Article: Periodic System of the Socion

[Rick]

A new article has been brought to my attention by the author, Yuriy Bratkov. It's written/translated in excellent English and is available at http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1102.0033v1.pdf

Anything new or interesting here? (I fall asleep just from scrolling through articles like these.)

[pianosinger]

Ti-PoLR = This article does not compute.

[Galen]

Uhm, what the hell is meant by anything in this article? What constitutes "intensity" between people, what makes a type more "loud" than another? The problem is that he's not explicitly stating wtf he's doing, and I can't tell if he's implicitly stating what he's doing because Ti is a dick.

[pianosinger]

funny how every single person in this thread so far is Ti-PoLR...

[1981slater]

wtf what does socionics have to do with physics?

Seriously, interacting (in person) with those with whom I have positive intertype relations (mostly quadra) makes me feel good and viceversa.

Speaking on the article: in Chemistry, the reactant which controls a reaction is the most scarce. Bratkov claims that SLI doesn't actually supervise LIE in the physical dimension. I don't understand it, but I can build the following analogy: when I interact with LSIs, I tend to give them lots of ideas, which they reject. The truth is that THEY supervise ME, since their "openmindedness" is more "scarce" than my "brainstorm".

[Exodus]

funny how every single person in this thread so far is Ti-PoLR...

A new article has been brought to my attention by the author, Yuriy Bratkov. It's written/translated in excellent English and is available at http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1102.0033v1.pdf

Anything new or interesting here? (I fall asleep just from scrolling through articles like these.)

Based on a glance - I'm impressed by the amount of high-level math he manages to reference, but no. He mainly just rehashes a lot of obvious stuff both about math and socionics, but draws very few conclusions.

"This typology was known for some small groups of priests in ancient times [Sav]"

Rick, do you know anything about this reference?

I. D. Savchenko, S. V. Savchenko, ”Socionics and Taro: the matrix of the
socion”, Socionica, mentologia i psikhologia lichnosti, 1995, 3. (Russian)


"The periodic system of the socion (PSS) is one of the central results in socionics, and the most exotic and unstudied." <-- crackpot alert!

[Exodus]

ok, I'm trying to understand the so-called "PSS" now. The problem Galen points out is endemic to the paper: they're making lots of assumptions based on obscure empirical conclusions, and the rest of the paper is based on that. For example, why is LSE at the extreme left and IEI at the extreme right? Doesn't this introduce an asymmetry into the Model?

In my opinion all this mathematical structure needs to be justified. Model A is already pretty strict and adding anything to it is a serious undertaking.

[krieger]

not to burst anyone's weakness-justificational bubble, but the whole fall-asleep-from-information-overload thing is just totally not type related.

[krieger]

i'm having trouble even beginning to see the justification for the information voltage numbers presented in figure 6. The voltages between couples of the same intertype relation aren't even the same.

[Beautiful sky]

wow how awesome is this paper; it will take me some time, I'll read it soon. *Maritsa bookmarks page*

Thanks

[FDG]

I don't know, it can be interesting, but I don't fully understand how he's supporting certain claims. For example:

Augustinavichute has a strong intuition, as far as Shulman,
so there doesn’t exist any logical proof of this construction. (Maybe there are
errors in the PSS? Yes, they are.) The PSS was constructed experimentally.
Really, there are experimental foundations for the columns 1, 2, 6, and for some
very general scheme. The columns 3, 4, 5 were built by Shulman’s understanding
of symmetry.

The scheme he refers to founds the whole theory, so providing no justification for its inception is fishy. He should have explained the building process with more clarity.

K(t1; t2) is informational voltage in a sensory situation (a here and now situation). In an intuitive situation informational voltage is -K(t1; t2)

Why would it be negative for an intuitive situation? It seems to be constructed in a such a way to necessarily create an alternating "voltage" in asymmetric relationships.

