secondary function from a psychological perspective to me is much less clearly differentiated (consistently!) than the first in practice over its counterpart even though we can struggle even with the first one in extreme cases. In other words, generally at most 3 functions can be differentiated with one lagging foremost, although many other patterns exhibit themselves. In some cases only one is significantly so, in some cases 2-3.
    Of course there are also cases where you can get the overall top 2 and not get the first over the second easily.

    Basically what's going on is if you can take the leap of faith that a certain pattern likely holds, and then use the cognitive style to discover a comparably invisible conscious orientation, then you can just assume you're a SLE or SEE depending on the form of cognition.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My position is that cognitive styles is always in play,
    I agree with this, but just think it's best to be careful how you map which style corresponds to which pattern of function development/preference, unless you can go directly by the formula in the case of the most standard of standard patterns.

    I think the concept of involutionary/evolutionary oriented cognition always will take shape too, and same for static/dynamic. It'll show one way or another, but this is one case where you have to take the formula apart and look at the roots potentially to know exactly how to apply it.

    To put it this way, maybe involution/evolution and static/dynamic are better dichotomies to found everything on than the t/f, s/n ones. Then I'd suggest using them, in place of the others, because in the traditional way it seems they assign the former to a model based on a certain pattern involving the latter.

  6. #6
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    This last sentence is exactly where I personally have to hold that I prefer a cautionary stance. The cognitive styles, again, come from Reinin, which derives from the formal properties of a certain 16 type model by calculation.
    No cognitive styles do not come from reinin. Do not make this mistake. This is a huge mistake.

    It's more appropriate to say that the jungian dichotomies(cept rationa/irrational) come from the reinin not the other way around. Althrough the jungian dichotomies were the first things observed, they arise from something else.

    The nature of socionics is information transformation which is describe for extroveted elements as

    Ne-Fe-Se-Te = Process
    Ne-Te-Se-Fe = Result

    This is way before reinin ever needs to exist.

    Static/dynamic within this is Ne/Se vs Fe/Te and these mirror the physical to information analogy

    Reinin deduction simply match 100% with information processing as far as socionics, do not for a moment think that these concepts come from Reinin. They come from the fundamental process and difference in character of information in information processing.

    Once again do not make this mistake.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by point
    No cognitive styles do not come from reinin.
    I'm not sure I understand you - aren't involution/evolution and static/dynamic traditionally termed Reinin dichotomies?

    I've acknowledged that the cognitive styles may be more fundamental than the t/f and n/s ones, in which case you could found every model of information processing foremost on them.
    It's fair to say that they may exist in a bigger, wider ballpark than the measly world of 16 types.

    However, what I'm saying pertains to how you map the forms of cognition to types which directly refer development of Jungian functions. Not making a claim of which is somehow more fundamental or "fundamentally" comes from the other. It's my understanding the Reinin dichotomies exist assuming a 16 type model, and that the forms of cognition were then associated with these types, suggesting that the 16 characteristic patterns observed bear out these forms of cognition. From one point of view, the forms of cognitions formally derive from the 16 types (in the sense that you can derive Reinin from them, and then call the forms defined in terms of two such dichotomies), but you could easily make a case, as you're probably doing, saying this is backwards.

    One could say that "in reality," the 16 type patterns should be viewed more as a clue, but not the source of, the forms of cognition and many deeper structures to information processing. That sounds roughly what I'm getting from your position. Which would still be fine by me. I'd then call someone an Se-dom with HP cognition, rather than calling them a SLE, were I to start with that paradigm. Actually I'd not even say Se-dom, because even that is unclear to me. They are HP_1 out of HP_{insert number} - however many things are discovered eventually to truly explain cognitive orientations.

  8. #8
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    I'm not sure I understand you - aren't involution/evolution and static/dynamic traditionally termed Reinin dichotomies?
    Reinin is just the math for what is described. What is described is not the math. The math is just a abstraction that happens to come to the same conclusion as the description of the phenomona.

    Process/result represents information processes in reality.
    Static/dynamic represents information characteristics in reality.

    Huge mistake to see the forest for the trees.

    From Socionics, Jung is explained and can derive other type systems.

    It's like how quantum mechanics explains classical mechanics and non-classical system. This doesn't mean classical systems cause quantum mechanics, but it's actually the other way around, quantum system causes classical ones.

