The Dimensionality of Functions

[anndelise]

The other day I came across a socionics site that refers to "Dimension Functions": http://translate.google.com/translate?sourceid=navclient&hl=en&u=http%3a%2f%2f www%2esocionicasys%2eru%2f (click button theory on the left, then TIM Model on the left, Then Functions on the left, then Dimension Functions on the left). (I don't know why the link didn't take directly to the page )



It's an alternative way of looking at Model A, types, and informational functions and supposedly provides a means of actually measuring a person's functions. (dependent, of course, on how you define the function)

Basically, the suggestion is that the more parameters a person includes when dealing with certain information, the more flexible they are in dealing with (or maybe expressing) that information, and the more likely that this information is a natural part of the person.

While the less parameters the person utilizes, the less flexible they are with that information, and the less likely that this information is a natural part of the person.



What are the parameters?

• Time (Tm): (not to be confused with Ni): Can/does the person recognize/envision how this informational situation likely developed and/or where the development is likely to go? (Uses the information across time.)

• Situation (St): Can/does the person recognize/respond to the subtleties of specific informational situations? Are they flexible enough in the usage of the information to apply differently in different situations? Does the person recognize how the "environment" (social/physical/individual) affects the situation and the information?

• Norms (Nr): Can/did the person adopt and apply social/individual rules, regulations, customs, practices, and other standards to be followed in assessing the information? Are they rigid in assessing/using the information, reliant on rules/standards to guide them around using this information? Do they focus on and prefer to deal with the "usual" or the "expected" rather than the actual situation? Note: these kinds of standards for assessments come from generalizations of personal experiences, education, traditions, etc. It is "transferable knowledge".

• Experience (Ex): Can/does the person draw on own personal experiences? ("nontransferable knowledge") This does not include education, customs, etc.
  • This one is kind of like "I need to see it for myself to understand what you are talking about".
  • Also like:
    • A: "It's there, it's there, can't you see it?"
    • B: "What's there? What are you talking about?"
    • A: " . . . I can't tell you . . , but I swear it's There!"

According to the site, here is how the parameters fit into Model A:

1. Ex, Nr, St, Tm
2. Ex, Nr, St
3. Ex, Nr
4. Ex
5. Ex
6. Ex, Nr
7. Ex, Nr, St
8. Ex, Nr, St, Tm



In my opinion, regardless of Model A ordering, these parameters give higher insight into a person's usage of specific information, and places focus back onto information metabolism instead of non-relevant traits and biases. It also brings to light some of the issues and arguments between people on this forum, and can even help explain some of the biases.
Example: Person A's parameters in a informational function are limited to Ex & Nr. They are attempting to describe use of that informational function. People who use St/Tm in that informational function try to tell Person A that Person A is wrong, that the informational function isn't that limited, that it's not based on A's rules/assessments, but are indeed dependent on situation and development over time (which of course, goes beyond Person A's abilities and applications of that information function).

[pezzonovante]

Very interesting stuff, it fits in perfectly with the comments I made about my POLR in another thread.

One comment - wouldn't the model A listing mean that the 8th function is actually stronger than the 2nd? Thus my > . That doesn't really make sense to me.

[marooned]

So then the question is... how would you be able to tell how many said parameters are in a particular information element in a particular person.

For instance...

Time (Tm): (not to be confused with Ni): Can/does the person recognize/envision how this informational situation likely developed and/or where the development is likely to go? (Uses the information across time.)

How do we rate the above parameter in terms of say in a certain person... What would be an "informational situation"?

[anndelise]

Very interesting stuff, it fits in perfectly with the comments I made about my POLR in another thread.

One comment - wouldn't the model A listing mean that the 8th function is actually stronger than the 2nd? Thus my > . That doesn't really make sense to me.

Honestly, that confused me too. In another article it says something about the 8th function pushing the 1st function into action, or something like that. But I didn't understand any of that.

Model A has always confused me, though, because I just can't see what it developed from. It feels to me like someone skipped from generalizing experiences right into some kind of theory. And I can't make sense of it unless I can see it...experience it, THEN maybe I could follow how they got their rules and such.

