Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 149

Thread: Dimensionality Addendum

  1. #41
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheShadyMountainHobbit View Post
    I'm okay with saying the vulnerable function is potentially the most painful. Why not just say the demonstrative function is the least painful @niffer and leave it at that?
    Because the suggestive is not implied to be the weakest. And you have not provided evidence that the leading is the strongest in terms of raw ability, only most dominant in the psyche (i.e. taking up space and attention).
    [Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.

    It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    34
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @niffer I don't have any sources, I'm arguing about the structure of the theory in itself. Because even if some official source says that the polr is weaker, then there still has to be a reason for why that is true. I'll read those sources later because I'm at work now, but if there's not an explanation why the polr is weaker, then I don't see the point, because then it's really just an appeal to authority

  3. #43
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktor View Post
    @niffer I don't have any sources, I'm arguing about the structure of the theory in itself. Because even if some official source says that the polr is weaker, then there still has to be a reason for why that is true.
    Why does something need to have a reason in order to be true?

    I think that having an explanation only makes things more likely to be true, but not always.

    Anyway, the fact that I have a source and you don't is meaningful. All we have in socionics is a handful of articles, given by socionics authorities, speaking to its structure lol, don't be ridiculous. If you don't want to take any sources seriously, then you're willing to veer off into the deep end completely.

    If you want to be pioneering and ignore that stuff, then fair enough, but you have to at least admit that that's what you're doing.
    [Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.

    It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.

  4. #44
    Lao Tzunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    I'm not talking about valuation, attitudes, etc. here... These thing are all irrelevant to dimensionality in the first place.
    What are you talking about then? The dimensions have a clear hierarchy: experience, then norm, then situation, and then 'world/ time'. What can the demonstrative function do that the base cannot?

    You are right that the actual dimensions do not have to do with values, but if you differentiate them further, you are in the domain of the four contrasts I posted first: mental-vital, accepting-producing, inert-contact and valued-subdued.

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    Er.... no? What are you talking about?
    If the demonstrative function is not the strongest, and your ranking is the result of your logic, one of your proposition must be false. If you want to support that the vulnerable function is weakest because it is sensitive to being in an environment focused on it, but the suggestive actually enjoys that, then ok, that makes your application of your second axiom false.

  5. #45
    Lao Tzunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I basically agree with @Olimpia, that if there is a difference in strength, it subjectively has to do with something like subtype or accenting. It is not on the type level. I'm still not convince there is significant different though.

  6. #46
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheShadyMountainHobbit View Post
    What can the demonstrative function do that the base cannot?
    A bit more leeway/ability in 'world/time'.

    You are right that the actual dimensions do not have to do with values, but if you differentiate them further, you are in the domain of the four contrasts I posted first: mental-vital, accepting-producing, inert-contact and valued-subdued.
    And? lol


    If the demonstrative function is not the strongest, and your ranking is the result of your logic, one of your proposition must be false.
    It is though.

    If you want to support that the vulnerable function is weakest because it is sensitive to being in an environment focused on it, but the suggestive actually enjoys that, then ok, that makes your application of your second axiom false.
    How?
    [Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.

    It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.

  7. #47
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It makes sense since the demonstrative is more isolated from the vulnerable, you can not demonstrate with the vulnerable. Lead however take into consideration of the 1d Suggestive. So it lowers it just slightly. Still its not a big deal really.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    Why does something need to have a reason in order to be true?

    I think that having an explanation only makes things more likely to be true, but not always.

    Anyway, the fact that I have a source and you don't is meaningful. All we have in socionics is a handful of articles, given by socionics authorities, speaking to its structure lol, don't be ridiculous. If you don't want to take any sources seriously, then you're willing to veer off into the deep end completely.
    lol what.

    How do you know that something is true, without having an explanation? In fact, what is anything without an explanation? Are you just looking at a picture or something? Even that requires an explanation.

    This isn't just appeal to authority, how are you supposed to know how to utilize whatever it is that you're citing, without even understanding how they work? You may forever consult an authority figure whenever you want him to tell you where the ball might fall using physics, but you'd have to understand how physics work yourself if you want to apply this knowledge to a problem that you're trying to solve.

    Anyway this is all just pointless, just learn cognitive psychology or something, it's much more interesting:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt3-...keVRhv&index=1

  9. #49
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Singu I wish I could swat you out of here with an electric fly swatter. Zap~

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Are you just looking at a picture or something? Even that requires an explanation.
    IRLOL

    [Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.

    It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.

  10. #50
    Lao Tzunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @niffer, I saw your deleted post. Since you're into Jungian psychology, you know what a shadow projection is, right? [~u^] You just don't like losing a debate
    /
    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    A bit more leeway/ability in 'world/time'.
    Dimensions according to niffer:
    8D - a bit more
    7D - Time
    6D - at least a little bit more
    5D - Situation
    4D - an itsy bit more
    3D - Norms
    2D - a significant bit more
    1D - Experience

    I guess this is why the PC police have to make clunky rules about appropriation

  11. #51
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheShadyMountainHobbit View Post
    Since you're into Jungian psychology, you know what a shadow projection is, right? [~u^] You just don't like losing a debate
    /
    2 bad your shadow can't project out answers to all the questions you have yet to respond to ^0^
    [Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.

    It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.