    Even a mind without information preference may still have a cognitive style. This is actually implementable in abstract on any computer as well and in fact you can say many of the various forms of AI's actually do implement these cognitive styles.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @point - OK. I'm pretty sure I got that that's what you'd say in the rest of my post (if you feel like, read it to check to make sure). Again, when I said come from I meant formally, not making a claim of what should be viewed as more "fundamental."

    What you could take my larger point to be, based on the language of your latest post, is that the math itself was done based on 16 types, which presumes a certain nature of consciousness. It's quite possible there's such a thing as forms of cognition which is more fundamental than Jungian dichotomies in the larger picture of things.

    What would happen then is you'd perhaps discover a lot more nuance in what cognitive forms you can make using the 2 static/dynamic and process/result if you took the number of type patterns further.

    If you want to be less formal about it then you'd probably can the plan to look at more type patterns and just study the forms of cognition and other information processing patterns using tools outside of Jungian types so you could understand them more deeply, which may then uncover the rightest of typological premises, more so than if you continued doing more formal calculations based on mathematically different type patterns (using what you might perceive as relatively shallow dichotomies like the t/f and n/s ones). I have a hunch this is the approach you probably are taking, which is cool and of course would be curious what you find.

  10. #10
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    @point - OK. I'm pretty sure I got that that's what you'd say in the rest of my post (if you feel like, read it to check to make sure). Again, when I said come from I meant formally, not making a claim of what should be viewed as more "fundamental."

    What you could take my larger point to be, based on the language of your latest post, is that the math itself was done based on 16 types, which presumes a certain nature of consciousness. It's quite possible there's such a thing as forms of cognition which is more fundamental than Jungian dichotomies in the larger picture of things.

    What would happen then is you'd perhaps discover a lot more nuance in what cognitive forms you can make using the 2 static/dynamic and process/result if you took the number of type patterns further.
    I think you got it, but it's a huge mistake to think of them as only "Reinin", the doubt over Reinin that cross over to some fundamental dichotomies is also a huge mistake as is overall doubt about Reinin.

  11. #11
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    What you could take my larger point to be, based on the language of your latest post, is that the math itself was done based on 16 types, which presumes a certain nature of consciousness. It's quite possible there's such a thing as forms of cognition which is more fundamental than Jungian dichotomies in the larger picture of things.
    Socionics describes this in the model. Cognitive style is gulenkos observation of the information processing which is describes.

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    What would happen then is you'd perhaps discover a lot more nuance in what cognitive forms you can make using the 2 static/dynamic and process/result if you took the number of type patterns further.
    Not sure what you mean exactly here, it's certainly possible for different cognitive forms to be described, such as a 2 stroke mechanism or a 6 stroke mechanism or really any possible configuration. But it might not be human.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by point
    to think of them as only "Reinin"
    Well as you probably know, I started from a Jungian dichotomies foundation, so I really don't know how to make an argument for which is more fundamental. I simply lack any ability to falsify or justify it. You'll have to tell me more at some point (if you want here, or later by PM) what the forms of cognition are really tapping into.

    I think if the 16 types were a clue as to the existence of something deeper though, given there are a few pretty commonly discernible differences in how these 16 types further differentiate (or 8 types differentiate out into various parts), it's quite possible that eventually the number of types won't be (directly) based on Jungian dichotomies anymore, and thus not follow a simple binary pattern.

    My own points were simply relative to a proper direct use of the Jungian dichotomies and are pretty indisputable from there. They didn't even preclude using the forms of cognition in cases of harder to discern apparent best-fit to one of 16 types of consciousness.

    If what you're saying is true, I guess I just have no a priori reason to view the 16 as anything but an experimental model (convenient to use the most popular version of Jungian type pattern-modeling) used to perform calculations to uncover something more fundamental.

  13. #13
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    Well as you probably know, I started from a Jungian dichotomies foundation, so I really don't know how to make an argument for which is more fundamental. I simply lack any ability to falsify or justify it. You'll have to tell me more at some point (if you want here, or later by PM) what the forms of cognition are really tapping into.