What I DO like about it though, is that it offers a clearer (to me) way of communicating about information, a topic, or a particular situation. Without having to focus on model A, nor type, nor functional definitions. Like, we can actually talk about real world things, without the normal socionics trappings, and still be able to assess a person's (and our own) response to some information, a topic, or a particular situation.

[anndelise]

So then the question is... how would you be able to tell how many said parameters are in a particular information element in a particular person.

For instance...[Tm]

How do we rate the above parameter in terms of say in a certain person... What would be an "informational situation"?

Well, there follows the parameter expansions of Ex -> Nr -> St -> Tm.

So, from what I can gather,
If a person is able to go beyond their personal experiences and discuss and apply rules for normal situations that require using/processing an information type, then we know that they are at least entering the Nr parameter. Some people may be able to recite the rules but be unable to apply the rules. They aren't yet in the Nr parameter.

If the person is aware of and can adjust the Nr to suit a particular situation, then they are likely up to the St parameter. But if they seem stuck on insisting on the rules, and unable to alter the rules for an unusual situation, then they are likely still in the Nr parameter.

But if a person can use/process/discuss an information type or a situation, and how it develops over time, past, present, and future, and is aware of numerous subtleties that can affect a situation where that information type is used/processed, and is aware of when the rules can/should be broken, etc, THEN they are using all the parameters.

So, for example, if I, personally, am stuck to resorting to rules and guidelines and quoting things I've read about the subject, and am confused when someone goes on and on about how different things can affect the subject and how that subject had or could have developed and where it likely will end up, then obviously they are using more parameters than I am.

Though, I do wonder if getting stuck on content can interfere with our interpretation. Like, if we think the person is focusing on, say, Fi, but instead the person is processing Se, then it might be confusing to the interpreter, or misinterpreted. (I don't know how to explain this thought better, sorry.)

[anndelise]

Adding:
One of the socionics schools that is using this system claims to have some questions that can be used to determine which parameters a person uses for which information aspects. Unfortunately, I couldn't find access to more than some samples which I don't remember where I found those examples. I could try looking, but the examples where so far down the page that i had to copy past russian text into google translator, and even then the examples were difficult to follow. So finding it would be a bitch. (found one of the pages, and the site that had the examples: ..ugh, the link doesn't work, ...oh, here's the untranslated page (duh, forgot that i could do that): http://www.famo.ru/razmernost.php

Some of the types of questions that I thought of (which will likely be pathetic, I know) were:
Regarding information aspect (or situation):
* What personal experiences have you had?
* How do you assess this [given] situation? or
* How would you respond in this [given] situation? or
* How do/would you view a [given] situation?
* What, if any, variabilities of given situation would alter your assessment? or
* What situational factors affect your assessment?
* How would this situation differ if it had been in the past? in the future? or
* How did this situation likely develop?
* How could this situation develop from this point on?

[marooned]

You mainly elaborated the parameters... it's the defining of "informational situations" as in situations involving a particular IM aspect that would be the more difficult part imo. Without being able to do that, the 'parameters' aren't helpful.

Some of the types of questions that I thought of (which will likely be pathetic, I know) were:
Regarding information aspect (or situation):
* What personal experiences have you had?
* How do you assess this [given] situation? or
* How would you respond in this [given] situation? or
* How do/would you view a [given] situation?
* What, if any, variabilities of given situation would alter your assessment? or
* What situational factors affect your assessment?
* How would this situation differ if it had been in the past? in the future? or
* How did this situation likely develop?
* How could this situation develop from this point on?

It's how to define the information aspect or situation in a way that would allow you to begin to evaluate the person's IM element usage in terms of the parameters that would be the most difficult part imo.

I wasn't really expecting an answer to this... but was trying to point out it's the part that's missing... or that seems more difficult.

[anndelise]

It's how to define the information aspect or situation in a way that would allow you to begin to evaluate the person's IM element usage in terms of the parameters that would be the most difficult part imo.

I wasn't really expecting an answer to this... but was trying to point out it's the part that's missing... or that seems more difficult.

would it necessarily be any different than what people who type other people currently use? they use conversations, situations, actions/behavior, etc when typing other people, so wouldn't those be the same here?

