socionics for non-math majors

[reyn_til_runa]

Just trying to establish a mechanism by which to understand socionics.

I'd like your thoughts on one or more of the following

1. If the quadras are a 2 -2 matrix and the types a 4-4 matrix, then the functions would require a ___ - ___ matrix?

2. How many [a. objects b. variables c. relationships] do we have to consider as part of this socionics system of equations?

3. Given all the possible combinations and permutations within this system and the likelihood that we will never know nearly all of them, how can we ever determine a type's value at a specific point in time?

Food, medicine, and toys for all who participate.

[machintruc]

1. If the quadras are a 2 -2 matrix and the types a 4-4 matrix, then the functions would require a ___ - ___ matrix?

IMO, information elements and functions require a 4*4 matrix, because I have a feeling that there cannot be 8 aspects of reality. Either they are 4, or they are 16, because 4 and 16 are symmetrical (2*2 and 4*4), as 8 is non-symmetrical (4*2). They are more than 4, thus they are 16.

[Creepy-bg]

how is this not for math majors??? I smoked away the brain cells involved in these sorts of calculations years ago

[machintruc]

1. If the quadras are a 2 -2 matrix and the types a 4-4 matrix, then the functions would require a ___ - ___ matrix?

IMO, information elements and functions require a 4*4 matrix, because I have a feeling that there cannot be 8 aspects of reality. Either they are 4, or they are 16, because 4 and 16 are symmetrical (2*2 and 4*4), as 8 is non-symmetrical (4*2). They are more than 4, thus they are 16.

so there is a missing dichotomy you think?

It's not missing. It exists. Gulenko said that aspects can be dichotomised as proactive/reactive (or short/long range or left/right) or positive/negative.

positive : static right and dynamic left
negative : static left and dynamic right

For example, reality can be percieved as . contains attraction and replusion.

For example, does attraction mean positive or negative ? Attraction is a "positive" thing, but it reduces the distance of the field, which means this could be a "negative" thing.

negative is percieved on the context of positive , and positive is percieved on the context of negative .

But seems more to induce attraction than repulsion IMO. Possibly on that point, Gulenko was wrong.

[snp7901]

[machintruc]

the psyche blocs aren't symmetric. they're all 2x1, simply by definition. and you can essentially define the rest of the system just by starting with them and adding the conventional constraints (e.g. you can't be Se+Fe ego or Fi+Te id, etc.) it's neat that this creates 4 qudras of 4 types but i think that's more of a practically useful coincidence than evidence of some great symmetry. it would be unusual to not occasionally find these coincidences in our models.

That doesn't mean 2*1. Each block describes a cognitive attitude, which is composed of 2 contiguous elements of an element ring (static or dynamic).

You can't extrapolate from directly. and are percieved on the context of and , as Augusta said.

[snp7901]

[machintruc]

a ring as in an algebraic ring? i'm not sure i'm following you there.

There are two rings of information : static and dynamic.

Static ring :




Dynamic ring :




There are two directions of information : left and right.

Right : intuition -> logic -> sensing -> ethics -> intuition
Left : intuition -> ethics -> sensing -> logic -> intuition

ERROR CORRECTED

[Creepy-bg]

also called synthetic and analytic (I forget which is which)

[reyn_til_runa]

the psyche blocs aren't symmetric. they're all 2x1, simply by definition. and you can essentially define the rest of the system just by starting with them and adding the conventional constraints (e.g. you can't be Se+Fe ego or Fi+Te id, etc.) it's neat that this creates 4 qudras of 4 types but i think that's more of a practically useful coincidence than evidence of some great symmetry. it would be unusual to not occasionally find these coincidences in our models.

The dialectical nature of the universe is not an accident. It makes little difference whether the universe is actually composed dialectically. When we want to make sense of anything, we are forced to turn it into an object. Over time, many more objects (parts) emerge, all of which need to be weighed for value and then weighed against each other and against the sum value of all parts.

I wonder how group theory might apply to socionics theory.

