smilexian socionics: can someone explain something

[xerx]

...about type change?

Say you want to change your type from ENTp to ESTp. Then:

E
N >> S
T
P
EN >> ES
ET
EP
NT >> ST
NP >> SP
TP
ENT >> EST
ENP >> ESP
ETP
NTP >> STP
ENTP >> ESTP

All the dichotomies in bold shouldn't change at all since they're the same for ENTp and ESTp. *The union of the dichotomies E, T, P, ET, EP, TP, ETP designates creating Ti.* They shouldn't be affected at all whether you are ILE or SLE.

In other words, the dichotomies E, N, T, P are linearly independent. Changing N >> S has absolutely no effect on T.

There is no such thing as "maximum Ti" among EPs, since the T dichotomy isn't affected by the change from ILE to SLE. So what's the purpose of grafting Ti to the right side of the clockface? Does this mean that subtypes are not fully defined in Smilexian socionics?




discuss!

[xerx]

The only explanation I can think of is that Smilexian subtypes shouldn't in any way correspond to absolute function strength.

Is that correct?

The way he writes is impossible for me to focus on, like getting your eyes clawed out from the inside, just kidding (not really). I've only ever skimmed through his articles.

[Gilly]

If you look at the Socion as a continuum of functional strengths, rather than one of absolute relatives, it makes sense. For example, if you go from ILE to SLE, the point between them is maximum Ti in EPs, as well as maximum Te and minimum Fe and Fi. It is the maximum of Si and Se for ILEs, and maximum of Ni and Ne for SLEs.

You just have to think of the functions as "sliding" relative to the others: More T means less F, less N means more S, and visa versa.

[Minde]

Yes, I think Gilly has it right.


Don't know if they'll help at all, but here are a couple quotes from the Smilexian socionics thread with regard to the concepts of "abstract" and "concrete":

Now that we have the clock-face metaphor working I'll add the final bits of terminology that relates to moving on the clock-face. Question: Where does intuition start and not intuition begin? We see intuition reading at 12 o'clock. So, if we stand there, we're using intuition. How about one over 12? How about one second over 12? It's already something different from the absolute of intuition. True pure intuition is only at the undefinably small point of exactly 12 o'clock. So, what's 12:01? We'll need to add a definition. It's something that is close to intuition. I support the use of the word 'Concrete' to refer to something that is to the clockwise direction of a particular entity on the clock-face and 'Abstract' for something that is to the anti-clockwise direction. The idea is that when one is at the point of 11:59 one is trying to reach the perfect point of absolute intuition, but one can not have a complete understanding of something that one has not reached. Hence one's conception of the item that one is trying to reach is abstract. On the other hand at 12:01 o'clock one has a concrete memory of the characteristic of perfect absolute intuition, since one has passed it and experienced it. One can use the term 'concrete intuition' to at least the part from 12:00 to 1:30. From then on it's better to talk about abstract thinking. So at 1:30, the point of absolute 'social closedness' there also exists the border between intuition and thinking. No area of the clock-face is by itself abstract or concrete, the definitions are only in reference to something else. While the area between 12:00 to 1:30 can be called concrete intuition, it would not be incorrect to also call the same thing 'abstract social closedness'.

I understood all of that, I think. If I were approaching a stop sign, one could say that I was "abstract stop sign" since I had not yet experienced stopping at the sign. But once I started going through the intersection, I could be considered "concrete stop sign," right? Not that you can really apply that to such a situation, but that's the general idea, yes?

[xerx]

About the continuum thing..

That's exactly the point I'm having problems with. N and T are independent. If you change N >> S, the strength of T isn't affected at all. T is basically in its own home.

I'm trying to see the socion as a sliding continuum, but there doesn't seem to be a logical basis for it.

The basic Reinin dichotomies (E N T P) are linearly independent and don't affect each other. Continuum subtypes can't exist using this model.

Or so it seems.

[Gilly]

About the continuum thing..

That's exactly the point I'm having problems with. N and T are independent. If you change N >> S, the strength of T isn't affected at all. T is basically in its own home.

But an ILE-Ne is closer to IEE, whereas an ILE-Ti is closer to SLE. The intuitive subtype will have stronger ethics and weaker logic; logic is still stronger than ethics, because it's a logical type, but an Ne-ILE would have stronger Fi and Fe than the ILE-Ti, whereas the ILE-Ti would have stronger Se and Si.