All that's really different is that instead of assessing those things as "strong/weak", "valued/subdued", "able/unable", and "[whatever else people currently use for assessing a person's info elements]", this uses a different set of assessing guidelines.

(iow, the things being assessed would likely remain the same, but the guidelines for assessing would change)

[marooned]

would it necessarily be any different than what people who type other people currently use? they use conversations, situations, actions/behavior, etc when typing other people, so wouldn't those be the same here?

All that's really different is that instead of assessing those things as "strong/weak", "valued/subdued", "able/unable", and "[whatever else people currently use for assessing a person's info elements]", this uses a different set of assessing guidelines.

I agree. And I kind of like the parameters thing... but I think it would suffer the same problems as what currently goes on...

For instance if we try to evaluate someone's Se "usage"...

Whether we do it via trying to establish if Se if weak or strong, valued or unvalued... or whether we do it via these parameters... we still have to be able to know of all the things they are saying/doing what of it is relevant to Se and what is not... Like in this forum we can debate people's types endlessly because of confusion over identifying what is relevant to their information metabolism and what isn't... what has to do with an information element and what doesn't, etc... And then we start threads about "is this Se?" "could this be an example of Fi vs. Fe," etc. If we can't identify this stuff in the first place, then we won't get anywhere no matter which system we use to try to attribute their IM element use to various functions in Model A.

Anyway, this whole remark of mine was beside the point. And I didn't mean it as a criticism or anything. I don't know why I felt the need to mention it.

[The Exception]

From Wikisocion:

Dimensionality of functions is a well-known way of describing the characteristics of the different positions of Model A in a systematic way. The concept was proposed by Kiev socionists (Bukalov, Yermak) and is now widely applied by socionists across the former Soviet Union.

• Functions 1 and 8 have 4 dimensions (Ex, Nr, St, and Tm)
• Functions 2 and 7 have 3 dimensions (Ex, Nr, and St)
• Functions 3 and 6 have 2 dimensions (Ex and Nr)
• Functions 4 and 5 have 1 dimension (Ex)

The four dimensions are :

• Ex : experience = the ability to recognize patterns and make generalizations based on personal experience
• Nr : norms = the ability to recognize and apply standard practices from one's surroundings
• St : situation = the ability to recognize and respond to the subtleties of specific situations
• Tm : time = the ability to recognize and envision development over time

--------------

From what I understand of this, your stronger functions have a larger number of dimensions. The highest level of dimension (Time) is only found in the two strongest functions, while the lowest level is found in all eight of the functions. Your weakest two functions, have only the lower level experience dimension. The more dimensions a function has, the more widely it can be successfully used.

This model also suggests that functions 1 & 8 are your strongest; the next strongest are 2 & 7; followed by 3 & 6; and your weakest are 4 & 5. The PoLR is your weakest unvalued function; the dual seeking is your weakest valued function. Makes sense.

I haven't been able to find any other information on this model. What are some examples of how these four dimensions actually play out for each of the 8 functions?

The time dimension, which is the ability to recognize and envision development over time, is only present in the two strongest functions. That part of the model I don't agree with, I think it's possible to do this with any function, but probably easiest with the stronger ones.

[Cone]

I haven't been able to find any other information on this model. What are some examples of how these four dimensions actually play out for each of the 8 functions?

The time dimension, which is the ability to recognize and envision development over time, is only present in the two strongest functions. That part of the model I don't agree with, I think it's possible to do this with any function, but probably easiest with the stronger ones.

Rick had something on his blog about how at least the dimensions play out within the leading and creative functions. Taking as an example, I think it went something like this:

leading - These types see relationships as an ever-changing dynamic of interpersonal feelings, personal connections, and shared morals which they constantly try to develop and perfect (EII) or uphold (ESI). They are the most inclined types to start relations with people based on how they see them in this regard and are the most adventurous and confident in starting relationships or friendships with people from all walks of life, regardless of how they seem now. They are quite adept at steering the interpersonal dynamic between them and others and seeing how it will play out over time. This is how the time dimension plays out, I guess.

creative - These types are less inclined to begin new relationships and friendships with others if they don't see immediately any benefits from doing so. They are much less willing to stick around and see if the relationship will change or pan out to something different. Also, there's the common IEE theme of having a realization that a relationship has changed at some point, which often comes as sudden and unexpected. So there's the idea of lacking the time dimension, in that creatives are less willing to see how the relationship will pan out over time and are less adept at monitoring changes in a smooth way. However, these types are still quite good at understanding the aspect of at any given time. It's just that it's jerky and not smooth.

