# Thread: The Model A Cube

1. ## The Model A Cube

I just wanted to share something cool I discovered: Model A can be viewed as a cube.

This is one of four possible representations, called the xs-cube (to be explained in a moment). You can think of types as being represented by positions of the cube, with, say, the ego block being the closer edge on the bottom. So the one pictured represents LSE. However, any horizontal edge may be chosen to represent the ego block.

Each relationship is a transformation of the cube - a combination of reflections and rotations. If you apply that transformation you will produce the type that has that relationship with the type you started with.

-the extinguishment (x) relation is a reflection across the xy-plane
-supervision (s) is a 90 degree clockwise rotation about the z-axis
-mirror is a reflection across the yz-plane
-duality is the antipodal map which sends each point to the point opposite from it

etc.

There are three other possible cubes. Each one requires a choice of which "rings" to use for the 90 degree rotation (which sends a point to an adjacent point) - either benefit or supervision - and a choice of what to use for the reflection that sends a point to the third adjacent point - and this can only be duality or extinguishment for mathematical reasons.

This allows thinking of supervision and benefit rings as actual rings, in the sense that you can continuously rotate the cube from one type to its supervisor - or benefactor, but not both. This suggests that perhaps there is a sense in which one can use "in-between" IM elements. There is also a 4-dimensional representation on a hypercube, aka tesseract. It's a bit more difficult to draw a picture of, though.

2. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
I just wanted to share something cool I discovered: Model A can be viewed as a cube.

xs_cube.png

This is one of four possible representations, called the xs-cube (to be explained in a moment). You can think of types as being represented by positions of the cube, with, say, the ego block being the closer edge on the bottom. So the one pictured represents LSE. (However, the choice of edge is arbitrary.)

Each relationship is a transformation of the cube - a combination of reflections and rotations. If you apply that transformation you will produce the type that has that relationship with the type you started with.

-the extinguishment (x) relation is a reflection across the xy-plane
-supervision (s) is a 90 degree clockwise rotation about the z-axis
-mirror is a reflection across the yz-plane
-duality is the antipodal map which sends each point to the point opposite from it

etc.

There are three other possible cubes. Each one requires a choice of which "rings" to use for the 90 degree rotation (which sends a point to an adjacent point) - either benefit or supervision - and a choice of what to use for the reflection that sends a point to the third adjacent point - and this can only be duality or extinguishment for mathematical reasons.

This allows thinking of supervision and benefit rings as actual rings, in the sense that you can continuously rotate the cube from one type to its supervisor - or benefactor, but not both. This suggests that perhaps there is a sense in which one can use "in-between" IM elements. There is also a 4-dimensional representation on a hypercube, aka tesseract. It's a bit more difficult to draw a picture of, though.
Can't view it due to my permissions. Can you provide a link to it uploaded on an image hosting site?

3. Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
Can't view it due to my permissions. Can you provide a link to it uploaded on an image hosting site?
Done

4. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
Done
Oh, this is a small part of Model B. Give me a bit and I'll link you to better. Driving now.

5. Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
Oh, this is a small part of Model B. Give me a bit and I'll link you to better. Driving now.
Actually this is just a geometric representation of Model A. Like I said, there is a 4D version, and it's a representation of the natural 16-function model, which I call Model A2. Gulenko's Model G is structurally isomorphic to a part of Model A2. If this is Model B:

It appears to also be structurally isomorphic to Model A2. It just uses + for Process and - for Result instead of for Positivist/Negativist. I'm not totally sure that the semantics correspond to my model though, I'd have to look into it more. With Model G the similarities are clear - I used some of Gulenko's signed-element definitions as a starting point; others I disagree with. But I think our concepts of the functions are quite different, especially since Model G only has eight functions.

Here is the Model B arrangement in my notation for relationships:

e i m B
c b g h
a S d l
x k q s

Like Model G and Model A2, a type is identified with its "first function."

6. Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
I can't access personalitycafe for some reason, it appears to be down, or too much latency. You'll have to copy-paste whatever it is.

7. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
Actually this is just a geometric representation of Model A. Like I said, there is a 4D version, and it's a representation of the natural 16-function model, which I call Model A2. Gulenko's Model G is structurally isomorphic to a part of Model A2. If this is Model B:

It appears to also be structurally isomorphic to Model A2. It just uses + for Process and - for Result instead of for Positivist/Negativist. I'm not totally sure that the semantics correspond to my model though, I'd have to look into it more. With Model G the similarities are clear - I used some of Gulenko's signed-element definitions as a starting point; others I disagree with. But I think our concepts of the functions are quite different, especially since Model G only has eight functions.

Here is the Model B arrangement in my notation for relationships:

e i m B
c b g h
a S d l
x k q s

Like Model G and Model A2, a type is identified with its "first function."
There aren't any 4D models of Socionics. Socionics is only 3D logic. Going to 4D leaves the scope of application.

That's not Model B. Model A2 doesn't exist. Model G isn't Socionics.

8. Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
There aren't any 4D models of Socionics. Socionics is only 3D logic. Going to 4D leaves the scope of application.
I disagree, and in fact I can write down explicitly a 4D model in terms of rigid transformations of a hypercube.

That's not Model B. Model A2 doesn't exist. Model G isn't Socionics.
"Model A2 doesn't exist" that's a rather sweeping pronouncement, what is your evidence? Or rather, what is your definition of a model? There are many models of the socion, in fact certain dichotomies can also be considered a limited kind of model.

Also, if that's not Model B, perhaps you could provide the actual functional arrangement.

9. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
I disagree, and in fact I can write down explicitly a 4D model in terms of rigid transformations of a hypercube.
That's model B, and it's still 3D. 4D would mean your type changes over time.

"Model A2 doesn't exist" that's a rather sweeping pronouncement, what is your evidence? Or rather, what is your definition of a model? There are many models of the relationship group, in fact certain dichotomies can also be considered a limited kind of model.

Also, if that's not Model B, perhaps you could provide the actual functional arrangement.
16 component model is Model B. You'll have to keep trying PerC or pull up a cached version. I'm banned on there, so I can't copy and paste it over without the ability to open editor on it.

10. Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
That's model B, and it's still 3D. 4D would mean your type changes over time.
Not really. What it does mean according to my interpretation that it incorporates time into the model. +Ti is like a time-reversed version of -Ti, output vs input. The actual types are static, I don't see how that's logically implied at all. You seem to be confusing the mathematical structure of the model for its semantics - the two are not strictly related, there is always some amount of interpretation that is placed on top of the model.

16 component model is Model B. You'll have to keep trying PerC or pull up a cached version. I'm banned on there, so I can't copy and paste it over without the ability to open editor on it.
Surely if you are such an expert in it you can write it from memory

11. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
Not really. What it does mean according to my interpretation that it incorporates time into the model. +Ti is like a time-reversed version of -Ti, output vs input. The actual types are static, I don't see how that's logically implied at all. You seem to be confusing the mathematical structure of the model for its semantics - the two are not strictly related, there is always some amount of interpretation that is placed on top of the model.
It doesn't incorporate time. You're confusing the Situation parameter for the Time parameter. The only portions of Socionics that delve into the theoretical existence of a model with the Time parameter are Gulenko's Clock of the Socion and Yermak's Developmental Age.

Hypercube models aren't 4D, they're 3D.

12. 16-component model via Bukalov:

Ni-, Fe+, Si-, Te+, Se-, Ti+, Ne-, Fi+. The remaining 8 are when each element is paired with it's cross-block element; e.g., Fe being utilized with Si in the former is Fe- and Si+.

13. Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
16-component model via Bukalov:

Ni-, Fe+, Si-, Te+, Se-, Ti+, Ne-, Fi+. The remaining 8 are when each element is paired with it's cross-block element; e.g., Fe being utilized with Si in the former is Fe- and Si+.
This tells me nothing. How do you form the model / assign the signs in general?

14. Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
Hypercube models aren't 4D, they're 3D.
ok, you're just displaying your total ignorance now. I'm probably wasting my time even trying to get through to you, but I'll give it another shot anyways.