  12. #52
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,235
    Mentioned
    335 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    It does not bother me to think ethics in philosophical context. However I wish not to hear those judgments as I see so much possibly wrong in those. I'd say that some aspects of PoLR can be quite bad when it comes to active presence of other people but something to be worked on mentally.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org

  13. #53

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    34
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    Why does something need to have a reason in order to be true?

    I think that having an explanation only makes things more likely to be true, but not always.

    Anyway, the fact that I have a source and you don't is meaningful. All we have in socionics is a handful of articles, given by socionics authorities, speaking to its structure lol, don't be ridiculous. If you don't want to take any sources seriously, then you're willing to veer off into the deep end completely.

    If you want to be pioneering and ignore that stuff, then fair enough, but you have to at least admit that that's what you're doing.
    If you wanna keep socionics within the confines of official articles, then yes I would agree that the polr is described as weaker than the suggestive. However, the polr is in the super ego, and the suggestive is in the super id, and notice how the polr is described as something that is hard to do, whereas the suggestive is described as something that you enjoy getting from others. Because for example SLE is a static type, so Fi is still part of how he thinks, he thinks most naturally in Pe/Ji. Ni on the other hand is something he needs from a dynamic type. Basically Fi get's in the way of Ti, because they are both Ji, but Ni is just good because we suck at doing it, but it doesn't get in the way of our ego functions. I think the polr description is just framed in a negative way because it is unvalued and get in the way of how we think. And the suggestive is really not even something we do, we just "see it in the environment", and it helps our ego. Like an IEI sees an SLE doing deadlifts, and she thinks "wow that guy doesn't even have to think about abstract shit all day, because he can just move shit around and get things done". And it's just a good thing to have around you. And imo, IEIs are more likely to end up in situations where they try to do Te, than trying to do Se. Because when they do Fe they're gonna try to throw some Te in there but it won't work. But Se is not even something they see as an option, because what the SLE realizes is that you don't need to take Te into account, you can just call people a ****** and leg sweep them and leave, that's Se and they want that, but it's not something they naturally do, but Te is close enough to Fe that they are gonna get mixed up in it

    This is just my opinion, you asked for criticism. You see it one way, I see it another way, let's leave it at that

  14. #54
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Viktor

    I take that by implying that the demonstrative is somehow "the strongest function" (with all the fallacies that this labelling implies), it makes the Polr as important as the suggestive, indeed. If we have the rule of mirror-duality-dichotomy-yinyang that shapes socionics, because our mind actually operates in a very similar way (see for example the relationship of the brain with the body parts: left hemispher=right hand etc), then recognizing that we need "the weakest part" is as fundamental as realizing we're made of strong, peculiar traits (base). If our conscious self is in seek of its opposite, so is our unconscious self in search of its opposite. And this just amplifies the nature of our inner conflict, or for the most well adjusted ones, their search for balance. Very simply: our conscious and unconscious self might be well in search of different things!

    The subtypes help a great deal, yeah, because some people will be totally disconnected from their unconscious, while others will be more in contact -as in the contact subtype- with it. But after you've set all the parameters that fit your personality according to Model A, it will be interesting indeed to note that we're in search of conflicting, mirrored things, they contradict one another ad infinitum, like the 2 opposed spins that counter-balance each others giving shape to Model A.

    It's all there already though, I'm glad that niffer pointed that out ^^

  15. #55
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree that dimensionality is open for reinterpretation, but I think the order is dependent on subtypes. So I am with @Olimpia on this one. For example, I would say the order of functions could possibly go like this:

    Ne-IEE = Ne > Fe > Ni > Fi > Te > Se > Ti > Si

    Lead > Demonstrative > Ignoring > Creative > HA > Role > PoLR > Suggestive

    (Stronger intuition and logic, weaker ethics and sensing)

    Fi-IEE = Fe > Ne > Fi > Ni > Se > Te > Si > Ti

    Demonstrative > Lead > Creative > Ignoring > Role > HA > Suggestive > PoLR

    (Stronger ethics and sensing, weaker intuition and logic)

    You can then use these two examples and extrapolate them to the other 15 types. So subtype slightly alters the order of functions, but not a big difference.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  16. #56

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    34
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @ooo I'm not really sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, but yeah the polr is also important, and our dual cover it for us. But the question still stands whether the polr is dimensionally weaker than the suggestive or not, I haven't seen conclusive evidence for that yet. But we could argue this all day, and I'm not really in the mood to change my mind, I already graced this thread with my superior opinions

  17. #57
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here is the idea:

    T - 4D - Demonstrative
    ! - Lead
    !
    !
    ! - 3D - Ignoring
    ! - Creative
    !
    !
    ! - 2D - Mobilizing
    ! - Role
    !
    !
    ! - 1D - Suggestive
    ! - PoLR

  18. #58
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I agree that dimensionality is open for reinterpretation, but I think the order is dependent on subtypes. So I am with @Olimpia on this one. For example, I would say the order of functions could possibly go like this:

    Ne-IEE = Ne > Fe > Ni > Fi > Te > Se > Ti > Si

    Lead > Demonstrative > Ignoring > Creative > HA > Role > PoLR > Suggestive

    (Stronger intuition and logic, weaker ethics and sensing)

    Fi-IEE = Fe > Ne > Fi > Ni > Se > Te > Si > Ti

    Demonstrative > Lead > Creative > Ignoring > Role > HA > Suggestive > PoLR

    (Stronger ethics and sensing, weaker intuition and logic)

    You can then use these two examples and extrapolate them to the other 15 types. So subtype slightly alters the order of functions, but not a big difference.