But in a sensing situation control from SLI
to LIE doesn’t work. The direction of informational voltage is LIE ! SLI. In an
intuitive situation the direction is LIE Ã SLI. Experimental confirmation was
obtained by the author

How do you obtain experimental evidence in this case? My experience tells otherwise, for example. My sensing K-voltage wrt ILIs would be -3, wrt IEE -3.2, which means that they should apparently strongly supervise me in a physical, hands-on situation. That's dubious. Plus, I'm supposed to supervise ESIs in a physical setting, and they're supposed to intuitively supervise me - which contadicts the concept of N/S duality.
Let's analyze dual pairs only: 4 times out of 8, the intuitive partner has a supposed physical advantage over sensing (and vice versa).


Anyway, his ideas are interesting, especially when he introduces euclidean distance as a basis to estimate compatibility. Perhaps a more accurate grid could be ideated, in such a way to gain nonparadoxical insights. A 16-dimensional plane - each dimension related to a Reinin dichotomy - might be an idea, even though simply computing the euclidean distance wouldn't work, since certain dichtomies are complementary.

[Suz]

OK what i dont get is why the need to translate socionics into mathematical formulas? What exactly is the purpose of that? It's a way of saying the same thing we already know, just in number form. It's like pouring the empty into emptiness.

I guess maybe people who are weak in Fi need some tangible way of defining it (i.e. in math terms).





What a waste of time, brain resources, and paper...

p.s. well the ONE thing that maybe held some interesting conclusion was that not all relations of benefit are the same, nor are all relations of supervision. Something i've already observed irl. Heck even dualities are different from type pair to type pair.

[Suz]

wow how awesome is this paper; it will take me some time, I'll read it soon. *Maritsa bookmarks page*

Thanks

Ti-seeking.

[Beautiful sky]

Ti-seeking.

Which part of that is Ti seeking? The wanting to read something? The curiosity of new information?

[Suz]

Which part of that is Ti seeking? The wanting to read something? The curiosity of new information?

The content appeals to your need for Ti.

It's information that serves neither an efficient nor productive purpose, yet you find this pointless piece of writing "awesome." I find it quite boring and absolutely useless.

[krieger]

what made you think the Ti types around here think much different about it

[Suz]

what made you think the Ti types around here think much different about it

well i guess i stand corrected.

[jughead]

I would say the Ti types are less inclined to comment if they see it as uninteresting and basic, particuraly Betas / because they are inclined to already see it as useless alpha mental masturbation. Still no supervision?
My own thoughts.
Wow they made it into a board game with no explanations. JU make up the explanation! In Soviet Russia board game plays you!
Another useless TiNe example, annoying by being in badly translated Russian.
These articles all seem written in a way to pad their scientific abstract quality, as if to be smarter than they are. Maybe thats how I feel about Ne in general. (and most universities/school)
Damn math majors. Another way of saying it is a force exists but we don't know what causes this force, it's caused by an unknown structure, and we have bad means of measuring it.

Voltage hmm? I mean translated it just means certain types have the RIGHT voltage to be able to teach you something. To give you a "charge". That is to change or be able to actually teach someone I believe. Thats what it means to me. Think about the interaction between two fields... one persons is more static and unchanging while the other changes. In a more personal sense each person generates their own field when thinking and being themselves and only certain fields can creatively interact their own field energy with ceratain others own field. Certain batteries just work.
Ethics polr's cant see the nature of theses interaction fields and thus are seen as relationally dumb.
Sure I could turn off my brain but then I'm just a slave really, and certain relations with other people need to be there to create synergy with my own system.
I will have to read a bit more to reference other articles and scientific thingamabobs.

[krieger]

i see most of the behavior in this thread as something very defensive in an almost ego-centric way. like, people notice they can't understand the article and "retaliate" by making a sweeping statement that the article itself and the general class of activities it is an example of are useless, wrong, stupid, etc.

i don't get a very strong urge to decipher everything i see in the article, but i'm willing to suspend disbelief on it that there might be something to be learned if one did.

also, while i think there are a lot of things that are annoying about a mathematical presentation, it needs to be said that more ambiguous, colloquial presentations also suffer from major problems. Most of the communication going on on this forum, for example, is very loss-heavy and prone to creating disagreements between people. The result is that people tend not to agree on function definitions, let alone typings. Breaking out of a stalemate like that with more rigorous methods is not an easy task, but it is nevertheless the only way forward.