    I think if the 16 types were a clue as to the existence of something deeper though, given there are a few pretty commonly discernible differences in how these 16 types further differentiate (or 8 types differentiate out into various parts), it's quite possible that eventually the number of types won't be (directly) based on Jungian dichotomies anymore, and thus not follow a simple binary pattern.
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...32-foundations
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...p/10-socionics

    You have to start hear and understand both these sections. Socionics is foundationed very differently and derives jungian functions and dichotomies.


    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...gustinaviciute

    Like this takes a while to get but you have to really get the first part of it before it starts making sense. Learning the jungian dichotomies in detail actually will be a detriment to learning this, need to unlearn it until you derive it.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by point
    Socionics is foundationed very differently and derives jungian functions and dichotomies.
    need to unlearn it until you derive it.
    OK, Yoda

    But anyway thanks. It could solve a lot of ambiguities I perceive with using the Jungian dichotomies by themselves if I just switched foundation.

    edit - but can you tell me, what does socionics found itself on? What do they assume, in order to derive the Jungian dichotomies?
    Basically, what should I be looking for as the founding concepts in place of those?

    Aushra's article references logic/ethics and sensation/intuition. Where can I go for socionics theory TOTALLY not using those words and deriving them from scratch, via other assumptions?
    @point (just mentioning you as I edited post to ask some stuff)
    Last edited by chemical; 09-17-2014 at 05:56 AM.

  15. #15
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    OK, Yoda

    But anyway thanks. It could solve a lot of ambiguities I perceive with using the Jungian dichotomies by themselves if I just switched foundation.

    edit - but can you tell me, what does socionics found itself on? What do they assume, in order to derive the Jungian dichotomies?
    Basically, what should I be looking for as the founding concepts in place of those?

    Aushra's article references logic/ethics and sensation/intuition. Where can I go for socionics theory TOTALLY not using those words and deriving them from scratch, via other assumptions?
    @point (just mentioning you as I edited post to ask some stuff)
    It's all in the article, trying to get it properly translated. We've talked about it before and it has to deal with the thermodynamic analogy. Probably not the best thread for this discussion going to derail.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by point
    We've talked about it before and it has to deal with the thermodynamic analogy
    If you mean thinking of Se=F, Fe=E, and viewing there a cycle of potential energy/arousal/force/work, yes I recall that. I just at the time/even now if I see the article didn't think it was deriving Jung so much as suggesting we can view Jungian cognitive processes as how we receive these physics-oriented types of information. The only way I could see to make the foundation truly go far beyond Jungian dichotomies is if one established that Schrodinger stuff's exact connection to the psyche, meaning understanding how and in what sense the "one level up" from physical realm obeys analogous laws. There's obviously a whole lot of physics that goes under the name potential/kinetic/attraction/work so I think it's got to be a pretty big deal to really make sense of how physics idea really map to cognitive ones. I'm ignorant how much exactly has been done here.

    If you'd be willing, it would be great if you could send me a PM on in what sense I should consider the Jungian dichotomies derived - when I think derivation, I think like a calculation based on certain assumptions. Perhaps I'm not seeing what I should be looking for.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    OK unfortunately posted one most thing just after this, in case you want to move it too. To the effect of, in what sense are we getting Jungian dichotomies from some other foundation? Is it a calculation? Demonstration? Analogy?

  18. #18
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    If you mean thinking of Se=F, Fe=E, and viewing there a cycle of potential energy/arousal/force/work, yes I recall that. I just at the time/even now if I see the article didn't think it was deriving Jung so much as suggesting we can view Jungian cognitive processes as how we receive these physics-oriented types of information. The only way I could see to make the foundation truly go far beyond Jungian dichotomies is if one established that Schrodinger stuff's exact connection to the psyche, meaning understanding how and in what sense the "one level up" from physical realm obeys analogous laws. There's obviously a whole lot of physics that goes under the name potential/kinetic/attraction/work so I think it's got to be a pretty big deal to really make sense of how physics idea really map to cognitive ones. I'm ignorant how much exactly has been done here.

    If you'd be willing, it would be great if you could send me a PM on in what sense I should consider the Jungian dichotomies derived - when I think derivation, I think like a calculation based on certain assumptions. Perhaps I'm not seeing what I should be looking for.
    The analogy gives you 4 functions.

    Object/field gives you the other 4.

    But this is not a trivial thing, what it does is gives socionics the same mechanics as thermodynamics. If this analogy is correct, then all rules pertaining to thermodynamics also applies to cognition.

