Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: type chain

  1. #1
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default type chain

    loose idea - what do you think?

    Code:
    enfp-entp-intj-istj-estp-esfp-isfj-infj-enfp
    
    istp-isfp-esfj-enfj-infp-intp-entj-estj-istp

    That pattern and orientation stands out to me. That is sort of how I see people, in terms of their energies, functional preferences - in regard to what type they have to be.
    Any thoughts?


    It is not complicated, but looking at at things in that way makes sense to me.


    preemptive explanation 1: it is very in terms of the order and relations being of importance. Some people may not appreciate that as much as I do, I am sure.
    edit #2 - apparently not fast enough...
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    what exactly is your idea regarding this unexplained chain of types?

  3. #3
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I wouldn't say "unexplained" as you did - there is no mystery as to 'where those types came from'.


    My lack of explanation has to do with there not really being much to say.

    For one bit:f I had to explain socionics to someone, I would use that diagram to represent things visually.


    IMO, it is very clear to differentiate types based on that approach - not only in terms of visually seeing how one type is represented to others in the same chain,
    but also in relation to the other chain, or it's dual's chain.

    I was partially curious to see if anyone had any comments about the relationship. And really, I did it to see what people would say and how they would react - if at all.


    I suspect you will not understand this post, nifweed, with the same 'disdain' you have for threads like my footwear thread.
    You don't seem to understand the concept of posts when I present them this way, as the premise is not stated initially.
    The conclusion I draw from this thread is yet unknown, as I am still waiting to see if anything useful, for my own purposes, will turn up.
    If I explain every single thing, then it would defeat the purpose of writing the post, as I already know what I think, and don't want that to interfere with other people.
    What I'm really waiting to see if anyone sees any sort of connections the way that I do ---- not that such 'connections' would necessarily be groundbreaking.
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  4. #4
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  5. #5
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes, and I think it is a good visual for seeing quadras and explaining relations.
    It highlights key dichotomies - static / dynamic, se/si, quadras, etc.

    It is a diagram I never really saw before, and it makes sense to me. I wondered if others saw it that way as well, of if it is just my own Ti.
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UDP III
    If I explain every single thing, then it would defeat the purpose of writing the post, as I already know what I think, and don't want that to interfere with other people.
    What I'm really waiting to see if anyone sees any sort of connections the way that I do ---- not that such 'connections' would necessarily be groundbreaking.[/size]
    all right, fine.

  7. #7
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    heh, i still prefer my "prettiest pattern yet"
    which gives something similar to your chain but also includes the supervisory chains, beneficiary chains, mirrors, activities, duals, semiduals, (I can't remember the other names of relationships), how the types connect via functions (where each function is for each type), quadras, axis (plural...can't remember how to spell that), and the long/short ranges (ie N+ = NT, N- = NF)

    (I just have to get around to rewriting it to fix two simple writing errors on it)
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  8. #8
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Code:
    enfp-entp-intj-istj-estp-esfp-isfj-infj-enfp
    
    istp-isfp-esfj-enfj-infp-intp-entj-estj-istp

    I have thought about alternate versions, that would be something like:

    Code:
    enfp-infj-intj-entp-estp-istj-isfj-esfp-enfp
    
    istp-estj-esfj-isfp-infp-enfj-entj-intp-istp
    but that seems less appropriate.


    The difference is in the second one, order is based on creative functions - second function
    in the original order is based on leading function.


    To me, it is more reasonable to compare an LII to an LSI and an IEE, than to compare an LII to an EII.
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  9. #9
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    heh, i still prefer my "prettiest pattern yet"
    which gives something similar to your chain but also includes the supervisory chains, beneficiary chains, mirrors, activities, duals, semiduals, (I can't remember the other names of relationships), how the types connect via functions (where each function is for each type), quadras, axis (plural...can't remember how to spell that), and the long/short ranges (ie N+ = NT, N- = NF)

    (I just have to get around to rewriting it to fix two simple writing errors on it)
    that's not enough for me though - I don't want all of those variations.