I don't think that's exactly what Rick said, but that at least helps explain how the time dimension may play out. I guess the rest of the functions and dimensions could be figured out by derivation, but one thing is at least for sure: we still don't have enough information...eh.

[Krig the Viking]

Gulenko goes into it fairly in-depth here, along with a bunch of other stuff: The Structure and the Elements of the Socionics Model - Wikisocion

Gulenko describes the Time dimension a little differently: he describes it as meaning that a 4-dimensional function effectively has no time restraints on it, while a 3-dimensional function can only be used for shorter periods of time.

So for an LII:
Ti is 4-dimensional, meaning that we can logically analyze pretty much any thing, any time, any place.
Ne is 3-dimensional, meaning we can consider the abstract properties of objects in any situation, but only for shorter periods of time.
Fi is 2-dimensional, meaning we can't grasp well the subtleties of interpersonal relationships, so we have to rely on what we see other people doing as our "script" so we can play the "role" of someone strong in Fi.
Se is 1-dimensional, meaning that we can't even figure out a "script" based on the actions of others for using Se, we only know what has worked in the past.

It's much the same for the vital ring, only we don't consciously think about it in the same way.

[tcaudilllg]

4D functions, unlike 3D functions, try to assess what aspects an object does not have. 3D functions try to assess what aspects it does have. The reason for the superiority of the 4D functions lies in their ability to seek evidence for a belief. Although the 3D function does this too, the 4D function also tries to make sure that the evidence is itself not invalid. This allows the 4D functions to be more confident than the 3D functions, because they are more competent.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I'm not sure what you're saying, but yeah I do think there's a difference. Can't be sure to classify them all at this stage, but I find the 3D ones tend to be more adventurous.

To give an example, ISFp's (4D Si) often are content with the same - for instance lounging on couch eating familiar food watching TV

ESFj's (3D Si) more inclined to create new recipies in kitchen, more inclined to go to new restaurants and stuff.

So maybe something within the phrase of calling the second function, the "creative function" overall (thinking of all the types).

[tcaudilllg]

The 3D functions are more light hearted. For example, LIIs never like to think about all the nasty possibilities out there... but the ILEs do.

Just saw that in action in fact, when hmmkr "predicted" that Gilly would gradually become more and more tyrannical. (see the Maritsa thread) I dismissed that possibility out of hand and still don't mean to consider it.

To give an example, ISFp's (4D Si) often are content with the same - for instance lounging on couch eating familiar food watching TV

ISFps stick with what they like. It's that 3D Fe. Of course what they like is also very attuned to their personal tastes. They have a strong sense of the qualities of a thing, which of those qualities they like, and by how much. Their environs are carefully tailored just for them.

[Azeroffs]

but I find the 3D ones tend to be more adventurous.

So 3D Fe is more adventurous than 4D Fe?

@tcaud I think you're right. 4D elements tend to fill in the gaps. It likes to give things more than what's there. 3D is more realistic and grounded preferring not to expand beyond what is certain, but is still fully aware of what is. 4D, as a result, can build and mold things much better for a potentially greater understanding but can be taken too far by expanding beyond its boarders.

[pianosinger]

Take the 4 types of functions-- T,F,N, and S.

These have been paired off as Rational (T,F) and Irrational (N,S) functions.

I would like to propose two more ways of pairing them off: into Physical functions and Spiritual functions; and also into Vibrational functions and Mental functions.

The Physical functions are Sensing and Thinking.

The Spiritual functions are iNtuiting and Feeling.

The Vibrational functions are Sensing and Feeling.

The Mental functions are iNtuiting and Thinking.

By combining the three different ways of pairing off, you get a more three-dimensional picture of each function.