    Schrodinger's idea is level agnostic, no manner how many levels of order you go up and down physically/biologically/cognitively, it will eventually order itself into the same mechanics. And he has been proven right in biology. Whatever new order arises from biology, such as mind(once ordered) would obey this rule, whatever order arises from the mind, such as technology(once ordered) would also obey these rules.

    This is actually quite a holographic idea, a fractal concept of the ordering of complex phenomena and as you can see in all the philosophical and scientific studies, this is becoming more and more evident and real.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @point, so would it be fair to say something like this as to why you see forms of cognition as so fundamental: basically, given that the four Jungian functions are analogous to the 4 physical concepts (which isn't too big a leap by itself), you want to postulate how these basic physical concepts are ported over to mental processes, and the forms of cognition are deemed a significant uncovering in this direction precisely because they correspond to actual fundamental differences in orientation towards uncovering physics? (E.g. how determinists like Einstein saw physics differently, how DA corresponds to the quantum worldview..)

    In other words, they explain orientations to physics ideas rather than merely postulating an ordering, like F>R>etc.

  20. #20
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    @point, so would it be fair to say something like this as to why you see forms of cognition as so fundamental: basically, given that the four Jungian functions are analogous to the 4 physical concepts (which isn't too big a leap by itself), you want to postulate how these basic physical concepts are ported over to mental processes, and the forms of cognition are deemed a significant uncovering in this direction precisely because they correspond to actual fundamental differences in orientation towards uncovering physics? (E.g. how determinists like Einstein saw physics differently, how DA corresponds to the quantum worldview..)

    In other words, they explain orientations to physics ideas rather than merely postulating an ordering, like F>R>etc.
    This is what socionics says, forms cognition is just Gulenko's observation of this process.

    Forms of Cognition describes the similarities of cognition in the 4 supervision rings.

    I have bolded a few things for emphasis.

    Socionic model and theory provides the skeleton, Gulenko gave it flesh.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes, basically Gulenko describes the actual phenomena

    Quote Originally Posted by point
    Ne-Fe-Se-Te = Process
    Ne-Te-Se-Fe = Result
    Two questions on this: first, why is the first called process, the second result? Is it because somehow Te=work which is generally the outcome of what potential energy is used for, is placed before the arousal of kinetic energy from potential (= Fe)? I'm not familiar with what this reversal corresponds to in terms of physics phenomena (either the phenomena themselves or the human being's apprehension and cognitive approach to analyzing them).

    The second question is perhaps more important - this formula you give posits a translation of a certain "combustion" process as Aushra calls it to something called process/result, and kind of looks like the main information blocks superficially, in that a N-base with F the secondary has the ordering NFST. However, interestingly, ALL OF THE INFORMATION ELEMENTS ARE EXTRAVERTED. This looks a lot like Gulenko's energy model.
    Rather than the information model, which follows static/dynamic instead of introversion/extraversion.
    The information model looks like N-static-F-static-S-static-T-static instead of something like N(extraverted)-F(extraverted)-...

    Also counterintuitive to me is the NFST types are result not process. iei, iee

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Wow, I'm actually getting a doubt whether the energy model is what Jung saw, not the information model. I mean, couldn't that be why his fundamental all-important dichotomy which he considered more important than all the 4 functions was introversion/extraversion?? (he both said this outright I believe and it's kinda obvious, in Psychological Types he wrote a crazy number of chapters on introversion/extraversion, almost chalking up too much discussion to it, leaving the definition of the functions and the portraits of the function-types to chapters X and XI which he actually de-emphasized when he commented later on what his work really was about); couldn't that be why, all along, I've been bewildered, because the prevailing Jungian viewpoint was that the top two functions are both introverted or both extraverted in the case two are truly developed? Because really, I think Gulenko's misunderstanding Jungian terminology in separating persona and ego the way he does, but it does seem like his energy type is getting closer to following the founding Jungian paradigm (which by the way is based on libidinal flow, aka psychic energywhich is pretty much the direct content of introversion/extraversion).
    It's quite possible the information metabolism doesn't proceed along exactly analogous terms and is embedded deeper than the immediate energetic preferences.

    It could very well be that the right foundation for the information type is static/dynamic or physics stuff in general, which would exactly why someone coming at this from a deeper information processing perspective might seem to agree more with the forms of cognition approach (in which static/dynamic is one of the all-important players).

