The Model A Cube

[anndelise]

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.

I'm sure I'm misunderstanding something, but the ring of supervision and benefit became pretty obvious in either form. As did duality, activation, mirror, and conflictors. But admittedly it's based on values rather than strengths. But that was pretty easy to remember, heh.

I also included the aspects of object/field, explicit/implicit, involved/abstract, static/dynamic. For example, Ti&Si are explicit fields, while Ti&Ni are abstracted fields.

But yes, mine were based on model A while I was trying to figure out how each type's elements/functions related to those of other types.

I do like the idea of rotating parts of the cube for different purposes. My earliest flattened pattern versions attempting that came out quite confusing to explain, lol. And it was the rotation idea that led me to the torus idea, which may not have even worked out in the end. I could see it in my head, but had no idea how to describe it nor draw it. (I’m soooo glad to be done with all that, heh.)

Anyways, sorry for the sidetrack. I like your model, it would have helped me immensely back then, and saved me a lot of aggravation.

[Exodus]

I'm sure I'm misunderstanding something, but the ring of supervision and benefit became pretty obvious in either form. As did duality, activation, mirror, and conflictors. But admittedly it's based on values rather than strengths. But that was pretty easy to remember, heh.

Here is a picture of what I mean, using Bukalov's cube:



So in the 4D cube you can give an orientation to each edge coming out from a vertex and label each edge with a relationship (here, one of Supervisor, kindred, duality) such that 1) each relationship "comes out of" each vertex exactly once 2) if you follow the same relationships starting from a particular element, you are "following the same path", so for example a given sequence of relationships will make you end up at the start point no matter where you start. So e.g. -Ti -S> -Se -S> -Fi -S> -Ne -S> -Ti etc. so the supervisor relationship edge always takes you from the supervisee to the supervisor.

(BUT note that the orientation on the top and bottom edges of the outer cube (and also the inner cube) should go in the same direction, not opposite ones as this picture has it. That way, if you rotate the hypercube 90 degrees you will move each type to its supervisor (resp supervisee).)

In the 3D cube you can label the extinguishment relationship (or whichever one is the vertical edge), but that's it. You can't say "go to Ti's supervisor" because it's not clear whether to go to Se or Ne. If you pick one you are essentially limiting the socion to either Process types or Result types.

[Exodus]

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.

I think I understand your confusion now. Mathematically speaking, you can have 3 spatial dimensions + 1 time dimension. But you can also have 4 spatial dimensions, the fourth dimension need not represent time. For example, in string theory there are many extra spatial dimensions in addition to time. (It's debatable whether this corresponds to reality, but it's at least a mathematical possibility.)

[Jeremy8419]

I think I understand your confusion now. Mathematically speaking, you can have 3 spatial dimensions + 1 time dimension. But you can also have 4 spatial dimensions, the fourth dimension need not represent time. For example, in string theory there are many extra spatial dimensions in addition to time. (It's debatable whether this corresponds to reality, but it's at least a mathematical possibility.)

That's still 3D. It's just arbitrarily choosing a single point in the necessary algorithm for 4D, and failing to conceive or determine the algorithm itself.

You may as well read through all of Bukalov's papers on researchgate. You appear to be wasting a lot of time re-engineering stuff he did over a decade ago.

[Jeremy8419]

Here is a picture of what I mean, using Bukalov's cube:



(BUT note that the orientation on the top and bottom edges of the outer cube (and also the inner cube) should go in the same direction, not opposite ones as this picture has it. That way, if you rotate the hypercube 90 degrees you will move each type to its supervisor (resp supervisee).)

Rotation on z axis moves each supervisee to supervisor on outside cube, and reverse for the inside cube.

[Exodus]

You may as well read through all of Bukalov's papers on researchgate. You appear to be wasting a lot of time re-engineering stuff he did over a decade ago.

Yes, I'll do that.

Rotation on z axis moves each supervisee to supervisor on outside cube, and reverse for the inside cube.

That's true, it's just that the arrows are not pointing the right direction.

[Jeremy8419]

Yes, I'll do that.

That's true, it's just that the arrows are not pointing the right direction.

en.socionicasys.com has yermak's stuff.

May want to look into how the male/female dichotomy affects Socionics models as well, since it's a dichotomy that's left out. Also the neuroticism scale. Also, So=Ego, Sp=Super-Ego, Sx=Super-Id.

[Exodus]

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.

Small addendum here: in fact there is a cube model for every self-isomorphism of the relationship group.

That is, we choose extinguishment or duality for the vertical reflection, supervision or benefit for the rotation about the z axis, and then one of eight "odd" relations (activity, mirror, quasi-identical, conflict, semidual, comparative, kindred, mirage) that fixes the "leading function" at one of the corners (and thus corresponds with the reflection over the x=y line). So there are 32 models total. In the above cube we chose extinguishment, supervision, and comparative. Technically Model A is only the two models with supervision and comparative - the benefit ones you could say correspond to Model G (this is Gulenko's energy model vs. information model idea). The model where we choose activation and benefit gives a cube like

Alpha extrovert | Beta extrovert | Gamma extrovert | Delta extrovert
Alpha introvert | Beta introvert | Gamma introvert | Delta introvert

That is, each of these eight categories are at the cube's corners.

So the type's model is determined by its own generalized type, followed by that of (e.g.) its beneficiary and look-a-like.
So LII = Alpha introvert | Delta introvert while SEI = Alpha introvert | Beta introvert.

These models are all projections or different aspects of the complete model, Model A2.