So,

The Thinking function is Rational, Physical, and Mental.

The Feeling function is Rational, Spiritual, and Vibrational.

The iNtuiting function is Irrational, Spiritual, and Mental.

The Sensing function is Irrational, Physical, and Vibrational.

Furthermore...

Thinking can be called "physical mentality" or "physical intuiting"

iNtuiting can be called "spiritual mentality" or "spiritual thinking"

Feeling can be called "spiritual vibration" or "spiritual sensing"

Sensing can be called "physical vibration" or "physical feeling"

EDIT: What of the idea to replace the words "sensual" and "sensation" with "vibrational" and "vibration"? In order to preserve "sensing" in the traditional socionic sense.

Bah, you know what? I'm just going to go ahead and change it...Hmm, it's not very elegant, but oh well. This thread is surely destined for the annals of infamy, anyway.

[pianosinger]

So, it's no wonder SF types are the "Socials," being in tune not only with their own and others' physical vibrations/sensing, but also with spiritual vibrations/feelings.

SF types appeal to the soul.

NT's are justly called the "Researchers," or "Thinkers" in MBTI. Their focus is on both physical mentality/thinking and spiritual mentality/intuiting.

NT types appeal to the mind.

ST types are the most down-to-earth, "Pragmatic" types, being 100% in the physical plane, with physical vibration/sensing and physical mentality/thinking.

ST types appeal to the body.

NF types are aptly labeled "the Dreamers," or "Idealists," being caught up in the spiritual plane, with spiritual mentality/intuiting and spiritual vibration/feeling.

NF types appeal to the spirit.

[Creepy-male]

Spiritual sensations?

[rat1]

Spiritual sensations?

lol

Dimensionality of the actual functions has to be based on the mechanics of the functions. The aspects for those are field/object, static/dynamic, & internal/external.

[pianosinger]

lol

Dimensionality of the actual functions has to be based on the mechanics of the functions. The aspects for those are field/object, static/dynamic, & internal/external.

I get that. But that's getting into Extroverted and Introverted functions. I'm more talking about the four functions as undifferentiated, just looking at the essence, I guess.

But, perhaps we'll have to put exact semantics aside, because I fear I am not doing a good job of describing what's in my head.

Forget about the details. What of the general concept?

For instance, do my descriptions in the second post seem to ring true?

[pianosinger]

Spiritual sensations?

And, I did point out before that "sensual function" is probably not the best terminology (considering that there's already a "sensing" function); I just could not think of a better word... Maybe something having to do with vibes?

I'd appreciate it if people would take my crazy Ne bursts more seriously once in a while...

[Creepy-male]

I am, I just have no idea what "spiritual" is meant to refer to. Could you clarify?

[pianosinger]

I am, I just have no idea what "spiritual" is meant to refer to. Could you clarify?

Essentially, I'm thinking of "spiritual" in the sense of being non-physical, something outside of physical mechanics or observable science.

Thinking, then, being Physical, has more to do with how the brain works, making physical, nerological connections. Intuiting, on the other hand, is "Spiritual," in that the mind seemingly intuits with the help of something outside of the nervous system.

[Azeroffs]

This is interesting, but I'm unsure of how you're using some terms.

what do you mean by vibrational? Like sensual, but not physical? lol
basically, anti-mental?
edit: actually i get that now.

SF types appeal to the soul.

NF types appeal to the spirit.

What's the difference between soul and spirit?

[EyeSeeCold]

Forget about the details. What of the general concept?

For instance, do my descriptions in the second post seem to ring true?

The general concept exists, seems well-composed to me. As for ringing true, I can't say, but they seem accurate to my idea of those groups.

What's the difference between soul and spirit?

SF - Your body-feelings
NF - Your mind-feelings

SF soul seems like energy, or your body's vitality in terms of "feeling alive". Being active.
NF spirit seems like consciousness, the core of life which is connected to love, peace and harmony and higher purposes.

[pianosinger]

SF - Your body-feelings
NF - Your mind-feelings

SF soul seems like energy, or your body's vitality in terms of "feeling alive". Being active.
NF spirit seems like consciousness, the core of life which is connected to love, peace and harmony and higher purposes.