    I agree with that but I think the 2 type subtype system is more of a proof of concept in order to further bifurcate difference within a single type, in a way to add coordinates to the map, improve its resolution for inspection, etc. in other words, I'm saying pure subtypes in the 2 type system don't exist, they just illustrate what it would look like if it did, in order to create room so one can see what a contact or initial personality looks like through the lens of different base types, in principle. that's nothing new, but its something I think people lose sight of because they start thinking like someone is definitely one or the other, wheres its more like people are on a spectrum and it just illustrates the poles at either extremity. In other words, people can accent any combination of functions base/creative is just a broad brush of one possible scheme of combinations

    this is sort of aside from your point but something I have been thinking about for a while, but I do think it bears on your point in the sense that "strength" is not analogous to "more work done by"; niffer seems to have meant strength/weakness in her rank order, where you're pointing more to reliance, maybe even a "time spent utilizing, i.e.: preference" ranking, which is definitely related to subtype--since subtype is precisely that preference, i.e.: scheme of accents. in the final analysis dimensionality implies 4 dimensional "space" i.e.: vastness or expansiveness if you like. in that sense they are relatively fixed, but we can say that -functions are somewhat expanded in that they are competent in both the +/- areas of the function (you could argue it pays a penalty by covering more space it loses more positive creative potential). subtype doesn't really change that, nor expand the dimensions, but it does mean those accented functions are likely filled to a greater degree than non accented functions. although maybe not because life and circumstance has a say. in the final analysis base is the trickiest most elusive most expansive function precisely because how it comes to incorporate the domain of other functions into its perspective. in other words, much of the uniqueness of the personality is attributable to base having developed a unique and workable perspective on what other people access through other functions. in this way the function reaches ahead and influences the culture and collective unconscious such that any sufficiently influential development is later incorperated in future people's role functions

    I guess to conclude I would say I like gulenko's system which poses the 4d functions as 1 and 2 and their interaction is actually one whole, which puts out a product. the difference is the creative is in service to the base, but its the unique synthesis that results, that could go the other way (in the quasi) that produces a single result. thus you can think of creative as subordinate to base but in the final analysis the product of the ego is a single thing and in that sense neither the "strength" or "dimensionality" of the 4d functions acts alone but rather in tandem with eachother. one is simply unconsciously realized. in other words a lot of these schemes are mapping a phenonema in a neutral "flat" sense, such that heirarchy is not always applicable in then taking these points and comparing them. it creates certain paradoxes such as are we subject to our unconscious forces and they are therefore stronger, etc. it is all a matter of perspective, the main thing is to see how they interact and what the lay of the land is, not so much a ranking which is more of an artificial imposition of limited value in many cases and ultimately says more about the ranker than the ranked. you could extend that even to model A itself, as a kind of integral of ILE at the broadest possible level (why isn't polr the "top" function)

    this is actually why I think a return to Jung is necessary at some point, because its like you go out and come back again and then you can see what he's saying after going down the socionics rabbit hole. socionics is in some sense never going to be more than what Jung pointed out because Jung knew at the onset any derivative product of the collective unconscious was always going to be less than it
    Last edited by Bertrand; 04-26-2018 at 05:39 PM.

  19. #59
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    I agree with that but I think the 2 type subtype system is more of a proof of concept in order to further bifurcate difference within a single type, in a way to add coordinates to the map, improve its resolution for inspection, etc. in other words, I'm saying pure subtypes in the 2 type system don't exist, they just illustrate what it would look like if it did, in order to create room so one can see what a contact or initial personality looks like through the lens of different base types, in principle. that's nothing new, but its something I think people lose sight of because they start thinking like someone is definitely one or the other, wheres its more like people are on a spectrum and it just illustrates the poles at either extremity. In other words, people can accent any combination of functions base/creative is just a broad brush of one possible scheme of combinations

    this is sort of aside from your point but something I have been thinking about for a while, but I do think it bears on your point in the sense that "strength" is not analogous to "more work done by"; niffer seems to have meant strength/weakness in her rank order, where you're pointing more to reliance, maybe even a "time spent utilizing, i.e.: preference" ranking, which is definitely related to subtype--since subtype is precisely that preference, i.e.: scheme of accents. in the final analysis dimensionality implies 4 dimensional "space" i.e.: vastness or expansiveness if you like. in that sense they are relatively fixed, but we can say that -functions are somewhat expanded in that they are competent in both the +/- areas of the function (you could argue it pays a penalty by covering more space it loses more positive creative potential). subtype doesn't really change that, nor expand the dimensions, but it does mean those accented functions are likely filled to a greater degree than non accented functions. although maybe not because life and circumstance has a say. in the final analysis base is the trickiest most elusive most expansive function precisely because how it comes to incorporate the domain of other functions into its perspective. in other words, much of the uniqueness of the personality is attributable to base having developed a unique and workable perspective on what other people access through other functions. in this way the function reaches ahead and influences the culture and collective unconscious such that any sufficiently influential development is later incorperated in future people's role functions