[EyeSeeCold]

Mathematical equations lose clarity in regards to their application to reality.

[jughead]

People on this forum are tired as hell of badly translated crap that gets them no-where. They hunger for their own working explanation and application. (namely thier quadra). Since all the research and such is like this and old.... plus the new moderation rules that are basically anti-beta, thats why the forum has died pretty much. The progress bar is stuck.

[mirrorsoul]

Okay, I don't fully understand the article, but I did read the whole thing.

I can tell you that the first several pages basically reiterate what we already know about Socionics, and attempts to provide Mathematical justifications for it, using various theories, systems, and analogies.

It rehashes intertype relationships and the three-letter type structure, and then starts attempting to redefine the dichotomies as binary numbers (which isn't difficult, given that the dichotomies ARE binary), and sorting them according to position in an attempt to construct a graphical map of how types should relate to one another.

This reminds me of something that a very obsessive, intellectual friend of mine use to try and do with MBTI types, but with much less success due to the lack of internal logical coherence in MBTI.

Anyway, this eventually results in a map of our current theory of intertype relationships. It explains how the theory is constructed upon the premise of informational energy exchange of some kind (the word "voltage" was used, which doesn't really make sense, but I got the impression that they meant energy). I also think that "glued" meant "plotted," in case you were curious.

The most important theory put forth in the article, and the only part that really differs from our current assumptions, is the idea that Intuitive supervision and Sensory supervision sometimes (if not always) operate in the REVERSE direction, but that it usually doesn't matter, because Intuitive types aren't really "present" in a sensory way, due to having their "heads in the clouds," so to speak.

Basically, my impression of the article is that it doesn't really attempt to put forth any new information, but rather mostly attempts to reformulate and justify existing Socionic theory within the context of mathematics.

The only way this article is of interest, is if you're interested in trying to understand the structure behind how Supervisory relations (might) work, and what circumstances might, in theory, cause them to be reversed.

There's also an interesting discussion about languages near the end, and I don't understand why it was thrown in there.

It talks about how a single root concept can result in different words branching off from it and acquiring different connotations, if I'm not mistaken. It also claims that Russian and English are mostly similar, but that English has more detail than some language called Samyi? I think.

There's also, I believe, an implication that the structure of language itself has an Ni nature due to the way it handles concepts? That's a bit of a leap, but they try to provide justification.

[jughead]

"The most important theory put forth in the article, and the only part that really differs from our current assumptions, is the idea that Intuitive supervision and Sensory supervision sometimes (if not always) operate in the REVERSE direction, but that it usually doesn't matter, because Intuitive types aren't really "present" in a sensory way, due to having their "heads in the clouds," so to speak. "

AKa Sarah Palin tries to mama bear me into behaving and I give her the mental run-around.

[jughead]

More highdeas:
Your semi-dual is like you but the reverse sensing/intuition. ESE-EII, LSE-LII, ILI-SLE, SEE-IEI etc. Your dual is you but two opposites. They just split you apart to cover a bigger range. MAN - WOMAN

[Beautiful sky]

People on this forum are tired as hell of badly translated crap that gets them no-where. They hunger for their own working explanation and application. (namely thier quadra). Since all the research and such is like this and old.... plus the new moderation rules that are basically anti-beta, thats why the forum has died pretty much. The progress bar is stuck.

If people would stick to Jung, maybe things wouldn't be that unclear.

[Rick]

i see most of the behavior in this thread as something very defensive in an almost ego-centric way. like, people notice they can't understand the article and "retaliate" by making a sweeping statement that the article itself and the general class of activities it is an example of are useless, wrong, stupid, etc.

i don't get a very strong urge to decipher everything i see in the article, but i'm willing to suspend disbelief on it that there might be something to be learned if one did.

also, while i think there are a lot of things that are annoying about a mathematical presentation, it needs to be said that more ambiguous, colloquial presentations also suffer from major problems. Most of the communication going on on this forum, for example, is very loss-heavy and prone to creating disagreements between people. The result is that people tend not to agree on function definitions, let alone typings. Breaking out of a stalemate like that with more rigorous methods is not an easy task, but it is nevertheless the only way forward.

