Quote:
Originally Posted by ifmd95
these "values" would be magnitudes by which we'd weigh each dichotomy's significance w.r.t a given outcome, correct?
Hmm, "outcome" is a bit too qualitative, but that's about right. I've been thinking in the context of relationships, but it could be applied to properties of types. For example, if S=1 and F=1, then all SF types are rated 2, ST and NF 1, and NT 0. That's a partial ordering, which you could call Socialness or something.
Quote:
if the given outcome is "compatibility" with other given types, then i agree some sort of variable magnitude scheme might be useful in creating a mathematic model for the functional "complementariness" Model A asserts more qualitatively. this is obvious because without some variable magnitudes here, wouldn't there be no difference between the compatibility with your dual and that with your conflictor? because of this i was never tempted to assume all dichotomies are equal in "rating relationships".
I've been a bit biased by Smilingeyes here. His descriptions of how Positive/Process/Narrator work in duality are excellent, which seems to imply that all of the dichotomies are relevant. Perhaps they still are, but of course not to the same extent. (I'll get back to you on this.)
Quote:
the given outcome i was referring to is if a generalized form of some type was just compared side by side with another type: how different would their information metabolism be, relative to the differences between other types? (there's an assumption here that this corresponds to reinin dichotomies i addressed earlier.) i am tempted to assume all dichotomies are equal in this case (and so all the associated magnitudes equal and irrelevant) because it seems most parsimonious.
I'm not sure what you mean. To the extent that there is a difference between types, a dichotomy expresses it.
Quote:
if we were to empirically estimate every human being's reinin traits and adjust the system so that internal consistency is maximized, we might encounter tradeoffs in parsimoniousness relevant to these magnitudes, such as: making all dichotomies weighed equally. making all dichotomies distributed equally. making all types distributed equally, etc. however there are an infinite many variations to these tradeoffs that are possible. and an infinite many plausible explanations such as: culture, economics, the stuff of integral types.
The problem is not with the Reinin model; it is internally consistent. Any static model of the human psyche can be reformulated according to it.
However, the model also predicts the existence of things that are not intuitively obvious. But as long as they are measurable, they must be taken at face value. It's similar to the prediction of the positron.
Quote:
if socionics is to be a generalized theory of information metabolism, it makes sense to me to avoiding tainting the most central mathematical models with such local adjustments. there are already local adjustments implicit in the qualitative aspects of the theory such as the type and function descriptions written for given audience, in case you're worried about relativism and practicality (e.g. what if society A is so saturated with traits X, Y, Z that the ability of our model to make many useful differentiations and predictions within A disappears?)
Ideally the qualitative aspects come directly from the model. I've been focusing on the syntax, but the semantics is where the solution really lies. Semantics is a difficult question in general, but unfortunately you can't get rid of it. Smilingeyes tried to capture the semantic aspects formally - but I'm not sure if he was entirely successful. Socionics definitions (except in qualitative, holistic form) are so conceptually remote from experience that their meaning becomes hazy, especially when you have to derive new, equally meaningful concepts.
Quote:
practical application aside, would you agree with the mathematical argument that if the associated magnitudes are equal (or omitted) then all types appear equally dissimilar in terms of reinin dichotomies? (checking my math heh)
Yes.