Yeah, that. Well put. Thanks

[pianosinger]

Okay, so apparently my idea of physical vs. spiritual is comparable to external vs. internal.

Where I don't see anything else to compare, is my idea that Sensing and Feeling have something in common (being "vibrational"); and Intuiting and Thinking have something in common (being "mental"). So, what are people's thoughts on that?

[EyeSeeCold]

Okay, so apparently my idea of physical vs. spiritual is comparable to external vs. internal.

Where I don't see anything else to compare, is my idea that Sensing and Feeling have something in common (being "vibrational"); and Intuiting and Thinking have something in common (being "mental"). So, what are people's thoughts on that?

http://forum.socionix.com/topic/3677...tion-elements/

SF = External Involved*Internal Involved
ST = External Involved*External Abstract
NT = Internal Abstract*External Abstract
NF = Internal Abstract*Internal Involved

SF = Involved Ego
ST = External Ego
NT = Abstract Ego
NF = Internal Ego

So, it's no wonder SF types are the "Socials," being in tune not only with their own and others' physical vibrations/sensing, but also with spiritual vibrations/feelings.

SF types appeal to the soul.

NT's are justly called the "Researchers," or "Thinkers" in MBTI. Their focus is on both physical mentality/thinking and spiritual mentality/intuiting.

NT types appeal to the mind.

ST types are the most down-to-earth, "Pragmatic" types, being 100% in the physical plane, with physical vibration/sensing and physical mentality/thinking.

ST types appeal to the body.

NF types are aptly labeled "the Dreamers," or "Idealists," being caught up in the spiritual plane, with spiritual mentality/intuiting and spiritual vibration/feeling.

NF types appeal to the spirit.

[pianosinger]

http://forum.socionix.com/topic/3677...tion-elements/

SF = External Involved*Internal Involved
ST = External Involved*External Abstract
NT = Internal Abstract*External Abstract
NF = Internal Abstract*Internal Involved

SF = Involved Ego
ST = External Ego
NT = Abstract Ego
NF = Internal Ego

Heh, yeah, I discovered the Abstract/Involved thing late last night...don't know how I missed it before.

So basically, all this stuff has already been thought of...Just given different names...

[pianosinger]

Okay, I'm looking at the "External/Internal" dichotomy now. Anyone else think that the terms are kind of...misleading? Being so similar to "Extroverted and Introverted"? Physical and Spiritual seem to make more sense to me. But then, maybe "they" rejected those terms because of their religious connotations...?

[Korpsy Knievel]

Okay, I'm looking at the "External/Internal" dichotomy now. Anyone else think that the terms are kind of...misleading? Being so similar to "Extroverted and Introverted"? Physical and Spiritual seem to make more sense to me. But then, maybe "they" rejected those terms because of their religious connotations...?

They make perfect sense if extroversion and introversion are considered in their sense of cognitive relation to world and self (as I pointed out in your other thread), not behaviorally (where they're better understood as gregariousness and reservedness). What I find more problematic is the creation of confusing cant that introduces obscure, unnecessary, and context-dependent connotations to terms that already possess established and widely accepted definitions.

[pianosinger]

They make perfect sense if extroversion and introversion are considered in their sense of cognitive relation to world and self (as I pointed out in your other thread), not behaviorally (where they're better understood as gregariousness and reservedness). What I find more problematic is the creation of confusing cant that introduces obscure, unnecessary, and context-dependent connotations to terms that already possess established and widely accepted definitions.

In short, you mean you do not like the idea of using "physical" and "spiritual"? Okay, I can see your point.

It still is a little confusing, though, using "Internal" and "External." When I first came across the terms, anyway, I figured they were just another way of saying "Introversion" and "Extroversion," so I'm sure many others have probably confused the two as well.

Maybe the least confusing terms would be "Observable" and "Invisible" or something like that...

Bah, now this thread has turned into a semantics discussion...oh well.

[Azeroffs]

http://forum.socionix.com/topic/3677...tion-elements/
SF = Involved Ego
ST = External Ego
NT = Abstract Ego
NF = Internal Ego

Those are the words I was looking for! Thank you for that.

