Modified 4-letter code

[Taknamay]

Yeah, I know I'm making a lot of theories even though I'm new, but... I just have so many ideas sometimes. Also, just in case someone may have brought this up, sorry for redundancy.

So, here is my idea. Here is the 4-letter code typically used:

Extraverted/Introverted
iNtuition/Sensing
Thinking/Feeling
perceiving/judging

Which is based on Jung's original typology. But Socionics is actually a lot different than Jung's original typology. In order to distinguish itself from the original typology as well as MBTI, I think this makes sense:

Extraverted/Introverted
iNtuition/Sensing
Thinking/Feeling
StatiC/Dynamic

Now, I realize there are complications with this. First off, the only letter in static that made sense to me was the C. I haven't thought this system entirely through, but I thought it was worth mentioning. The main problems I have right now are sorting out the intertype relations. To make it easier, I will just make a list of types using this:

3-letter/MBTIesque 4-letter/My 4-letter

ILE / ENTp / ENTC
SEI / ISFp / ISFD
ESE / ESFj / ESFD
LII / INTj / INTC
EIE / ENFj / ENFD
LSI / ISTj / ISTC
SLE / ESTp / ESTC
IEI / INFp / INFD
SEE / ESFp / ESFC
ILI / INTp / INTD
LIE / ENTj / ENTD
ESI / ISFj / ISFC
LSE / ESTj / ESTD
EII / INFj / INFC
IEE / ENFp / ENFC
SLI / ISTp / ISTD

It does not feel intuitive, and that may be because it does not divide the functions obviously. For example, Se or is obviously extraverted because of the "e" or the "black color". It is also obviously irrational because "S" or the "circle shape" stands for "sensing" which is an inherently irrational function, to those who are familiar with Jungian types. But Se is not instinctively statiC, since neither "S" nor "e" alone can reveal this, it is only clear in conjunction. That's probably the best argument against this system.

[anndelise]

Just a note you can use to help support your idea,
If you allow for the dimensions of model a functions, the main difference between say, an infp and an infj is that one is static, the other dynamic, all of their dimensions are the same.
Both have
4D Fi, Ni
3D Fe, Ne
2D Si, Ti
1D Se, Te

This would apply to any of the types
ENTx
ENFx
INTx
INFx
ESTx
ESFx
ISTx
ISFx

[Reuben]

Why you so brilliant delise

[Taknamay]

If you allow for the dimensions of model a functions, the main difference between say, an infp and an infj is that one is static, the other dynamic, all of their dimensions are the same.

That is actually a point I haven't even thought about. That does reveal a lot about quasi-identities to me. Thank you, ann.

[EyeSeeCold]

Yes, it's an interesting point. The difference between types with the same code is Consciousness/Unconsciousness, also called Mental/Vital.

It does not feel intuitive, and that may be because it does not divide the functions obviously. For example, Se or is obviously extraverted because of the "e" or the "black color". It is also obviously irrational because "S" or the "circle shape" stands for "sensing" which is an inherently irrational function, to those who are familiar with Jungian types. But Se is not instinctively statiC, since neither "S" nor "e" alone can reveal this, it is only clear in conjunction. That's probably the best argument against this system.

I'm not sure I follow, especially this section.

What exactly are you against in the system? How does the notion that Static/Dynamic is a conjunction of X+y support your position?


Also, although you're right about the conjunction bit, functions come before dichotomies. Se is innately Static, it is a property that exists because of the nature of the functions.


Base Se would tell us right off the bat:
Irrational
Extravert
Static
Sensing
Decisive
External(?)
Involved(?)
ESp

And that's using elements before 16 are created due to Model A.

[Taknamay]

No, you were missing my point. I meant it was the best argument against my position. Hehe, guess I should clarify that.

And the rest of what you are saying, I agree, but I am just looking for weak spots in the system I am proposing before I outright advocate it.