A geometric model of a group G over a field F is defined as a homomorphism G -> U(V) where V is a vector space over F. The dimension of the representation is the dimension of V. For example, you can have rotations of 3-dimensional space or of 4-dimensional space. There is a model of the relationship group R on a 4-dimensional vector space which cannot be considered equivalent to a 3D model. You can pretend it's just two cubes being permuted but then it's not really a true geometric model in the above sense. (But, you can also pretend that the model I've given above is two squares being permuted, same as the normal picture of Model A. It doesn't mean it's 2D.)

15. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
This tells me nothing. How do you form the model / assign the signs in general?
Mental and vital have same signs between the elements in a macro-element.

Alpha: Ne+, Ti-, Fe-, Si+
Beta: Ni-, Ti+, Fe+, Se-
Gamma: Ni+, Te-, Fi-, Se+
Delta: Ne-, Te+, Fi+, Si-

16. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
ok, you're just displaying your total ignorance now. I'm probably wasting my time even trying to get through to you, but I'll give it another shot anyways.

A geometric model of a group G over a field F is defined as a homomorphism G -> U(V) where V is a vector space over F. The dimension of the representation is the dimension of V. For example, you can have rotations of 3-dimensional space or of 4-dimensional space. There is a model of the relationship group R on a 4-dimensional vector space which cannot be considered equivalent to a 3D model. You can pretend it's just two cubes being permuted but then it's not really a true geometric model in the above sense. (But, you can also pretend that the model I've given above is two squares being permuted, same as the normal picture of Model A. It doesn't mean it's 2D.)
I understand perfectly, you're simply wrong is all.

A model cannot be 4D unless it changes over time. Even the Socionists recognize this.

17. Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
Mental and vital have same signs between the elements in a macro-element.

Alpha: Ne+, Ti-, Fe-, Si+
Beta: Ni-, Ti+, Fe+, Se-
Gamma: Ni+, Te-, Fi-, Se+
Delta: Ne-, Te+, Fi+, Si-
ok, you're ordering them linearly (at least half of them I guess) but it uses the same assignment of signs as retmeishka's in the picture I posted. So this is again structurally isomorphic to all the other ones, including Model A2.

18. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
ok, you're ordering them linearly (at least half of them I guess) but it uses the same assignment of signs as retmeishka's in the picture I posted. So this is again structurally isomorphic to all the other ones, including Model A2.
Retmeishka got your A2 from Hitta, which was Hitta attempting to place the signs of B when there wasn't much information on B available. It's part of Model B. There is no "A2" in Socionics, just A, B, and T.

19. Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
Retmeishka got your A2 from Hitta, which was Hitta attempting to place the signs of B when there wasn't much information on B available. It's part of Model B. There is no "A2" in Socionics, just A, B, and T.
You misunderstand...Model A2 is my model, separate from Model B (see my sig), it has nothing to do with what retmeishka posted.

20. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
You misunderstand...Model A2 is my model, separate from Model B (see my sig), it has nothing to do with what retmeishka posted.
Too wordy.

21. Second Article:

Original Source: http://socionic.info/pdf/as498.pdf
Note: This is based upon official MBTI Type, as determined by Type I/II/III

International Institute of Socionics

RESEARCH
1998
Bukalov AV

Socionics, typology of Jung and Myers-Briggs:

Similarities and differences

Analyzes the differences between the structure of psychological types of CG Jung, types of informational metabolism in socionics and the Myers-Briggs typology. It is shown that the Myers-Briggs typology, as opposed to socionics, is not derived directly from the Jung's typology. The reason for differences lies in a different understanding of mental work type functions and the introduction of feature JP, other than the proposed concepts Jung rationality-irrationality. However, differences in the concepts can be integrated into the 16-component model B type of information metabolism, including integration function - self. This model combines both introverted (Jung, Myers-Briggs) and extroverted (socionics) approaches to the analysis of psychological types.

Keywords: typology of Jung, Myers-Briggs, socionics, psychological types, 8th component model of type, 16-component model of type, self, information libido.