Those are the best ways to describe the difference I think

[anndelise]

Maybe the least confusing terms would be "Observable" and "Invisible" or something like that...

Bah, now this thread has turned into a semantics discussion...oh well.

If you do a cross translation of the russian term for "external" with english, and then back to russian, and use various dictionaries for different domains (legal dictionaries, medical dictionaries, etc), the russian term for "external" is aligned with the english term for "explicit".

Thus making it Explicit vs Implicit.

[pianosinger]

If you do a cross translation of the russian term for "external" with english, and then back to russian, and use various dictionaries for different domains (legal dictionaries, medical dictionaries, etc), the russian term for "external" is aligned with the english term for "explicit".

Thus making it Explicit vs Implicit.

Hmm. I do like that.

It certainly would be useful to know all the original Russian terms and their exact meanings, rather than relying on the loose English translations.

[anndelise]

Hmm. I do like that.

It certainly would be useful to know all the original Russian terms and their exact meanings, rather than relying on the loose English translations.

I definitely agree!
It would require a familiarity with both English and Russian culture, their education, their language, etc. And, well, preferably talking with the originals, instead of reading interpretations of interpretations of interpretations.

[EyeSeeCold]

I don't think it's your fault for thinking External = Extraverted ; Internal = Introverted, pianosinger.

They kind of do mean that, in a way. For, Delta and Beta are home to the most External and Internal types. What this means and the justification are as follows: The External Delta and Beta types, the STs, are, functionally, the ones most connected to the physical realm. They're direct and maybe even too explicit(especially LSEs and SLEs).

This is refreshingly complementary to the most Internal types, the NFs, which also are part of Delta and Beta. These types notice very small details and internalize them into a picture of reality, making mountains out of molehills. They are, functionally, the most removed from the physical realm.

The Internal NFs receive the External STs' message in full, without having to guess where guessing would be unwelcome and too speculative causing confusion, as it would be for Abstract NTs and Involved SFs. Likewise, The External STs adhere to the Internal NFs' verbalizations and explicit behavior and not the myriad of tiny hints that would be amplified and a cause for controversy in Gamma and Alpha types.

[rat1]

Ni is actually a very objective function. Jungs Ni description is so bad. Ni calls on the whole persons unconscious experiences to muster an inference about objective reality. That's the closest to pure objectivity you can get. It starts in the unconscious yes, but that's not what defines it. That's why you find Ni types in academics. Se on the other hand will manipulate objective reality for personal ends. It sees the object; always through its senses, which is a very personal connection with the object.. the object isnt examined from multiple viewpoints at all, so it's totally subject to the errors of perception; and then it will control / manipulate the object toward a goal. That goal is a personal thing. Its a highly subjective function. Yes Ni types will get lost in the unconscious, but that's them trying to piece it all together and transcend their subjectivity.

[Tropski Bolest]

This article by @psevdonim's colleagues got me thinking about the dimensionality of functions.

If not everyone can write about lower dimensional functions, what about writers who write characters in books? Some descriptions are complete and accurate descriptions of real people in entirely fictional situations and fictional worlds done by people who are supposedly incapable of doing such a thing.

If anyone can spot and accurately asses the dimensionality of a function, why wouldn't they be able to reproduce it? Doesn't the ability to asses imply an ability to produce, reproduce? And if it doesn't, then couldn't one just just randomly write stuff until they get it? Kind of like, go in many different directions, check which direction holds most promise and then go that way, slowly converge to the result? Basically implement the method of steepest descent? And in that way be able to use a function like a completely different socionics type?

The dimensionality theory states that one cannot physically use all information, we lack abilities to process and manipulate certain information. If it's not valid, what's the alternative explanation? One can but just has a preference for certain information over others? If so why, where do these preferences come from? Is it that when we are born we have no informational preferences and no informational metabolism but develop one during growing up much like how a river carves a canyon? One is engraved through experience? Or are we born with a imbalance, kind of like the matter antimatter imbalance in the universe, and the natural interaction between the informational elements, this information inhibits that information, coupled with limited resources, you can't perceive everything all the time, carves the informational metabolism in the structured manner as described by socionics?