    I guess to conclude I would say I like gulenko's system which poses the 4d functions as 1 and 2 and their interaction is actually one whole, which puts out a product. the difference is the creative is in service to the base, but its the unique synthesis that results, that could go the other way (in the quasi) that produces a single result. thus you can think of creative as subordinate to base but in the final analysis the product of the ego is a single thing and in that sense neither the "strength" or "dimensionality" of the 4d functions acts alone but rather in tandem with eachother. one is simply unconsciously realized. in other words a lot of these schemes are mapping a phenonema in a neutral "flat" sense, such that heirarchy is not always applicable in then taking these points and comparing them. it creates certain paradoxes such as are we subject to our unconscious forces and they are therefore stronger, etc. it is all a matter of perspective, the main thing is to see how they interact and what the lay of the land is, not so much a ranking which is more of an artificial imposition of limited value in many cases and ultimately says more about the ranker than the ranked. you could extend that even to model A itself, as a kind of integral of ILE at the broadest possible level (why isn't polr the "top" function)

    this is actually why I think a return to Jung is necessary at some point, because its like you go out and come back again and then you can see what he's saying after going down the socionics rabbit hole. socionics is in some sense never going to be more than what Jung pointed out because Jung knew at the onset any derivative product of the collective unconscious was always going to be less than it
    Good points. Basically with the order I put it in, I meant it to entail specifically with strength and perhaps usage too. I agree that perfect subtypes don't exist and it is on a spectrum. However, subtypes is a good way to distinguish people on the spectrum of types so Fi-IEE is the bridge between IEE and SEE and Ne-IEE is the bridge between IEE and ILE for instance.

    That is why dimensionality is a bit oversimplified in that within type and subtype there is noticeable variation for functional strength. So all we really have as a reliable metric is order of strength rather than actual specific strength, which is almost better off not measured given the amount of variation of strength within types and even subtypes to a lesser extent.

    I agree with your point about Jung in that Socionics is just an attempt to semanticize Jung's theory even further. Where as Jung understood that by analyzing something further theoretically is essentially not going to bring you any closer to the reality, but rather just make it easier to conceptualize. Socionics does a better job than MBTI in this respect.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  20. #60
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktor View Post
    @ooo I'm not really sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, but yeah the polr is also important, and our dual cover it for us. But the question still stands whether the polr is dimensionally weaker than the suggestive or not, I haven't seen conclusive evidence for that yet. But we could argue this all day, and I'm not really in the mood to change my mind, I already graced this thread with my superior opinions
    I disagree but you made some good points that I wanted to contextualize. For example it's no coincidence that the 8th function is called demonstrative, because it's very likely that it will pop out, being it the strongest function of the unconscious, and being the unconscious so potent (more than the conscious) itself. It's important even in your dual, because an IEI will have Fi as demonstrative, and the use of it by your dual will act as an unconscious magnet to you, but not because of your Te demonstrative, but for the fact itself that it's your unvalued weaker function, so you even need it the most... aha.

    IDC of dimensionality, they're just references to put the things into spectrum but we don't all operate according 4.5, 4.0, 3.0, all the same.

  21. #61
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Good points. Basically with the order I put it in, I meant it to entail specifically with strength and perhaps usage too. I agree that perfect subtypes don't exist and it is on a spectrum. However, subtypes is a good way to distinguish people on the spectrum of types so Fi-IEE is the bridge between IEE and SEE and Ne-IEE is the bridge between IEE and ILE for instance.

    That is why dimensionality is a bit oversimplified in that within type and subtype there is noticeable variation for functional strength. So all we really have as a reliable metric is order of strength rather than actual specific strength, which is almost better off not measured given the amount of variation of strength within types and even subtypes to a lesser extent.
    so if I get what you're saying is that function strength is not absolute but relative and that subtype indicates the relative strength to otherwise equal functions in virtue of where the accent is placed. in other words, preference i.e.: time (if you have 2 2d functions but accent one, you're essentially spending more time on one than the other), creates a cognizable rank order. I think that's right, if that's what you're saying, but its ultimately one of many ways to slice it. a good way, but of course not absolute, which i think you recognize, in may in turn be a better way to look at it compared to other alternatives, but such a judgement relies on precedent judgements, etc etc. the whole thing is a rabbit hole leading back to the individual

  22. #62
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    so if I get what you're saying is that function strength is not absolute but relative and that subtype indicates the relative strength to otherwise equal functions in virtue of where the accent is placed. in other words, preference i.e.: time (if you have 2 2d functions but accent one, you're essentially spending more time on one than the other), creates a cognizable rank order. I think that's right, if that's what you're saying, but its ultimately one of many ways to slice it. a good way, but of course not absolute, which i think you recognize, in may in turn be a better way to look at it compared to other alternatives, but such a judgement relies on precedent judgements, etc etc. the whole thing is a rabbit hole leading back to the individual
    Yeah, I agree. That's pretty much how I see it.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  23. #63

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    34
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    I disagree but you made some good points that I wanted to contextualize. For example it's no coincidence that the 8th function is called demonstrative, because it's very likely that it will pop out, being it the strongest function of the unconscious, and being the unconscious so potent (more than the conscious) itself. It's important even in your dual, because an IEI will have Fi as demonstrative, and the use of it by your dual will act as an unconscious magnet to you, but not because of your Te demonstrative, but for the fact itself that it's your unvalued weaker function, so you even need it the most... aha.