Introduction

As is known, the theory of psychological types of CG Jung got its development in two different embodiments. In the West, the United States - a typology proposed by J. Briggs Myers in the East, the Soviet Union, and now in the CIS - a theory of informational metabolism (IM) - socionics developed A.Augustinavichiute (Lithuania) and is actively developing in recent years. Both of these trends have arisen independently of one another because of the "Iron Curtain", operate 16 types of personality, taking them out Jung's typology. And if the Myers-Briggs typology is only a literal development of the ideas of Jung and description 16 styles, socionics gives not just a description of the types of information metabolism, but also understanding internal information model of the mind in the form of 8-bit or 16-component models [1, 2]. At This unit socionic modeling allows to describe and Information the interaction between types of MI, ie. e. the relationship between them.

Jung himself proposed a very simple structure consisting of four mental functions, and American typology uses the same today Jung submission early 30-ies of XX century.

In reading specialists in sotsionike American typology quickly it became clear that the empirical description of the Myers-Briggs types coincide with the corresponding descriptions socionic types MI theory and practice. This interest in the achievements of the American socionists typology exhausted: it was obvious that the typology nothing could give sotsionike because of the scarcity of its theoretical baggage. Strictly speaking, the typology was (and is) in state before sotsioniki or relative socionics, at 1968, when A.Augustinavichiute He began developing his theory. Thus, the lag in the American concepts and typology methods is about 30 years. Nevertheless, due to a number of political and economic reasons, typology widespread in the West, especially the United States, it is used by millions of people. Therefore, from time to time there is a question of the relationship between the concepts of socionics and typology Myers Briggs, the degree of correctness of reference types MI with psychological types, these types of conformity types of CG Jung, and so.. In this article, I intend to highlight a number of key provisions, showing the similarities and differences between all three theories.

1. Jung Typology

The theory of psychological types of CG Jung is based on the concepts introduced by him psychological functions: the irrational - the opposite to her intuition and feeling and rational - thinking and an opposite feeling. In addition to that introduced Jung the concept of extraversion (treatment of libido (libido) - psychic energy - out) and introversion (Facing inward libido). Psychological functions can be both extraverted, and in introverted installation.

According to Jung, there are 8 basic psychological types (4 and 4 extraverted introverted) with a dominant psychological functions (intuition, feeling, thinking or feeling), and either extraverted or introverted installation consciousness.

Besides the basic functions, there is also a subsidiary. For the main irrational auxiliary function can only be one of rational functions, and vice versa. Thus Jung noted that several different psychological types by the way in which the type of auxiliary function (for example, the main function of the type of intuition with the auxiliary function of thinking different from the type of auxiliary function with feeling). This is the key to the 16 types that used Myers-Briggs and A.Augusta. Jung himself did not give further division great value.

Following the installation of consciousness discussed above, Jung described the installation and the unconscious. At the psychological type of installation of the unconscious opposite installation of consciousness. Thus, in introverted thinking type, Jung - archaic depressed Extraverted feeling, while sentient extraverted type setting is unconscious introverted intuitive.

