The Dimensionality of Functions
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).
Dimensionality of functions
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.
Differences between 4D and 3D
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.
The Dimensionality of Functions
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?