[machintruc]

The dialectical nature of the universe is not an accident. It makes little difference whether the universe is actually composed dialectically. When we want to make sense of anything, we are forced to turn it into an object. Over time, many more objects (parts) emerge, all of which need to be weighed for value and then weighed against each other and against the sum value of all parts.

I wonder how group theory might apply to socionics theory.

Actually, that's even simpler than that.

The universe must be logical and orderly, because otherwise, it would contradict the existance of God.

[Logos]

The dialectical nature of the universe is not an accident. It makes little difference whether the universe is actually composed dialectically. When we want to make sense of anything, we are forced to turn it into an object. Over time, many more objects (parts) emerge, all of which need to be weighed for value and then weighed against each other and against the sum value of all parts.

I wonder how group theory might apply to socionics theory.

Actually, that's even simpler than that.

The universe must be logical and orderly, because otherwise, it would contradict the existance of God.

I fail to see your logic here. A logical and orderly universe does not necessarily imply the existence of God. What if the nature of a logical and orderly universe contradicts the existence of God? If you cannot remove the existence of the universe, would you be willing to remove the possibility of God's existence?

[anndelise]

The universe must be logical and orderly, because otherwise, it would contradict the existance of God.

unless of course God is an ENFp.

[Creepy-bg]

The universe must be logical and orderly, because otherwise, it would contradict the existance of God.

unless of course God is an ENFp.

[reyn_til_runa]

The dialectical nature of the universe is not an accident. It makes little difference whether the universe is actually composed dialectically. When we want to make sense of anything, we are forced to turn it into an object. Over time, many more objects (parts) emerge, all of which need to be weighed for value and then weighed against each other and against the sum value of all parts.

I wonder how group theory might apply to socionics theory.

Actually, that's even simpler than that.

The universe must be logical and orderly, because otherwise, it would contradict the existance of God.

I fail to see your logic here. A logical and orderly universe does not necessarily imply the existence of God. What if the nature of a logical and orderly universe contradicts the existence of God? If you cannot remove the existence of the universe, would you be willing to remove the possibility of God's existence?

I'm not so sure that's necessary. We need to know the operations (of God) upon this system. It's possible that God reigns over individual objects only and in very particular ways, yet we mistakenly apply greater, more holistic value to his power. In fact, I'd rather think of God emerging from the folds of (skin...) dialectics than to think of the universe emerging from the folds of God. I just don't see one as necessarily following the other.

[machintruc]

The dialectical nature of the universe is not an accident. It makes little difference whether the universe is actually composed dialectically. When we want to make sense of anything, we are forced to turn it into an object. Over time, many more objects (parts) emerge, all of which need to be weighed for value and then weighed against each other and against the sum value of all parts.

I wonder how group theory might apply to socionics theory.

Actually, that's even simpler than that.

The universe must be logical and orderly, because otherwise, it would contradict the existance of God.

I fail to see your logic here. A logical and orderly universe does not necessarily imply the existence of God. What if the nature of a logical and orderly universe contradicts the existence of God? If you cannot remove the existence of the universe, would you be willing to remove the possibility of God's existence?

God is necessary by Himself, but universe is not. It has a beginning, and an end. God doesn't. Removing the existence of God is impossible, because otherwise nothing could exist. If nothing could exist, nothing could create nothing, and you wouldn't exist. You exist, not by yourself, but by the power of God.

Universe didn't create itself, basically because it can't. There was a cause before universe, which is God. Was it actually Big Bang, wasn't it ? Possibly, if God actually created Big Bang. You will easily understand that, especially if you're really a type.

[Creepy-bg]

perhaps you should change the title to "Socionics for non-philosophy majors"

[reyn_til_runa]

The dialectical nature of the universe is not an accident. It makes little difference whether the universe is actually composed dialectically. When we want to make sense of anything, we are forced to turn it into an object. Over time, many more objects (parts) emerge, all of which need to be weighed for value and then weighed against each other and against the sum value of all parts.

I wonder how group theory might apply to socionics theory.

Actually, that's even simpler than that.

The universe must be logical and orderly, because otherwise, it would contradict the existance of God.