    (Nifweed - I am also finding out what I can gain from this thread as it evolves..... like this next thing...)


    I suppose what this may be is me trying to figure out what is the best or most useful diagram in really displaying the types. Ann's post brings up a good point, as I've seen other type chains before (and maybe ann has the exact same thing, I don't know), but this one seems most fitting for me. I understand other people might find it useful to have so many (as ann does) other type chains to draw from, but for me, 'prioritizing one' is useful, probably in the same sort of way.
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  10. #10
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UDP III
    Code:
    enfp-entp-intj-istj-estp-esfp-isfj-infj-enfp
    
    istp-isfp-esfj-enfj-infp-intp-entj-estj-istp

    I have thought about alternate versions, that would be something like:

    Code:
    enfp-infj-intj-entp-estp-istj-isfj-esfp-enfp
    
    istp-estj-esfj-isfp-infp-enfj-entj-intp-istp
    but that seems less appropriate.
    Further explanation --
    (on the implications of proximity)
    it seems less likely to confuse an ESTp with an ENTp, as opposed to an ENFp with an ENTp
    why?
    because is an alpha/delta value, not beta.
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  11. #11
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I could do a cleaner version of this for you (keeping the nodes to just the functions)

    btw, the bottom SiTe is supposed to be ISTp


    what this initially was for was to see how each type was related to every other type
    for example
    intj starting with Ti = 1, follow clockwise to Ne=2, Fi=3, se=4, then when you get back to Ti you drop down to Fe, follow clockwise from Fe=5, Si=6, Te=7, Ni=8, then pop back up to Ti and you've passed through every type and seen how their functions relate to your functions


    but you're right, it's not a prioritized list
    why would you need a prioritized list?
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  12. #12
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    but you're right, it's not a prioritized list
    why would you need a prioritized list?
    why, because I am I.

    Priority in terms of order / proximity.


    Your diagram is useful. I was trying to figure out a way to do that as well- to make it so that each quadra's static and dynamic splits were divided.

    The circle doesn't seem to work for me though. It may just be how I interpret things visually.
    questions that come up --- why is EII on the inside and not on the outside? etc. That element of the positioning seems arbitrary (and of course it is, just like how it is arbitrary that I started with enfp in my chain example).


    Really, if I can see the same thing from different angles it helps. To me, probably because I am Ti heavy, the order of my first chain sequence makes the most sense. Something about your circular model takes away from it.

    why is ENTp next to INFj? and ISTj? Shouldn't LII go there?
    The relation of INTj to ISTj on one side and INFj on the other seems more important.... as opposed to INTj being adjacent to ISTj on one side and ENFp on the other. *


    things like that


    PS: It seems like, to you, the +/- of functions was more important than the overall similarity of the types. Something like that?
    Your diagram was too illustrate the progression of functions for a type - any type - not to relate the types to each other as a group. Yeah?
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  13. #13
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My responses are in brown:

    Quote Originally Posted by UDP III
    but you're right, it's not a prioritized list
    why would you need a prioritized list?
    why, because I am I.

    Priority in terms of order / proximity.


    Your diagram is useful. I was trying to figure out a way to do that as well- to make it so that each quadra's static and dynamic splits were divided. already done; the top is static functions/types, the bottom is dynamic functions/types

    The circle doesn't seem to work for me though. It may just be how I interpret things visually. understandable
    questions that come up --- why is EII on the inside and not on the outside? etc. That element of the positioning seems arbitrary (and of course it is, just like how it is arbitrary that I started with enfp in my chain example).
    if you notice, enfp is at the very top and on the outside, being enfp, enfp was my focus and how everything fit around it, hense, why enfp is on the top and on the outside, since infj is the mirror of enfp, and it's function order follows the opposite cycle, it's place would be the inside.