    This is making a strange kind of sense. Perhaps energy type almost could be said to exist on a plane below the information type, like it's your "experience/application" of the conversion process of potential energy to work in your own consciousness or whatever else you do energetically - not every process will proceed in that order of course, it'll simply involve all 4 components. Whereas the information type is embedded within, as to how you fundamentally see these laws from within, rather than how you experience and apply them in daily life to your own energetic needs. I'd be more willing to believe such a deeply embedded type is "innate" rather than merely a stably formed structure as an adaptation to circumstances based on balancing inner and outer dispositions.

    This post might make no sense whatsoever, but it's got me excited. Probably just too much sugar.

    My position at the moment that we should be able to define some kind of clear link between process/result and certain patterns involving the four (kinetic/potential/conversion/work) in all their arrangements, or even complicate the number from four to more physical forces (to avoid sticking with a Jungian analogy just for the sake of it if it won't do good) and second, ask if process/result and static/dynamic are all we need in terms of capturing the various patterns these can take.
    I mean, for instance, why is SFNT considered process, from physics analogy?
    Oh interesting, is this where +/- signs come in properly? Somehow you'd have to start with the basic foundation of NFST which seems most self explanatory as a formula, and explain the other possible orderings...this is where I guess they feel the need to think of things like instead of "maximizing work output" you "minimize negative work done". +/- signs make perfect sense with physics vectors...using symmetries like that you could start with NFST and derive all sorts of other "combustions".
    Last edited by chemical; 09-17-2014 at 08:03 AM.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Now I'm getting a picture for your foundations. If you assume rational/irrational still exists as foundation, but sort of replace I/E with static/dynamic in the information type, you get static-rationals and static-irrationals, dynamic-rationals, dynamic-irrationals. Add involution/evolution, you get 8 types like Jung did, then you just decide how you pair them which is clear - analogous rules to Jung. Only remaining question is why you keep rational/irrational. Why is it so fundamental?

  24. #24
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,127
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    [/B]Rather than the information model, which follows static/dynamic instead of introversion/extraversion.
    The information model looks like N-static-F-static-S-static-T-static instead of something like N(extraverted)-F(extraverted)-...

    Also counterintuitive to me is the NFST types are result not process. iei, iee
    First, after reading this thread i gotta say - Thank god im an Irrational. The postulating and theorizing about what ought to be learned, would drive me nuts. Sometimes its just easier to delve in and sharpen the knowledge through reflection after the fact.

    But on to your question:
    I'm not even sure if this is correct, but this is how i intuitively understand this
    "Ne-Fe-Se-Te = Process
    Ne-Te-Se-Fe = Result"

    IEI values the extraverted functions Se and Fe. Se comes first because it connects to the base, energy wise. Result.
    EIE values the extraverted functions Fe and Se. Fe comes first because it is the base, the source of energy. Process.

    Every type matches what they are proposed as by following that line of reasoning. Intuition; Making connections where they might not be intended.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If itís a disease, itís nobodyís fault. Yay empiricism.

  25. #25
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,127
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    Only remaining question is why you keep rational/irrational. Why is it so fundamental?
    Irrational / Rational is one of, if not the most important dichotomy in determining compatibility in intertype relations. Socionics has a ton of emphasis on the intertype interactions, and for that reason alone Irrational / Rational earns this value.
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If itís a disease, itís nobodyís fault. Yay empiricism.

  26. #26
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    Yes, basically Gulenko describes the actual phenomena

    Two questions on this: first, why is the first called process, the second result? Is it because somehow Te=work which is generally the outcome of what potential energy is used for, is placed before the arousal of kinetic energy from potential (= Fe)? I'm not familiar with what this reversal corresponds to in terms of physics phenomena (either the phenomena themselves or the human being's apprehension and cognitive approach to analyzing them).
    I won't go into the energy model because that's a better topic for another time.

    I'm not 100% sure of where Gulenko is going with the energy model.

    However process/result is just terms used to describe types. Right/Left has also been used as well as +/-.

    The fundamental reversible information process that can occur is this.