    IDC of dimensionality, they're just references to put the things into spectrum but we don't all operate according 4.5, 4.0, 3.0, all the same.
    Hmmm no

  24. #64
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktor View Post
    Hmmm no
    yes I swear, it's even the very basics of socion ^^

  25. #65

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    34
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    yes I swear, it's even the very basics of socion ^^
    No it's not

  26. #66
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktor View Post
    No it's not
    well it's not.. but you can draw that conclusion to me, it's simple.. oh well!

  27. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    it's heresy. there are no "dimensions" in Socionics

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    I disagree but you made some good points that I wanted to contextualize. For example it's no coincidence that the 8th function is called demonstrative, because it's very likely that it will pop out, being it the strongest function of the unconscious
    Only weak functions can be related to unconscious, if to follow the Jung. For ID block is better to use other term like "shadow" - what is more assumed than under the direct attention.
    To compare the strong functions by their strenght or weak ones is practically doubtful and also needs experimental researches.

    > because an IEI will have Fi as demonstrative, and the use of it by your dual will act as an unconscious magnet to you

    the expression in your weak nonvalued regions will act as an aversion to you
    as you think your type as EII than you say that you like Se. Se is a magnet for IEI, but not for EII. it's another argument for you being IEI

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktor View Post
    But the question still stands whether the polr is dimensionally weaker than the suggestive or not
    Suggestive mb weaker according to Jung. But as you may lesser care about it (as it's lesser conscious, for example) - you feel lesser problems with it as they are lesser conscious.
    If you'll communicate with your dual - you'll better feel the issues there and this mb deeper pain than annoying "polr".

    P.S. Instead of useless philosophy and heresies you'd, noobs, better trained your typing skills to understand the basic theory on the examples near you.
    Last edited by Sol; 04-26-2018 at 07:10 PM.

  28. #68
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Regarding subtype theories, @Olimpia ( @TheShadyMountainHobbit , @Raver , @Bertrand , @silke @ others who have brought up subtypes) , I think we've talked about them before. I'm aware of them, and sort of played with the idea of them before but I don't put much stock in them except as the descriptions can illustrate some differences in personality roughly-- I'm unconvinced that these are a result of the structures which subtype theory seems to be suggesting.

    For example, inert/contact theory forces the strength of 2 different domains to shift in the same direction, glossing over the very real possibility that only one would be affected (an example of this is IEI-Fe having both ethical and sensing functions enhanced.... why isn't there a subtype where only the ethical functions are enhanced but not the sensing ones? Inert/contact theory doesn't offer up this possibility or address this, part of why I think it's flawed).

    This addendum would serve as a "basic" theory/rank structure which other subtype theories could not override. You could have different proportions of the dual IEs compared to others of the same type as you, within the framework, but not exceeding it, is how I see it. This is something I believe based on my observations, so far.

    Thanks a lot for bringing this topic into the thread though, Olimpia.
    [Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.

    It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.

  29. #69
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    To clarify on the above, using the IEI-Fe example, inert/contact subtype theory would put ethics/logic and intuition/sensing dichotomies at odds with one another or in other words forces them to be inextricably connected, when in reality this shouldn't necessarily be the case. These domains don't have any qualitative actual connection elsewhere in socionics outside of the subtype theories.

    ( @thehotelambush , @ooo )

    Anyway, those are my views on that. This is a bit off topic, I don't want to turn this into a discussion on the validity of subtype theories unless you guys want to continue it.
    [Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.

    It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.

  30. #70
    &papu silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,077
    Mentioned
    456 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    To clarify on the above, using the IEI-Fe example, inert/contact subtype theory would put ethics/logic and intuition/sensing dichotomies at odds with one another or in other words forces them to be inextricably connected, when in reality this shouldn't necessarily be the case. These domains don't have any qualitative actual connection elsewhere in socionics outside of the subtype theories.
    They are connected through the Extraversion-Introversion dichotomy. This connection isn't obvious but it just makes sense that if you boost creative Fe for IEI then they will spend less time on Ni, because you cannot extravert and Fe around and slip into the contemplative introverted Ni state at the same time. Shifting accent onto Fe comes at the expense of accentuation of Ni due to the e/i connection between them, and once the accent is shifted away the Ni in Fe-subtype is 'weakened' relative to Ni in the Ni-subtype while their Se is boosted and this is how they've derived contact & inert subtypes.

  31. #71
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silke View Post
    They are connected through the Extraversion-Introversion dichotomy.
    This is only part of it. Some of the opposite verted functions are boosted too. In IEI-Fe, Fi and Si are boosted as well, and Te and Ne diminished.
    [Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.

    It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.

  32. #72
    &papu silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,077
    Mentioned
    456 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    This is only part of it. Some of the opposite verted functions are boosted too. In IEI-Fe, Fi and Si are boosted as well.
    Fi & Si are in a different domain from Ni & Se, since the former are called "unvalued/subdued" and the later are "valued". So once again this traces to that "unvalued/valued" dichotomy that SSS 4D model has also run into, and what exactly does this distinction mean in terms of founding dichotomies T/F S/N and E/I.