    Really, if I can see the same thing from different angles it helps. To me, probably because I am Ti heavy, the order of my first chain sequence makes the most sense. Something about your circular model takes away from it. probably because it allows a person to start anywhere they choose, based on the current need..this much openness could bother some people/types

    why is ENTp next to INFj? and ISTj? Shouldn't LII go there?
    the arrows follow the base to creative which is another type's base to their creative which is another type's base and so on. As it turned out, this was also the supervisory cycle which follows the order of the vital functions.
    one cycle is Fi -> Ne -> Ti -> Se -> Fi
    FiNe (INFj) supervises NeTi (ENTp) which supervises TiSe (ISTj) which supervises SeFi (ESFp) which supervises FiNe (INFj)(FiNeTiSeFi) That is why ENTp is next to INFj and ISTj.

    INTj is the ENTp mirror, their function orders go into the opposite directions (based on base -> creative) going Ti -> Ne -> Fi -> Se -> Ti
    again, this matches up with base to creative which is someone else's base to their creative which is someone else's base, and so on.
    Hence why the INTj and ENTp are not next to each other, they take up the same "space" (use the same functions), but are in different cycles


    The relation of INTj to ISTj on one side and INFj on the other seems more important.... as opposed to INTj being adjacent to ISTj on one side and ENFp on the other. *
    INTj is adjacent to the ISTj because the Ti is the shared base, branching into differing directions due to the creative function.
    INTj is adjacent to the INFj because they share the same creative function...kind of like two trains (arrows) colliding.
    INTj is adjacent to the ENFp because, in the cycle they are a part of, the INTj sees the Ti that the ENFp is failing to take into account (ENFp does not start with Ti, but the INTj is).
    INTj is adjacent to the ESTp because the ESTp sees the Se that the INTj is failing to take into account.
    This is what makes the supervisory cycles. The supervisor sees information that the supervisee is failing to take into account. The supervisor also creates the information which the supervisee "accepts" and who in turn "creates" new information which is their supervisee's accepting information, and so on.
    Follow the arrows and you can easily see who creates what for whom.

    Note: I did not set out with supervisor cycles and such in mind when I discovered this, I was just moving functions around and trying to see how the types connected to each other. It was only after having placed the functions into this that the supervisory cycles and beneficiary cycles showed up...as well as the +/-...that was a total afterthought ...just to see how the +/- fit in if at all.... I was very suprised that it fit in so neatly.



    things like that


    PS: It seems like, to you, the +/- of functions was more important than the overall similarity of the types. Something like that? nope, the +/- of the functions was a total afterthought, after the functions and types had been written in. Basically, The functions and types were puzzle pieces I was trying to see how could fit together, it was only after arranging them that i saw so many aspects to the "picture" the pieces formed. the +/- were not originally pieces. Even the supervisory cycles and beneficiary cycles were suprises to see in there.
    Your diagram was too illustrate the progression of functions for a type - any type - not to relate the types to each other as a group. Yeah?
    I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I had originally started out with the duals...noticing that the duals have the same function orders, only starting out on a different function. ..that led to 8 diagram sets. Then I'd noticed that i could place four types into one set... if i placed one of the sets into the center/outside and had them follow the opposite function order...this gave me 4 diagram sets. Then I figured that somehow those four sets could be made into two diagrams....and then i saw how to make it all into one diagram. After making the one diagram, i noticed that it naturally split up the quadras, the static/dynamics, showed the two assymetric cycles, and finally the long/short range....these were all after the fact surprises, but yes, i had initially started out just trying to see how the types related to each other's functions, as model a was requiring extensive memorizations and i needed something clearer and easier.
    I won't try to sell you on my pattern.
    Why? Because I'm sure that are numerous patterns these things can fall into.
    I believe that mine is lacking one or two things that could encompass more of socionics than it does.
    However, I think it may require making a...toros? tarus? however it's spelled.
    But I lack any kind of ability to go that far.

    Perhaps, in the pattern playing you're doing, you'll find something that'll encompass other things that my pattern doesn't take into account.
    I love playing with patterns and blocks and puzzle pieces. I will definitely keep my eye on what you are doing.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  14. #14
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    would you sue me if I made you're chart into something that could be rotated at will Ann? I think that would be cool so that any type can make themselves front and center... (not sure if my interrest/motivation would actually hold out to accomplish it though. On the other hand it should be easy to whip up.)