    Ne-Fe-Se-Te Information engine

    Reversible to

    Ne-Te-Se-Fe Information pump

    Now what are the introverted elements, "Fields relating to the E elements", so the transformation is implied to be mirrored in the introverted elements, however we can also perhaps imagine the process only working when there is a merging of the introverted element and extroverted element forming a more complete static/dynamic information whole. This is maybe what can be described as the feedback mechanism of duality.

    For process types simply the configuration of their functions in model A.

    ILE Ne-Ti-Se-Fi is structured towards a information engine. Add the dual.
    SEI Si-Fe-Ni-Te To form a complete whole.

    Result would be

    IEE Ne-Fi-Se-Ti
    SLI Si-Te-Ni-Fe To form a complete whole.

    As you can see process/result refers to the mental construction of the information transformation process within a sociotype.
    Process dual pairs have a different role vs their duals within their quadra.

    Now if you were to think of information elements as molecules and visualize them in 3D space, you would get a helical construct.. wonder where you've seen that before right. This is not mere coincidence, it is because orderly things from level to level of reality and even into the mind and cognition follows Schrodinger's prediction and will form this pattern. At least this is my belief and I necessarily believe it, because otherwise well everything collapses.

  27. #27
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider View Post
    having fun guys??
    This is alllll we NT's have.....


  28. #28
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    Now I'm getting a picture for your foundations. If you assume rational/irrational still exists as foundation, but sort of replace I/E with static/dynamic in the information type, you get static-rationals and static-irrationals, dynamic-rationals, dynamic-irrationals. Add involution/evolution, you get 8 types like Jung did, then you just decide how you pair them which is clear - analogous rules to Jung. Only remaining question is why you keep rational/irrational. Why is it so fundamental?
    Don't start with type(although you're result type so it's natural), let's just talk with process.

    Static/dynamic replaces I/E within the analogy of information processing but I/E is still really important to socionics.

    Ne-Fe-Se-Te Starting from this

    static-dynamic-static-dynamic This forms the mechanism, extroverted statics is like substance(perception of) but doesn't change, dynamics can change but requires substance to manipulate, and both necessarily depend on the other to perform this mechanic.

    Now as you can see, this static dynamic property of the element is intrinsic to the element, it's a property of the element. However, why rationality/irrationality? Extroverted static elements are substance(perception of) and thus as-is to the perception. What is the nature of rationality, why does extroverted rationality have the character of dynamic rationality?

    This is because extroverted rationality characterizes operations which can change the nature of static substance(perception of), however these operations are not as-is and are or a dynamic nature and requires rational cognition to identify and act on. (Not 100% satisfy with the end explanation)

    Now I've only focused on the extroverted elements but when looking I/E, we're really looking at the nature of subjectivity, self-referential cognition. Socionics describes this as Field vs Object, I'm not going to go deep here because I'm working on a more precise explanation. I however take it as face value and accept this differentiation has occurred. As self-referential cognition, the introverted element takes on the characteristic of the associated extroverted element. However, it presents the opposing static/dynamic characteristic. But why is this so? For something like Extrovert irrationality, it is supposedly static substance but perhaps this is merely the "cognition of" that is static, but it has dynamic characteristics, which are not known to extroverted irrationality but can be perceived in a self-referential fashion by introverted irrationality. And this combined information forms a more complete whole, where the static/dynamic, object/field, rational/irrational characteristics have cognition. This applies in the same way for introverted rational function with respect to extroverted rational functions.

    Why types then?

    Differentiation/specialization within the possible expressions, but why 16 types, because at this point there's only 8?

    Process/Result.

    Information on its own do nothing, it is a mind at idle.

    Process and result describe how information processing occurs within a mind to go thru the necessary cognitive steps in order to achieve the information loop.

    It specifies the direction of this information transformation, and tells us what shoves what in the mind of an individual.

    I've written a bit and I'm unsatisfied with everything I've written, but I hope it's at least clear enough to give you some ideas of what I'm attempting to describe.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by point
    This forms the mechanism, extroverted statics is like substance(perception of) but doesn't change, dynamics can change but requires substance to manipulate, and both necessarily depend on the other to perform this mechanic.

    Now as you can see, this static dynamic property of the element is intrinsic to the eleme
    This makes a lot of sense; it also looks like the two "internal" elements were placed at first. When we imagine physics happening, we tend to imagine an object being done work on, using a force, across a displacement trajectory. But we don't tend to "see" its potential energy or the conversion of potential to kinetic directly, i.e. internal statics/dynamics.