I fail to see your logic here. A logical and orderly universe does not necessarily imply the existence of God. What if the nature of a logical and orderly universe contradicts the existence of God? If you cannot remove the existence of the universe, would you be willing to remove the possibility of God's existence?

God is necessary by Himself, but universe is not. It has a beginning, and an end. God doesn't. Removing the existence of God is impossible, because otherwise nothing could exist. If nothing could exist, nothing could create nothing, and you wouldn't exist. You exist, not by yourself, but by the power of God.

Universe didn't create itself, basically because it can't. There was a cause before universe, which is God. Was it actually Big Bang, wasn't it ? Possibly, if God actually created Big Bang. You will easily understand that, especially if you're really a type.

But aren't your axioms faulty?

I definitely see the need for cause-effect but I don't see the need for God to be the first cause/mover.

[machintruc]

The universe must be logical and orderly, because otherwise, it would contradict the existance of God.

unless of course God is an ENFp.

God can't have a TIM, because having a TIM means having information elements more developed and differentiated than others. That means you can type all finite things, but you can't type God, because God is infinite.

[machintruc]

But aren't your axioms faulty?

If those axioms were faulty, you couldn't even write that they could be.

[reyn_til_runa]

But aren't your axioms faulty?

If those axioms were faulty, you couldn't even write that they could be.

That's the thing. You have to start more generally. You can't make your axiom "God is first cause/mover of the universe" if you still are having trouble defining what kind of object God is.

[machintruc]

But aren't your axioms faulty?

If those axioms were faulty, you couldn't even write that they could be.

That's the thing. You have to start more generally. You can't make your axiom "God is first cause/mover of the universe" if you still are having trouble defining what kind of object God is.

So what was the first cause/mover if it wasn't God ?

[reyn_til_runa]

But aren't your axioms faulty?

If those axioms were faulty, you couldn't even write that they could be.

That's the thing. You have to start more generally. You can't make your axiom "God is first cause/mover of the universe" if you still are having trouble defining what kind of object God is.

So what was the first cause/mover if it wasn't God ?

I don't know, but I think it had to be whatever molecular "object" that carried the exact properties needed to activate the very first operation on another object which resulted in a symmetrical relation.

[machintruc]

But aren't your axioms faulty?

If those axioms were faulty, you couldn't even write that they could be.

That's the thing. You have to start more generally. You can't make your axiom "God is first cause/mover of the universe" if you still are having trouble defining what kind of object God is.

So what was the first cause/mover if it wasn't God ?

I don't know, but I think it had to be whatever molecular "object" that carried the exact properties needed to activate the very first operation on another object which resulted in a symmetrical relation.

And what did create that object ?

[aestrivex]

1. If the quadras are a 2 -2 matrix and the types a 4-4 matrix, then the functions would require a ___ - ___ matrix?

16 by 8 matrix because every function manifests itself differently in every type.

[snp7901]

[snp7901]

[reyn_til_runa]

There are sets and subsets which can generate rings and subrings. Or on another another level, the ordering of the objects generates the sets which generate the subsets which generate the rings which generate the subrings (I think). We need to determine the properties between these sets/rings and subsets/subrings as they may apply to socionics to see whether this potential dialectical line of reasoning can be generated.

[Exodus]

Dialectical? How is this in any sense dialectical?

[reyn_til_runa]

Dialectical? How is this in any sense dialectical?

Well, the reasoning itself may not be dialectical, but the idea is the same. Thesis-antithesis-synthesis as compared with set a- subset b- Ring (and so on).

also it is important to see that in nature we are dealing with objects-in-relation AND objects-of-relation. this, i think, points to dialectics as well.

[MysticSonic]

"also it is important to see that in nature we are dealing with objects-in-relation AND objects-of-relation. this, i think, points to dialectics as well."

What are objects of relation? Relations? If so, why not just keep things simple and call them that?

Why must we have a prime-mover? Why not an infinite regress? Why can't the universe be necessary? Just because a thing is apparently contingent(read: appears to be contingent), it does not imply that its existence is not necessary. You're making pantheists really angry when you suggest that the universe could not be necessary.