I agree with you. Well said. Math generally gets a bad rap, mostly just because it's hard and requires specific training to understand. Rigorous methods are the future (if there is a future for socionics).

On the other hand, if the paper contained calculations of, say, the radiation balance of the Earth, I think many people's attitudes would be different. There would be no question about whether the application of math was justified or not. Nobody questions the laws of thermodynamics (well, except for certain religious people). Here, we are dealing with a model (socionics) that is imperfect in the first place because it doesn't account for all the factors that play a significant role in the unfolding of relationships. So, accepting the socionic model as a given and doing this sort of theoretical work without addressing the problematic nature of the underlying assumptions seems a bit futile.

Granted, some of this "futility" eventually leads to "interesting" things later on, so it's wrong to classify this type of activity itself as "useless." If nothing else, it's a good mental exercise like much of what people do here anyway.

[Suz]

If people would stick to Jung, maybe things wouldn't be that unclear.

That apparently hasn't helped you much. You're more confused than anyone else here, really.

[Beautiful sky]

That apparently hasn't helped you much. You're more confused than anyone else here, really.

Very clear to me

[Suz]

Very clear to me

I mean, yeah, what's sad and bodes poorly for you is that you have poor insight into your confusion. Which means your confusion will never improve.

It's apparent to everyone else though.

[Beautiful sky]

I mean, yeah, what's sad and bodes poorly for you is that you have poor insight into your confusion. Which means your confusion will never improve.

It's apparent to everyone else though.

[Exodus]

I agree with you. Well said. Math generally gets a bad rap, mostly just because it's hard and requires specific training to understand. Rigorous methods are the future (if there is a future for socionics).

I see where labcoat is coming from. However, in most aspects Socionics is not a rigorously mathematical theory, so you can't apply mathematical methods to it, except in very limited ways.

Much of the math in the paper (especially the last section) is used metaphorically, not to produce actual predictions. (Not to mention the fact that the underlying assumptions are obscure.) That's why I'm skeptical.

[Nexus]

I fail to see the point of this article.

[Ozz]

I tried to read and understand it, however, the math simply went over my head.

I'll leave this for other people.

[Ozz]

Figure 3: Interesting. Does that mean IEE doesn't talk since they are the smallest in terms of 'loudness'?
Figure 6: where did it came from? Experiments as well?

[limNol]

Socionics has so much internal structure that it's possible to "reinterpret" it in millions of unique ways without actually adding anything to it. My initial impression is that that's what's happening here...

[Sir Knight]

I realized he wasn't actually going to explain any of the math he was doing any time soon, so I just x'd out and figured I would wait for someone else to interpret it and explain it to us math-dullards and then I would say, "Ah, yes, this is exactly right. I knew all along that was what was going on here."

[Aiss]

I failed to click the original link.

Am I Ti-PoLR?

[Suz]

I failed to click the original link.

Am I Ti-PoLR?

no, it's because you're smart.

[mu4]

I see where labcoat is coming from. However, in most aspects Socionics is not a rigorously mathematical theory, so you can't apply mathematical methods to it, except in very limited ways.

Much of the math in the paper (especially the last section) is used metaphorically, not to produce actual predictions. (Not to mention the fact that the underlying assumptions are obscure.) That's why I'm skeptical.

Any mathematical analysis of socionics has to be consistent with Model A or a expanded model that is well justified.

This is where the article needs some serious work it's lacking. It take multiple big leaps in assumptions and then applies some mathematical algorithms without much justification.

I just don't see how these connections are being made and how Model A is being expanded. The writer is sticking a horn on a horse and calling it a unicorn. You don't really need to understand the math at all to be skeptical of this article, since all you have to do is be skeptical of the assumptions being made.

[silke]

I failed to click the original link.

Am I Ti-PoLR?

bad eye to mouse coordination is probably too much Ne and not enough Si