22. Second Article Continued:

2. Typology and the Myers-Briggs typology Jung

J. Briggs Myers took as a basis a typology of Jung and introduced the 16 psychological types. Myers-Briggs types are defined as a combination of a receiving (P) functions (intuition N or sensation S) with one of the judging (J) functions (thinking or feeling T F). Let note that the terms irrational and rational have been replaced by the terms perceiving- judging. As a result, a simple combination of functions with the extraversion-introversion occurs 16 types. However, there is a definite difference in the method of removing these types. J. Briggs Myers introduced the concept of the dominant and auxiliary processes. If a person is dominated by the process of perception (P), the judgment (J) is an additional process, and conversely, if the dominant process - judgment (J), the additional process - perceiving (P). According to Myers-Briggs, "the dominant process is concentrated in the outer world of people and events, and an additional process has to take care of their inner life, without which were extroverts I would be extremely extroverted, and, according to them better balanced colleagues - superficial." In introverts "dominant process is absorbed by the inner world of thought, and an additional process It is doing everything it can, in relation to their external life. " However, the "introverts are forced to use dominant process in relation to the external world is slightly larger than necessary, due to predictable results. " "Dominant extroverts process aims to be immediately visible. Since introverts - on the contrary. Dominant process usually introverted and stubborn; where their attention should turn to the outside world, they tend to use that additional process. Except for those who are very close to a lot of introverts or interested in the work, they love ... people without much pleasure allowed into the inner world of introverts. Most people only see the other side of that introverts impose the outside world, much of which is their additional process, secondary ... The result is paradoxical. Introverts, whose dominant process - the process of judgment, or thinking, or feeling, in the outside world are not like judging people. What is shown in - this is the most perceiving of their additional process. They live in their outer life mainly perceptual positions ... Similarly introverts whose dominant process - perception, or sensation, or intuition, apparently do not behave like humans perceive. They demonstrate the most judicious of their additional process and live their lives largely from the perspective of judgment ".

J. Briggs Myers compares the dominant process with the General, and the additional - with Adjutant. In general extrovert it is outside the tent and decides all questions, communicates with people. Adjutant is in the background or in a tent. In general introvert "is inside the tent, treating issues of highest priority. " It communicates with the outside world adjutant. Note that this idea J. Briggs Myers and the dominant role of additional processes It looks a bit strange in the case of extroverted not quite clear as an additional process in extroverts.

As a result of this distinction arises 8 extraverted types and 8 introverted. It is assumed that the dominant process is always connected with extrovert outside world and indicates - preference J-P. For introverts J or P in their type designation It represents an additional process as introverts, according to J. Briggs Myers, do not use dominant process to communicate with the outside world.

We emphasize that such an interpretation of mental processes due to I. Briggs Myers and found in CG Jung.

For example, consider the extraverted (E) thinking (T) type of CG Jung in compared to the Myers-Briggs typology. The function of thought is rational (Ra). If we accept an additional function as a function of feeling, in this type of letter symbols can be written as follows: ET(S)(Ra)

For the extraverted thinking type with auxiliary intuition record looks as follows: ET(N)(Ra)

By I. Briggs-Myers these types are written as ESTJ or ENTJ, respectively. If the concept of rationality (Ra) and J -preferences and the notion of irrationality (Ir) and P -preferences respectively, the same, the recording encoding type for Jung and Myers-Briggs are the same.

For the introverted thinking type, defined by Jung rational (main function - thinking - rational), the record will be as follows:
a) If the auxiliary function sensation, IT (S) (Ra);
b) if the auxiliary function intuition, the IT (N) (Ra).
According to Myers-Briggs record is as follows:
a) ISTP;
b) INTP.

Get the paradoxical result: on the Myers-Briggs with the dominant introverted types judging function are perceived or irrational in terms of Jung. Contradiction there. Myers-Briggs types do not match the encoding of the types of CG Jung.

What type of Jung corresponds to the acronym ISTP Myers-Briggs typology? Obviously, if we take as a priority indication J - P -predpochtenie, the desired type of Jung will introverted intuitive (irrational) type with thinking as a subsidiary process, namely IN (T) (Ir).

To verify this assertion, it suffices to compare the description of introverted Jungian types with descriptions of American typology, for example, in D. Kersi.

Absolutely obvious, that by committing replacement crisp and clear sign Jung Rationality(Ra) - irrationality(Ir) own terms judging(J) - percieving(P), J. Briggs Myers was in captivity semantics of these terms, which differs from the semantics of terms Jung (see Note 1). Thus, in the interpretation of the American typology there is a serious disagreement with Jung (Socionics) in understanding the essence of the primary and secondary processes. The main function Jung's introverted type is interpreted I. Briggs Myers as an auxiliary. So Jungian introverted sensing type with an auxiliary function of feeling (IS (F) (Ir))empirically, the description matches the type in ISFP Myers-Briggs typology called sentient introverted type with the dominant introverted function feeling and support functions extraverted sensation.