  33. #73
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silke View Post
    Fi & Si are in a different domain from Ni & Se, since the former are called "unvalued/subdued" and the later are "valued". So once again this traces to that "unvalued/valued" dichotomy that SSS 4D model has also run into, and what exactly does this distinction mean in terms of founding dichotomies T/F S/N and E/I.
    Yeah I see what you're tying it back into. I'm pretty familiar with the subtype theories, although inert/contact and accepting/producing concepts are vague to me sometimes.

    I guess I see it from the POV of looking at the dual IEs existing in some balance, as able to be isolated from other features of the structure, and not necessarily bound to the balance of other IEs, especially in other domains. But I'm just being repetitive now. There are concepts tying a bunch of functions like these together, but I don't see why they've definitively been chosen over others to be applied. Like why is there no subtyping system that simply boosts all intro or extro functions? Or why is there no subtype system based on personalities being inherently more or less dualized on their own? It seems almost arbitrarily chosen to me, and it's kind of awkward and inconsistent with having to blend multiple elements (vertness AND valued/unvalued) rather than just one.

    Sorry if I'm misunderstanding btw. I'm familiar with the subtype theories but not as much with their theoretical origins.
    Last edited by niffer; 04-27-2018 at 02:52 AM.
    [Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.

    It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.

  34. #74
    &papu silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,077
    Mentioned
    456 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    I guess I see it from the POV of looking at the dual IEs existing in some balance, as able to be isolated from other features of the structure, and not necessarily bound to the balance of other IEs, especially in other domains. But I'm just being repetitive now.
    I'm not sure that's a possibility due to Extroversion-Introversion affecting the entire model. Every F,T,N, or S is followed by an 'e' or an 'i', which means that all functions and IEs are interlinked through this dichotomy and have an effect on each other.

    I gave some thought while eating dinner to the "valued" and "subdued" sets. In case of contact/inert subtypes it looks like they are assuming a relationship of inversion between functions with "valued/expressed" IEs and functions with "subdued/shadow" IEs. Meaning that however the "valued" set is affected, the inverse of that happens to the "subdued" set. This is how their IEI-Fe has boosted extraversion in the "valued" set [Ni-Fe+Ti-Se+] while it's the introversion that gets boosted in the "subdued" [Ne-Fi+Te-Si+] i.e. the effect is inversed.

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    There are concepts tying a bunch of functions like these together, but I don't see why they've definitively been chosen over others to be applied. Like why is there no subtyping system that simply boosts all intro or extro functions? It seems almost arbitrarily chosen to me, and it's kind of awkward and inconsistent with having to blend multiple elements (vertness AND valued/unvalued) rather than just one.
    In their modeling of it this doesn't happen because they assumed inversion best describes the relationship between "valued" and "subdued" sets. It seems reasonable at a glance, but of course there could be other relationships that you can come up with. I think they went with an inverse because that's the basic relationship that defines extroversion and introversion, and as @Aramas has commented in this post much of typology seems to be based on holographic repetition of introversion and extroversion. So Meged & Ovcharvo just repeated this same e/i relationship, where the whole "valued" block get treated as E and the whole "subdued" block is treated as I, so it doesn't look like they were being completely arbitrary when they have chosen to go with this.

  35. #75
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Okay, thanks a lot @silke . That offers up a lot of food for thought.

    What immediately comes to mind: I wonder how this model would sort/explain people on the cusp of introversion/extroversion and other exceptions, or if any of those are acknowledged in the theory.
    [Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.

    It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.

  36. #76
    bye now
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,888
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    oh, I got mentioned? Shit, my opinion matters now?

    Well anyway, I guess I just look at types on a more practical level. There's a basic dichotomy that forms all the theory - introvert and extrovert. And with that there are complete opposite ways of filtering reality. Kind of like light and dark - you can't have one, without the other. So introvert and extrovert are a yin and yang, light and dark kind of thing. So you get filtering pairs, such as Ni/Se, Ne/Si, Te/Fi, and Ti/Fe, where the use of any function (or cognitive filter) has a reflection in its dual opposite, like light and dark. And this has an unconscious aspect to it because one is reflected in the other. Take a person that tries to live a "Christian" life. By living and judging themselves and other people to their ideals/beliefs, they become blinded to the harm that doing so creates to themselves and other. They could be against homosexuality because of one reason or another and not realize the harm it does to other people. This could push people away and cause many problems in their lives and others. Their Christian ideals/beliefs also becomes their cross to bear. They might lash out because of it or hurt people and themselves, until they realize the significance their beliefs have over them. They make the unconscious conscious in order to resolve the conflict.

    So say someone is very Se, which is a perceiving filter; they also need a judging filter, so they have Te and Fe for that because they are extroverted. Well, at some point, to be a healthy human being, they are going to have to decide the personal significance of the world around them, i.e. introversion. Do they prefer rationalizing the world around them (Ti) or say humanizing it (Fi)? Whichever becomes their focus means automatically devaluing the other one. In a way you could also argue that these are opposite pairs too because they reflect and influence each other as well - pairs such as Fi/Ti, Ni/Si, Fe/Te, and Ne/Se. So say a very Se person focuses on Ti in understanding their world or reality; then there is an immediate unconscious devaluing of Fi. But it's not as strongly opposite as the other pairs - Ni/Se, Ne/Si, Te/Fi, and Ti/Fe because they don't have the extrovert/introvert difference. So Socionics calls this a PoLR, but I'd say it's more like a blind spot in this regard. Like you are missing something vital that you don't care about and this can cause problems, but you really don't care about it regardless; because it doesn't help or grow your ego like the other pairs - Ni/Se, Ne/Si, Te/Fi, and Ti/Fe; it just opposes and destroys it, so to speak. You'd have to make a conscious effort to subvert proclivities in order to use or understand it. So an Se+Ti person would have Te, Fe, and Ti, but be blind to Fi. They'd see it as a source of pain or frustration because it goes against their natural desire to filter reality. Doesn't mean they couldn't do it, but it's not preferred/natural/desired/etc.