    It specifies the direction of this information transformation
    That makes sense definitely.

    Field vs Object
    I think here a kind of implicit/explicit thing is going on too, in that fields (like magnetic fields) influence objects, but we sort of infer them due to the object's behavior, saying it exists in a field with certain properties. In this case most generally it's probably the "field" of consciousness generated by some sense of self, where one could either refer to the objective aspects of cognition, starting with the objects, or one could study the subjective factor directly, and understand objects only indirectly, beginning with what properties this field has purely based on the subject.

    I have a feeling that the reason the elements switch between dynamic and static could have to do with how while time may be changing in different ways in various universes or whatever, we tend to cognitively choose a reference point: something is seen as changing, and with respect to that reference point, other things are static or vice versa. When we focus on the changing aspects of our own subjective consciousness, either by intuiting it or through watching how the change affects our sense impressions, we see the objects which triggered the sense impressions in our consciousness as not moving relative to our moving consciousness. And similarly for the others.

    The fundamental reversible information process that can occur is this.

    Ne-Fe-Se-Te Information engine

    Reversible to

    Ne-Te-Se-Fe Information pump

    Now what are the introverted elements, "Fields relating to the E elements", so the transformation is implied to be mirrored in the introverted elements, however we can also perhaps imagine the process only working when there is a merging of the introverted element and extroverted element forming a more complete static/dynamic information whole. This is maybe what can be described as the feedback mechanism of duality.

    For process types simply the configuration of their functions in model A.

    ILE Ne-Ti-Se-Fi is structured towards a information engine. Add the dual.
    SEI Si-Fe-Ni-Te To form a complete whole.
    So essentially you're saying I could think of the ILE=process as due to reversing the result NeTeSeFe to NeTiSeFi? Basically we switched half of them to introverted, rather than all, so in theory NiTiSiFi is also result, but this NeTi is process?
    I guess you can view TiNeFiSe as kind of a shifted backwards ILE too.
    Fi-Se-Ti-Ne if you read right to left starting at Ne.

    Basically switching the flow process from Ne->Ti to Ti->Ne also reverses process to result.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Let me consider the simpler example of NFST. So NeFeSeTe is process. In NeFi, the user operates by not apprehending the dynamic processes occuring, or attempting to make them occur, but rather noting the fields influencing the contents. If I'm right, this statically classifies the potential endpoints of a the combustion cycle via Fi/Ti. The others are just switching these around I guess.

  31. #31
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    I have a feeling that the reason the elements switch between dynamic and static could have to do with how while time may be changing in different ways in various universes or whatever, we tend to cognitively choose a reference point: something is seen as changing, and with respect to that reference point, other things are static or vice versa. When we focus on the changing aspects of our own subjective consciousness, either by intuiting it or through watching how the change affects our sense impressions, we see the objects which triggered the sense impressions in our consciousness as not moving relative to our moving consciousness. And similarly for the others.
    Cognition is basically mental and these experiences are of a mental sort, however they are not necessarily without reference to actual reality. The extroverted elements explicitly tries to deal with actual reality while the introverted elements refer to the informational content.

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    So essentially you're saying I could think of the ILE=process as due to reversing the result NeTeSeFe to NeTiSeFi? Basically we switched half of them to introverted, rather than all, so in theory NiTiSiFi is also result, but this NeTi is process?
    I guess you can view TiNeFiSe as kind of a shifted backwards ILE too.
    Fi-Se-Ti-Ne if you read right to left starting at Ne.

    Basically switching the flow process from Ne->Ti to Ti->Ne also reverses process to result.
    I think you're complicating it a bit and deriving the various ways it could make sense, all of these scenarios makes sense and can be derived in a way.

    However NeTeSeFe isn't really the reverse of NeTiSeFi, NeTiSeFi is the same as NeFeSeTe, the introverted functions is in a way a references to the compatible function. So Ti references Fe and Fi references Te.

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by point
    NeTiSeFi is the same as NeFeSeTe
    Oh I see, so you map the original to variants via dualization. How does this work for like, SEE? You have to sort of convert everything back, huh? Dualize SEE to get ILI, NiTeSiFe, and process/result is apparently unchanged under a full swap of i/e, like NeTiSeFe is the counterpart to ILI.
    Okay, this makes it easy for any irrational type. You use two transformations: dualization or swapping i/e to get from any type to something of the main forms?