(Note 1: This is true for types of left social progress (in terms of socionics). Briggs Type I. Meyers described as (IEI).)

What kind of function is actually dominant in this type? From point of view Jungian typology and socionics - a sensation or sensory function. From the viewpoint of typology Myers-Briggs feeling - just a helper function.

It should again be emphasized that the practice of using semantics and description of the signs in J-P American typology actually match the description attribute rationality-irrationality in Jung, who, in turn, is actively used in socionics. Therefore, all statements that sign J-P describes "something else", it should be recognized erroneous and unfounded.

Why did we have identified a discrepancy was not noticed before? Apparently it happened because of the terminological ambiguities of both the works of Jung, and (increasingly) of his followers, which, being more psychoanalysts often confuse leadership and support functions have type. A striking example of this - the description "with the types of parties" where sotsionike easy to detect inconsistencies in description introverted types and their relationships with extroverted types. So, given the right description sentient extraverted type with auxiliary function of thinking and his wife as the introverted feeling type, as well as their relations as a full complement (To use the concept of socionics). However, that such a couple is in a relationship complement each other, the spouse who feels extraverted type with auxiliary thought to be an introverted intuitive type of feeling with the auxiliary. Otherwise - incompatible types (such relations are relations in socionics conflict). Next, the introverted thinking type, and indicated that his wife - extroverted feeling type (which corresponds precisely sotsionike). Apparently the author "Parties to the types of" describing the two couples with similar nature of the relationship, admits confusion in the description and notation types.

Examples can be continued.

Thus, D. Kersi, developing ideas J. Briggs Myers offered the best combination of psychological types. This, according to him, those who have all the qualities of the opposite, for example, INTP and ESFJ. From the point of Kersi logical view of all - the extreme should converge. But in terms of Jung's typology (and sotsioniki) talking about irrational introverted intuitive type with an auxiliary thinking (installation of consciousness), with the installation of an archaic unconscious as extroverted sensation of feeling with the auxiliary. It is clear that this type is best suited irrational extroverted sensing type with an auxiliary function of feeling (Installation of consciousness) and introverted archaic setting with the function of the unconscious intuition and auxiliary thinking. And it does not fit a rational extraverted feeling type with auxiliary sensation. This follows from the fact that irrational and rational style life is very different, and in this particular case, these general types are not compatible or conflicts.

The development of these ideas leads to unique ideas of socionics.

23. ok, so Bukalov did think of it as a cube/hypercube. (He also says it's 4D, btw.) Good to know, I didn't know that anyone had thought of that.

25. Continued:

5. The new informational model of psyche - model B

The proposed model was developed in 1989 and used to describe the functional states such as myocardial infarction, the operation of communication patterns, relationships and dynamics intertype t. d. It was found that this model may be to some extent to connect the two points of view on the structure type (see. fig.), or at least help to understand what prompted J. Briggs Myers formulate its point of view.

Model B consists of 16 PPM (8 external and internal 8 (see Note 2)) With signs located at the vertices of a 4-dimensional cube. His three-dimensional projection looks like a "cube in a cube", which corresponds to the outer and inner layers of the psyche, adapted to the three-dimensional physical space.

(Note 2: External and internal functions, which divides each informational metabolism function of the Model A, a number of different options, as described - a topic for another article. )

In addition to the FIM model has an integrative function of consciousness or self, which is in center of the model in the center of a structured psycho-information space. The model describes as the flow of information Inf to the outside for extroverts and self from the self outward for introverts and movement of libido or psychic energy (introduced the concept of Jung), which occurs in the opposite direction of the flow of information: for extroverts - from the self outward to introverts - external to the self.

A feature of model B is that all information is obtained as an information metabolism.

The second feature is that extroversion or introversion appear as a property just type in general, and not determined by the individual functions. This view is reflected in the model, It corresponds to the initial views of Jung, who spoke about the extraverted or introverted psyche installations. In our view, the definition of the individual functions in the models as extroverted or introverted meaningless.