    So I don't subscribe to dimensionality with leading subtypes. Basically I see it like this in terms of subtypes
    leading subtype - Role function is more of a polr because they don't have as much of a focused creative. Has stronger use of leading, HA, demonstrative, and Polr, but not role. Producing elements that woof talks about are "subdued".
    Creative subtype - Dimensionality seems to fit, as abstract as it sounds. Producing "elements" are there and such. Standard socionics types. Easier to type people like this. Cookie-cutter, etc.

    I don't know how to keep this short. Hopefully that makes sense.

    Edit:
    Actually TLDR version:

    3 basic dichotomies
    introvert/extrovert
    Ni/Se, Ne/Si, Te/Fi, and Ti/Fe - inherently linked to each other. Each is a source of growth and understanding in the other.
    Fi/Ti, Ni/Si, Fe/Te, and Ne/Se - focus of one reflects a blind spot in the other

    leading subtype's role is their Polr.
    good bye

  37. #77
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strangeling View Post
    leading subtype - Role function is more of a polr because they don't have as much of a focused creative. Has stronger use of leading, HA, demonstrative, and Polr, but not role. Producing elements that woof talks about are "subdued".
    Creative subtype - Dimensionality seems to fit, as abstract as it sounds. Producing "elements" are there and such. Standard socionics types. Easier to type people like this. Cookie-cutter, etc.

    [...]

    leading subtype's role is their Polr.
    Really interesting take. I think this is definitely a viable possibility.

    Calling PoLR the "blindspot" is definitely a viable way of looking at it.

    One issue -- you did mention subscribing to the yin/yang view on IEs too. In your model for the leading subtype, by what mechanism would the type have stronger use of both demonstrative and polr, with them being opposites?
    [Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.

    It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.

  38. #78
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    subtype will never change dimensionality or turn an accepting into a producing element. i think people think of role as a producing element and don't realize its the ability to passively adapt to a certain form of information and receive that information adequately in terms of norms. in other words a hamlet can sustain itself in a Te environment without being perceived as weird (assuming he's not trying to be), lead subtype doesn't change that. polr is polr because its painful and its last in the chain, meaning its energetically consuming... there's a qualitative first person difference in how it feels to use polr v role because of the accepting v producing nature and because of the pain factor. subtype doesn't really change that (an accent doesn't change the underlying energetic economy). this is one of those urban legends that gets passed around and looks good on paper but doesn't hold up that well if you really think about what its like to use and experience role v polr. in other words, pushing role down and therefore into the realm of the polr mentally shifts the picture across the wrong axis, it is a form of category error.

    the main difference is you can live your life while avoiding role and focusing on viewing the world through base i.e.: a Solovyov is a Fe Hamlet, but it never really changes the fact even when you can't for whatever reason, role is not painful or inadequate by normative standards, and polr always will be. role in essence shapes life choices and I think that's the main distinction between base/role "worldview" preference. polr is more locked up in superego and controls the person, whereas the base/role life path is more within the control of the person, it is usually adequate and not imposed. if you're a base subtype and you run into role information its not painful to metabolize it or work with it, what base subtype represents is a general pattern of behavior that focuses more on the purest strain of base, this is your street prophet v philosopher EIE.

    I also think you could say they have a more "focused" creative, because what strengthening a subtype does is broaden those informational channels, if base broadens base then creative is narrowed, it becomes more focused. Creative subtypes use creative in more situations, broadening its application and "filling" it with more experience which in turn gives it versatility and flexibility. in that sense its less focused, albiet more relied upon. you can think of base subtypes as being more of one trick ponies. they gravitate away from life scenarios that focus on their role, but are not less competent, and they use their creative in a relatively small set of ways... in the final analysis base types are more committed to immersing themselves and delving into one form of information and try to contribute via a more standard and less versatile set of creative approaches. the "stronger" use of polr is not so much "capability" as an increased willingness to let super ego control because they're not trying to be creative. its stronger in the sense they capitulate to it more often without trying to impose their own creative solution as an alternative, its what gives base types a kind of more one dimensional character, because their ability to exceed norms with a creative solution, or allow the polr to "produce" something more likely to be insufficient as a concession to the environment by its own terms, is more tilted toward the latter (but offset by them having a higher res base perception of the issue)...

    to call it "stronger" makes it seem like this might not be the case in the sense that the polr is somehow more sufficient than would otherwise be the case--no, its always polr. in essence it makes base subtypes have that weird wooden quality where its like they try harder to conform but somehow fail at that, by imposing their base view on the issue (this is how adam strange comes off a lot--even when he steps outside his domain he brings it in with him, not in a creative sense, so even concessions to the outside via polr "products" get subsumed into a totalizing base perspective--this is what gives it that "lizard man" quality, its like everything gets run through the lizard brain) (Se base subtypes who can't help but turn everything into a competition even when they're trying to produce a Fi/Ti product in accordance with their superego come across similarly--its like hyper competitiveness even in the realm of incompetence that makes that kind of behavior show up a lot in sitcoms and stuff--the office has a lot of "base" subtypes). by stepping outside the lines they may have been better off, i.e. having been creative. they may on some level may have become "more comfortable" with getting locked up by super ego but it doesn't transform their super ego products into things of quality that at the very least take into account norms (well in case of polr).