    For a rational type though? The rule seems to be that the rational version of an irrational type is its reverse in process/result. How do I understand that? The only thing occurring to me to go from NeFeSeTe seemed to reverse it totally. TeSeFeNe, if considered a result thing, would yield under dualization, for instance, TeNiFeSi, which is indeed result. Seems to generally work. Dualize another way and you get FiSeTiNe. Also result oriented.

    I'm not sure whether it's right or wrong to reverse NeFeSeTe to TeSeFeNe.

    Sorry if it's all wrong!
    Last edited by chemical; 09-18-2014 at 12:52 AM.

  33. #33
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    I'm not sure whether it's right or wrong to reverse NeFeSeTe to TeSeFeNe.
    NeTeSeFe is the same as TeSeFeNe.


    It represents a single instance of a cycle.

    NeTeSeFe - Ne

    Is the same as

    Te-Se-Fe-Ne - Te

    It works for rationals and dynamic, it the same.

    Ni-Fe-Si-Te = IEI = Result is just the same as Ni - Ti - Si - Fi, same as Se - Fe - Ne - Te.

    What the introverted type and the extroverted type of the diad is they are representative of two sides of a whole informational process, divided by Static / Dynamic dichotomy.

    Ni - Fe - Si - Te \\\\\ Whole
    Se - Ti - Ne - Fi ///// Informational process

    The idea is that human minds have specialized to dig deeper into a single aspect of reality, with a specific direction of information transformation, the dual focuses in the same direction and in a complementary manner.

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by point
    NeTeSeFe is the same as TeSeFeNe.

    OK this makes it easier somehow! NeFeSeTe being process and its reverse being result (but phrasable as NeTeSeFe if you rearrange) makes most structural sense to me.

    Do you have any comment on the fact that the beginning of the fundamental cycle is irrational, and the end of it is rational? I mean, it of course makes intuitive sense as to how the brain works (turning irrational content into a rational product), but was curious if you had another interpretation.

    I mean, it makes me want to think somehow the TeSeFeNe really illustrates result, like you backtrack from the "rational" work output to uncover what must have been the potential leading to it.

  35. #35
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    OK this makes it easier somehow! NeFeSeTe being process and its reverse being result (but phrasable as NeTeSeFe if you rearrange) makes most structural sense to me.

    Do you have any comment on the fact that the beginning of the fundamental cycle is irrational, and the end of it is rational? I mean, it of course makes intuitive sense as to how the brain works (turning irrational content into a rational product), but was curious if you had another interpretation.

    I mean, it makes me want to think somehow the TeSeFeNe really illustrates result, like you backtrack from the "rational" work output to uncover what must have been the potential leading to it.
    There's really no beginning or end, it's more just a habit of notation to use ENTp as the standard, and Ne as the starting point.

    Since Aushra was ENTp she basically just used her own type/process-pattern as a standard and all the socionics did it out of respect to that.

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by point
    There's really no beginning or end, it's more just a habit of notation to use ENTp as the standard, and Ne as the starting point.
    Right, where ENTp is really NeFeSeTe in the conversion. OK cool.

    Thanks, all this makes total sense now. Essentially forms of cognition's content being physics-related and having parallels to physics worldviews is no accident since if you forget about Ne standing for a Jungian function and instead think of it as potential, you get the ideas of forms of cognition just that way itself.

    Now what's interesting is to try to see what happens with energy types - could there be a forms of cognition determined by introversion/extraversion in place of static/dynamic and all that.

  37. #37
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    7,966
    Mentioned
    568 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chemical View Post
    Right, where ENTp is really NeFeSeTe in the conversion. OK cool.

    Thanks, all this makes total sense now. Essentially forms of cognition's content being physics-related and having parallels to physics worldviews is no accident since if you forget about Ne standing for a Jungian function and instead think of it as potential, you get the ideas of forms of cognition just that way itself.

    Now what's interesting is to try to see what happens with energy types - could there be a forms of cognition determined by introversion/extraversion in place of static/dynamic and all that.
    Yep, Aushra simply matched this analogy to jungian function and it worked.

    The model is compatible with jungian functions and of course Jung was astute in recording his observations even if he couldn't explain it.

Posting Permissions

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