Let us consider the model of type B (ILE). Block EGO information moves from the first external function +...ext second +...ext further directed both externally (the work of the creative function) and inward toward the self (through a second internal function -...int). This is exactly the process that said I. Briggs Myers, saying that balances the dominant helper function. At the same time meet the information on the same block sites EGO model moves energy libido El From self through the second to the first function, the internal -...int through +...ext the outer +...ext.

In the case of the introverted type (e.g. (SEI) ) Information in the block moves from EGO self through the inner function -...int the inner function -...int and further to an external function +...ext. There are also single out two processes: first, describing flow of information in model A of the primary, the first function to the second , creative , and the second - a process described by J. Briggs Myers and shown above. Accordingly, the energy of the libido moves in the opposite direction.

Further signs of other parameters of internal and external functions in models Right and Left opposite functions (Fig. 3), ie. a. representatives of the left social progress
guided by perceptions and manifestations of energy libido, while representatives of the right ring social progress focused on the perception of information processes. This difference It raises a number of discrepancies in the interpretation of the phenomena of reality, which is also It is due to the new model of IM - model B.

the model used for the type of ILE (right ring social progress)

the model used for the type of SEI (right ring social progress)

the model used for the type of IEE (left ring social progress)

26. Continued:

Thus, model B is really consistently agree on both points of view that are two sides of a multi-dimensional mental process. When using the self as a the starting point of the movement of information for us really brightens view I. Briggs- Myers on the introverted type. Type can actually be perceived as a feeling introverted type (intext) With an auxiliary function of sensations ( sensory ). However, this very subjective point of view, supported by the self as a special function integration Consciousness associated with the internal system of coordinates. Another thing, if objectively compare dimension or power functions. In this case, the first or dominant function in this type of certainly - the function of sensory or feeling .

A similar analysis can be performed for all introverted personality types.

We also note another interesting consequence of the model supported by empirical observations: there are two basic types of options - with preferential exchange information on the 1st function and advantageous exchange of information on the 2nd creative function. This introverted, corresponding to the first embodiment, seem more extroverted than introverts with a second embodiment type. This second option is closer to what is described I. Briggs-Myers. In turn, the extroverts with a dominant 1st function looks more introverted compared with the option of using the active 2nd function.

Note again that the Jungian psychoanalysts working in the inner layers of the psyche, in a introverted processes inevitably faced with the manifestation of the work of the inner ring Model B. Hence, the difference of opinion and that inconsistencies in the description of types, which marked earlier. Model B with self allows you to combine object, extroverted approach A.Augusta with subjectivity, introverted approach I. Briggs Myers.

Model B only to consistently interpret the concept of CG Jung, I. Briggs Myers A.Augusta, but also the development of SV Filimonov of external and internal circles of the information metabolism. Furthermore, the introduction AV Filimonov unit every aspect on so-called "Live" and "dead" is an explanation: the differences are caused by what part of the model B - external and internal - and with what parameters and signs dominant in a particular person.

From this it follows that the designation of the type of incorrect recording functions using symbols type +- (+ S-E) or ISFJ (in the notation of the Myers-Briggs) since it is only fragments of the description general model of the informational metabolism type Encoding Meyer-Briggs or symbolic designation with signs of inadequate complete encoding type .. The correct type designation is in the form of symbols no signs, for example (SE) for the EIA, or offered notation ISFIr. In some I mean, Myers-Briggs typology is incomplete with respect to the socionic and their identification, strictly speaking, incorrect. Myers-Briggs typology and socionic 8 Element description of the type describe the various characters from the fragments of a single psychic reality. Paradoxically, because of this they are different typologies fragmented within the single socionic typology. Therefore, when comparing the two typologies, for example, and socionic Myers-Briggs, correct, appears to be the expression: "socionic type information metabolic X partially (or fragments) corresponds to the psychological type Y of the Myers-Briggs." In addition, we offer international designations for personality types of information metabolism (see table).

27. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
ok, so Bukalov did think of it as a cube/hypercube. (He also says it's 4D, btw.) Good to know, I didn't know that anyone had thought of that.
No he doesn't lol. How do you not understand the basic concept of 4D? Capability to traverse in 2D or 3D is not the same as 4D.

28. Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
No he doesn't lol. How do you not understand the basic concept of 4D? Capability to traverse in 2D or 3D is not the same as 4D.
Originally Posted by Bukalov
Model B consists of 16 PPM (8 external and internal 8 (see Note 2)) With signs located at the vertices of a 4-dimensional cube.
.

29. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
.
Hypercubes aren't 4D lol. Using one as an illustration doesn't make it 4D. It's 3D. "Time" isn't a part of those illustrations.

30. Originally Posted by Jeremy8419
Hypercubes aren't 4D lol. Using one as an illustration doesn't make it 4D. It's 3D. "Time" isn't a part of those illustrations.

31. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
It's your lack of understanding, not mine. Hypercubes are 3D representations of theoretical 4D. To illustrate such, they utilize time to show the changing nature of the 3D representation. In your representation, and Bukalov's, they utilize a common 3D representation of the hypercube with the elements placed on vertices. The "type" is a chosen vertices. Time is not included. If it were, the 3D representation would change over time and alter the "type." "Type" cannot be static in 4D, because the 4D involves change. It's not that complicated.

Socionics is 3D Ti-. It is ILE. It doesn't have the capability to be 4D.

32. Socionics TIM (type of information metabolism) is a Fractal.

Due to the 2-Dimensional model being a Fractal, it actually creates the 3rd Dimension by it's repetition. To paraphrase Flatland (the book), a cube is nothing more than a stack of planes. In this case, it's the 2-Dimensional model being stretched along another dimension: The Fractal.

What you're looking at is simply Model A in it's completed 3D Ti.

33. @thehotelambush What transformation would you apply for activity relations with your model?

In spite of the long discussion above which was interesting and informative enough, it seems like your conceptualization/model is still unique, or at the very least, an englightening and fun representation that extends some recognized conceptions of the theory. If I were you I would consider presenting this idea to some active player in socionics research.

34. Originally Posted by niffer
@thehotelambush What transformation would you apply for activity relations with your model?
For the xs cube It would be a 180 degree rotation about the x axis. (Imagine the NeFi axis going to the TeSi one.)

In spite of the long discussion above which was interesting and informative enough, it seems like your conceptualization/model is still unique, or at the very least, an englightening and fun representation that extends some recognized conceptions of the theory. If I were you I would consider presenting this idea to some active player in socionics research.
Well, it isn't as unique as I had originally thought, but I have contacted Gulenko regarding Model A2.

35. Originally Posted by thehotelambush
For the xs cube It would be a 180 degree rotation about the x axis. (Imagine the NeFi axis going to the TeSi one.)
Bukalov already did the rotations and supervision/benefactor rings from a base cube, as well as the other ITRs as well. There's a paper on it some where.

36. My version in 2006 started out as this:

Then someone flattened it for me into this:

In mine the quadras group together, and all that comes with that.

Edited to add: i then started trying to figure out how to turn it into that dougnut shape type thing ((torus)), but life intruded and I've since lost my notes for that.

37. Originally Posted by anndelise
My version in 2006 started out as this:

Then someone flattened it for me into this:

In mine the quadras group together, and all that comes with that.

Edited to add: i then started trying to figure out how to turn it into that dougnut shape type thing ((torus)), but life intruded and I've since lost my notes for that.
Yep - that "flattened" or non-directed version is Model A basically. It shows why you can't realize the element relationships in Model A, since you can't "see" the direction of supervision and benefit - like, whatever relationship Ti has with Si, it must also have with Ni, which sort of breaks things. This is one nice aspect of Model A2: having 16 elements implies that each element has a consistent relationship with each other one, which correspond to type relationships. I'm pretty sure this idea is new.

I see the rings/information flow as representating material causation (benefit rings) or flow of utility, so to speak (supervision rings).

38. Originally Posted by anndelise
In fact, this sort of looks like a skewed top-down view of the sd cube (I agree that this one is nicer, it puts duals next to each other )

Page 1 of 2 12 Last