  15. #15
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
    would you sue me if I made you're chart into something that could be rotated at will Ann? I think that would be cool so that any type can make themselves front and center... (not sure if my interrest/motivation would actually hold out to accomplish it though. On the other hand it should be easy to whip up.)
    omg that would be awesome
    I'll PM you this weekend with the two needed changes
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  16. #16
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is an flat version of it :



    I had get it done for myself a month ago, copying Ann's pattern (because it seemed to explain a lot of things to me), but this chart inherited of Ann's mistake of making Result rings the Right rings, and Process rings the Left rings.

  17. #17
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    I still only half get the chart... I just thought it would be fun and cool looking to make a program that made it rotate

  18. #18
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
    I still only half get the chart... I just thought it would be fun and cool looking to make a program that made it rotate
    One could model it with Truespace or any application like that...

  19. #19
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    This is an flat version of it :

    ...[]...

    I had get it done for myself a month ago, copying Ann's pattern (because it seemed to explain a lot of things to me), but this chart inherited of Ann's mistake of making Result rings the Right rings, and Process rings the Left rings.
    That's cool....the flat version
    I wonder if there's anything to the flatness or prioritizing vs rounder or less linear styles

    mistake?
    Result rings the Right rings?
    Process rings the Left rings?
    I didn't even know there was such a thing as Result/Process rings...
    the supervisory rings split up into result/process?
    why "should" process be right ring and result left?
    (I'm seriously asking, cuz I didn't know any of this stuff)
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  20. #20
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  21. #21
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    This is an flat version of it :



    I had get it done for myself a month ago, copying Ann's pattern (because it seemed to explain a lot of things to me), but this chart inherited of Ann's mistake of making Result rings the Right rings, and Process rings the Left rings.

    Very nice, thanks. That is a good diagram.
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  22. #22
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If I were to suggest a way to make a 3d rotating model, the statics would be down on the bottom. just a suggestion. Statics are more grounded, IMO
    Pre-2013 post are written with incomplete understanding.

  23. #23
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,625
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc

    I had get it done for myself a month ago, copying Ann's pattern (because it seemed to explain a lot of things to me), but this chart inherited of Ann's mistake of making Result rings the Right rings, and Process rings the Left rings.
    You mean Result going clockwise and Process going counterclockwise? I assume you are referring to the alternate names for the dichotomy. What's the connection, exactly?

  24. #24
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc

    I had get it done for myself a month ago, copying Ann's pattern (because it seemed to explain a lot of things to me), but this chart inherited of Ann's mistake of making Result rings the Right rings, and Process rings the Left rings.
    You mean Result going clockwise and Process going counterclockwise? I assume you are referring to the alternate names for the dichotomy. What's the connection, exactly?
    Yes, normally Process means Right means CLOCKWISE, and Result means Left means COUNTERCLOCKWISE.

    It would be logical to call Process/Result "Right/Left", because a clock EVOLVES to Right, or clockwise (Process' other name is Evolution).

  25. #25
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,625
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc

    I had get it done for myself a month ago, copying Ann's pattern (because it seemed to explain a lot of things to me), but this chart inherited of Ann's mistake of making Result rings the Right rings, and Process rings the Left rings.
    You mean Result going clockwise and Process going counterclockwise? I assume you are referring to the alternate names for the dichotomy. What's the connection, exactly?
    Yes, normally Process means Right means CLOCKWISE, and Result means Left means COUNTERCLOCKWISE.
    ok, that's what I thought you meant.

    It would be logical to call Process/Result "Right/Left", because a clock EVOLVES to Right, or clockwise (Process' other name is Evolution).
    Any criticism of this would be entirely pedantic, so I'll just say that's fine with me.

    It occurs to me that this post's reasoning is very Compliant. No matter.

Posting Permissions

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