    the bottom line is if you think you're "safe" by churning out a polr product because the environment is asking for it, its still a 1d function, so maybe some creativity is called for. base subtype is often going to be lured into those situations, and their general approach is to let the base metabolize the information in such a way that the polr product "can't fail" but it has this weird quality of imposing the base function on the environment in delivering the final product, a kind of "here this is what you asked for isn't it?" quality (required a polr solution and they capitulated in giving one, but it was insufficient, and shaped via a totalizing base perspective--you see this in ethical types a lot: "i'm just giving them what they gave me!" *gives low quality product no one asked for* its this kind of ethical narrative subsuming the situation to cover for the feelings of inadequacy)... what I'm describing is base Ej mostly but this can manifest in a lot of different ways

    base subtype comes across to me as a kind of generalized autism that manifests itself in 8 different ways. hyper Te is different than hyper Se, but they both have this neurotic quality to them because they can't help but subsume absolutely everything into one information aspect. like I think the most stereotyped people are base subtypes. I think when people imagine types they mostly bring to mind base subtypes because its the most straightforward image of an embodied information element. rigidity (even in being flexible in the case of perceivers) is the overall pattern that develops. to bring it back home this doesn't mean they have a stronger relationship to their polr or weaker to their role. you might say in some sense as a life pattern they avoid role and capitulate to polr more, but that polr stuff is just as weak in the final analysis. it might get filled and broadened in some limited sense but its the legacy of mistakes and painful experiences.. its interesting because maybe its the pushback precisely to get people out of their base more, so while we think of creative and polr as opposed I think polr is more a generalized safety valve that if your base subtype has you using it more, its going to inform your life experience, its just going to be an inferior version of the creative while you go about being unimaginative. in other words you don't gain as much as you might think by focusing on polr and the people that do so because they capitulate to environment and focus on base are really just asking for punishment, because the 1d v3d characters loads the dice on their odds of success. there's an inherent kind of conservatism to base subtype, even in "liberally" minded or "risk taking" people. base in a lot of ways opens up a creative blind spot that gets filled more often with polr which is probably a bad idea, if they're really type x and not type y
    Last edited by Bertrand; 04-28-2018 at 01:53 PM.

  39. #79
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
    I don't know where to start first. Too much diversity of information here. I even don't know how much post I will quote if I should reply.
    But I like this. So constructive threads so far.



    It seems that in your perspective, you accept model A, and you just slightly boost dimensions from vital superblock.
    Why boosting vital? Maybe because you think vital superblock is having more vital function in society rather than mental block? I don't know. I just guessing.
    You remind me about SSS approach, which one of their brilliant approach is ...

    They also thought that id-blocks are the first block which being developed when we are born. And then it will made ego block are being developed in older age. So, yes, making Demonstrative > Lead and so on, is like make vital block become more vital than what basic model A think about, because of Demonstrative was a function that we develop first when we learn about information element at very first time, not Lead.

    But then, when Olimpia posted about this ...

    This reminds me about my struggle about why sometimes 16 types is still not enough to capture all the pattern diversity of information processing.
    Olimpia familiar with inert/contact, and woofwoofl familiar with accepting/producing.

    And at this point, my brain hurts, maybe because I have weak Ti? I don't know.

    It still not including various model like
    - model B (Hitta, where are you?)
    - model T (ask Talanov directly)
    - SSS model (I hope Myst and Joy are here to explain it to you)
    - and more scared but sacred model, model G (Please come all model G believers, help us)
    and maybe other models which I might not explore yet.

    But since you concern more about dimensionality itself, then I agree with lavos

    Because if you don't have a strong foundation about why do you believe that dimensionality is exist, then you will face Sol with his cute quote ...


    So the conclusion is, I accept your addendum, because it reveals how all function works based on your perspective.

    But is it as same as my perspective? Mostly no.
    Is it as same as other member's perspective? Maybe no.
    Is it as same as founder and researcher of socionics' perspective? Absolutely no.

    Welcome to socionics 4D of life.
    #When.3D.Is.Not.Enough


    Keep learning, niffer.
    Thanks for the review and helpful compilation of it all Andreas.

    The only thing I want to note is -- just because something isn't noted by the founders or other researchers of socionics, doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense according to other information and observations based upon the system. All of the different perspectives brought up by different people here have been perfectly reasonable interpretations for the most part. One, or several of them, could very well be true.

    Strictly speaking, the original socionics Model A and those writings are only one interpretation. Without having undergone further investigation and development, all the other additional information available in socionics wouldn't be available as it is now.
    [Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.

    It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.

  40. #80
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,235
    Mentioned
    335 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah. I just see rolr as adaptive element.

    i have been called mentally strong person. An ability to take challenges and adapt with time - hanging on if necessary. I tend to push active use away but I have made myself to take over the situation if necessary. It just takes a lot.

    ILE with huge Ti focus is more reactive with role IME.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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