If we are to show an infinite regress to be impossible(which I do not believe has been sufficiently demonstrated,) then why must the prime-mover be a sentient being? Why couldn't this prime-mover merely have been an unaware, eternal object that possessed the qualities to cause the universe in which we live? Or would you call this god?

[MysticSonic]

"1. If the quadras are a 2 -2 matrix and the types a 4-4 matrix, then the functions would require a ___ - ___ matrix?"

8x16 as Niffweed stated.

2. How many [a. objects b. variables c. relationships] do we have to consider as part of this socionics system of equations?

Socionics is evolving and has aspects are debatable, and as such, possesses neither a precise nor fixed system of equations. Not as exact or precise as required, anyway.

3. Given all the possible combinations and permutations within this system and the likelihood that we will never know nearly all of them, how can we ever determine a type's value at a specific point in time?

We determine approximate values. Sancta simplicitas. Most of life's conclusions are merely approximations of reality, and Socionics is no different.

[Gilly]

Approximations? You're too generous. Try partial explanations based on unfalsifiable assumptions.

[Exodus]

Dialectical? How is this in any sense dialectical?

Well, the reasoning itself may not be dialectical, but the idea is the same. Thesis-antithesis-synthesis as compared with set a- subset b- Ring (and so on).

Are you saying that a ring is a compromise between two sets? That doesn't make any sense. I'm not sure if you understand yourself what you are saying.

[reyn_til_runa]

Dialectical? How is this in any sense dialectical?

Well, the reasoning itself may not be dialectical, but the idea is the same. Thesis-antithesis-synthesis as compared with set a- subset b- Ring (and so on).

Are you saying that a ring is a compromise between two sets? That doesn't make any sense. I'm not sure if you understand yourself what you are saying.

Not at all, but I was trying to combine three theories into one sentence while stoned and so cannot return to that thought right now. Do you understand what I mean by object -in-relation versus object-of-relation? that seemed more important anyway.

[Creepy-bg]

load another one and see if that helps :wink:

[Exodus]

Dialectical? How is this in any sense dialectical?

Well, the reasoning itself may not be dialectical, but the idea is the same. Thesis-antithesis-synthesis as compared with set a- subset b- Ring (and so on).

Are you saying that a ring is a compromise between two sets? That doesn't make any sense. I'm not sure if you understand yourself what you are saying.

Not at all, but I was trying to combine three theories into one sentence while stoned and so cannot return to that thought right now. Do you understand what I mean by object -in-relation versus object-of-relation? that seemed more important anyway.

My understanding is the same as Mystic's - and I don't see how it gives any insight into socionics or reality. It's a rather trivial statement, if I understand it correctly.

[reyn_til_runa]

Dialectical? How is this in any sense dialectical?

Well, the reasoning itself may not be dialectical, but the idea is the same. Thesis-antithesis-synthesis as compared with set a- subset b- Ring (and so on).

Are you saying that a ring is a compromise between two sets? That doesn't make any sense. I'm not sure if you understand yourself what you are saying.

Not at all, but I was trying to combine three theories into one sentence while stoned and so cannot return to that thought right now. Do you understand what I mean by object -in-relation versus object-of-relation? that seemed more important anyway.

My understanding is the same as Mystic's - and I don't see how it gives any insight into socionics or reality. It's a rather trivial statement, if I understand it correctly.

object a in relation with object b.
object a in relation to itself
object b in relation to itself
object a and b as relating to set or that which contains them
operation x is performed upon objects and the relations between the objects
there is an identity element
there is the inverse operation
there is a product
the product is an object of two or more other objects in relation.
(there are layers of these object -in vs. object -of scenarios)

object-in/object-of relations require that there is always a sum of objects and that that sum is, too, an object. And that there are smaller and smaller objects until we reach the point of realizing that there really are no dirty atoms.

[Exodus]

Relevance?

Reinin and Smilingeyes have already done group theory analysis of the types, and it's a fairly simple idea, and can be applied to functions and elements too (see here).

But I fail to see how anything more technical along those lines could possibly add to our understanding of socionics.

[Exodus]

btw, what were/are you on exactly?