Rules for IM transfer?

[science as magic]

science is the new magic that we must learn to evolve beyond

[diamond]

What's IM again?

[discourse]

I don't know what do say. I write on other reason. You sayd, you are INTJ. But in my observations, when INTJ reveals a new theory, his theory is full on new consepts. You must have used , but you are not making new consepts, so my idea is, that you are actually ENTP, who is introverted and has strong and developed creative Logic of Structure. Correlates with the idea, that you take facts and then look, if they are correct or not, which is not the method of INTP or INTJ, at least seen in this forum.

[Waddlesworth]

Well, I'm going to keep assuming Pedro the Lion is INTj. He's the best man the make the diagnosis for himself.

I'm ENTp and I can make new concepts(depends on what you consider 'new'- sorta a chicken and egg thing if you ask me)

I like to look at it this way "the most unoriginal ideas are inevitably the most original ideas of them all" :wink:

But I just want to say this- i'm workin' on it pedro the lion. I have had some ideas as well and will consider your findings. I usually use the windows draw program to make up my little charts and diagrams. perhaps i can eventually e-mail them to you. the only problem is my ideas are fragmented and all over the place. i just have to fit them together. i'll use your notes as a guide.

[science as magic]

science is the new magic that we must learn to evolve beyond

[Waddlesworth]

I have been thinking alot about this stuff over the past couple of days. Although I don't have any theory or synthesis on IM rules, i feel this data might be helpful. I could have made a mistake in my interpretation of the rules of functional analysis, but it seems to work. I can't help but wonder if some of them may go the other way around.

Pure Understanding corresponds with your Ego block. Direct=identical, reversed=mirror

Pure Inhibition corresponds with your Super-Ego block. Direct=Super-ego, reversed=conflicting

Pure Support corresponds with the Super-Id block. Direct=Duality, Reversed=Activity

Pure Correction corresponds with your Id block. Direct=Contrary, Reversed= Quasi-Identical


But if we mix things up we get some more combinations:


Understanding + Inhibition: Direct=Comparative, Reversed=Supervisor

Inhibition + Understanding: Direct= Look alike, Reversed= Supervisee

Correction + Support: Direct= Illusionary, Reversed= Beneficiary

Support + Correction: Direct=Semi-duality, Reversed= Benefactor


*It looks as though the reverse is always the mirror of the corresponding direct

Note the transition of information from Quadra to Quadra. Adjacent Quadras contain a sort of “plasma” of information fragments, which settle in the succeeding Quadra as the “byproduct” of the initial Quadra’s creative acts, producing a quadra which has opposing value systems relative to the initial quadra (like I have said “one quadra’s means is the other quadra’s end”).

Right now I’m assuming distance aspects simply represent the position of a function in the informational directional current(directional current being represented by E/I dichotomy and exist in opposing conscious and unconscious states). I still have a lot of thinking to do about this, but I feel I’m making progress. I think the above information I put down may be helpful to some in understanding Functional Analysis- or at least in seeing some concrete examples of what it actually is. If anyone notices any errors please tell me, as i am uncertain as to the accuracy of my ordering of the Direct and Reversed definitions.

[metaiwan]

Weddlesworth, all those direct - reversed are correct. I have never thought about it like this:

Understanding + Inhibition: Direct=Comparative, Reversed=Supervisor

Inhibition + Understanding: Direct= Look alike, Reversed= Supervisee

Correction + Support: Direct= Illusionary, Reversed= Beneficiary

Support + Correction: Direct=Semi-duality, Reversed= Benefactor



One thing I've wanted to research lately is that the aspect (+/-) changes the nature of our intertype relations between adjacent quadras but not identical or contrary quadras. For instance, it seems to suggest the Supervisor's power over the supervisee is not directly tied with the Supervisor having direct control over the Supervisee's POLR, but seems to add the suggestive function as another very important part of this intertype relation, with the Supervisor's 7th function having more to do with the POLR. But this isn't well defined, since the correct functions are there but they are reversed. The aspect article I'm familiar with calls the 'other' function the "is plus" or something like that, but I wonder if we could find ourselves how it affects these relations and either find this adds more clarity to these relations or finds it goes against the evidence and understanding we have. Either way, it's definately more complicated. It makes these adjacent quadra relations more complex, which is something I've always felt. Something I wish I had the time right now to look into further.

[science as magic]

science is the new magic that we must learn to evolve beyond

[Slava]

These theories assume that the flow of information internally is serial in nature. One function picks it up, then it flows and flows. Isn't it more likely that they are cross connected and work simultaniously within the mind? Is there any kind of data we can use for this? I would start from the ground up, asking myself, what is it that us humans want to hear? what is it that we like to speak about? What kinds of things do we talk about for hours after being long deprived of someone to transmit to? I think that systems like these can only be understood all at once as a whole, and can not be broken down into components, like the systems in a car. It seems more parallel and interconnected. What are your foundations for your theory? I'm not trying to prove or disprove it, I'm just curious how you constructed it. Was the entire theory an intuitive insite, or was it a combination of existing theories?

[CuriousSoul]

You raise some interesting questions. As always emprical evidence would be nice to have... I should think that there must be a lot of parallel processing going on in the brain, but on the other hand the capacity of human mind to consciously process information is quite strictly limited, so perhaps it makes sense to think in terms of information flowing in a certain predefined order. Many of the claims about the behavior of functions in intertype relations would seem to make intuitively sense to me: I believe to have noticed that in many occasions I instinctively try to suppress excessive or seemingly uncontrolled Fe with my Fi, for example.

[science as magic]

science is the new magic that we must learn to evolve beyond

[Slava]

Taking a look at ant societies, it seems that nature tries to make things as optimal as possible, which translates to a higher integration of internal functions than between two people's functions. Making internal metabolism different than external. I think most of the interactions are a result of human emotions related to lacking a strength, and jealousy or hiding a weakness and fearing someone with that as a strength exposing this. For example, I would not feel a relation of supervision in relation to a supervisor ape. Because my weak function is most likely stronger than his strong one. Same with other social animals. I think it all has to do with diplomacy between two entities. Having similar things to struggle for. Yes, this can all be described more systematically and that is what we are trying to do, but we have to look at the feeling aspect of it first I believe. Feelings describe everything we are talking about, we just gotta verbalize it. Maybe we just need to go out and find a girl , prefferably duality, to help us with socionics.

[science as magic]

all things must pass

[Slava]

I agree with you. Force however seems like a lacking of Intuition of potential. The reason being... I would only force something if I didn't consider possible consequences. For example, Ne tells me that Forcing my opinion on a scary person might get me killed, so I wont. Or forcing anything on something, might cause a negative reaction. If I were to lack Intuition of Potential on the other hand, I might force someone to do something, and 90% of the time nothing bad will happen. I can force a can of propane open with a hack saw, possibly making it explode without thinking of the possibilities (i have seen many S people do very dangerous things similar to this, like welding next to their gas tank). While it is practical, it has potential danger. So maybe one function is a lack of another? How can we really tell?

[science as magic]

all things must pass

[Slava]

Thats so cool, theres many other things in nature that I can think of where a hole is filled with an inverse hole.