[xerx]

But an ILE-Ne is closer to IEE, whereas an ILE-Ti is closer to SLE. The intuitive subtype will have stronger ethics and weaker logic; logic is still stronger than ethics, because it's a logical type, but an Ne-ILE would have stronger Fi and Fe than the ILE-Ti, whereas the ILE-Ti would have stronger Se and Si.

My argument is that this system of subtypes is somewhat presumptuous, given the linear independence of the Reinin dichotomies. N and T are independent of each other. Why? Because it's only possible to get ESTp from ENTp by varying one dichotomy -- N >> S. T can be anything. And as long as it is present (over 50%), you'll still get an ESTp.

The Reinin dichotomies are predicated on the assumption that the Jungian dichotomies are linearly independent and do not overlap.

Say you have an ENTp with N at 100%. We put him at 12:00 on the clockface.
ENTp with N at 66%. We put him at 2:00 on the clockface.
ENTp with N at 51%. We would have to put him near 3:00. He's almost an ESTp.

The model expects T in the first case to be at 50% and rising for all subsequent cases, until it reaches 100% in the third case.

But what if there is an ENTp with N at 51% and T at 51%? This is entirely plausible given the linear independence of the Reinin dichotomies. We would have to put him near 3:00, even though he has poor Ti. This is an unaccounted for subtype of ENTp that contradicts the smooth progression of the model.

The model assumes that you'll be altering both dichotomies (N and T) simultaneously while moving along the clockface and doesn't really account for all possible subtypes.

[xerx]

I agree.

If you repeat your analysis and factor in ESTP = +T, -S and ENTP = -T, +N:

E
+N >> -S
-T>>+T
P
+EN >> -ES
-ET >> +ET
EP
-NT >> -ST
+NP >> -SP
-TP >> +TP
-ENT >> -EST
+ENP >> -ESP
-ETP >> +ETP
-NTP >> +STP
-ENTP >> -ESTP

then you'll see that only E, P and EP remain the same - which is consistent with the 4 temperament clockfaces. :wink:

This is interesting, you could probably make a graph of relative dichotomic strengths as you move through the types, if you set maximal T = 0, minimal T = Fi (9 o'clock) = -/+ 1, you'd get a pretty sine graph which I think is a representation of functional strength consistent with Model A.

Not that I have any idea whether I'm still adhering to smilexian principles.

This is actually very mathematically sound. :wink:

But you're not adhering to Smilex's principles. +ET and -ET should stay the same for both ENTp and ESTp. ET is the yielding Reinin dichotomy, which is the same for both ESTp and ENTp, as are TP and ETP. They designate what ENTp and ESTp have in common -- which is creative Ti.

[FDG]

All right... inverse tan graphs for Ep types! I change my mind so much... This is so 0 = weakest and infinity = strongest, it seems better that way but obviously it's an arbitrary designation. N/S and T/F are negative inverses of each other. Happily the types all correspond to the clockface, if you interpret the clockface as a unit circle.


x-axis: Balanced types
ENXp = 0
ENTp = 0.25π
EXTp = 0.5π
ESTp = 0.75π
ESXp = π
ESFp = 1.25π
EXFp = 1.5π
ENFp = 1.75π
ENXp = 2π

y-axis:
0 = lowest strength, infinity = peak, -/+ corresponds to -/+, scale otherwise is arbitrary

E.g. ENXp has maximal (infinite) Ne, equal amounts of -T and +F, no Se. ENTp (balanced subtype) has equal +Ne and -Ti, and smaller, equal amounts of -Se and +Fi.

Mmm. Really nice. I think that the sinusoidal is a little bit more intuitive,though. I haven't slept enough to think about it deeply, but I guess you can derive that tangent function dividing cos and sin waves of large-cycle and small-cycle reinin dichotomies. Kudos for the idea, anyway.

[717495]

Uhm... I don't even want to know.

[Minde]

Perhaps you are forgetting the "abstract"/"concrete" concepts? Abstract is where you are before a certain point; concrete is where you are after a certain point, and each has its own properties. E.g. abstract Ti is where you are "before" the strongest point of T (3:00 on the clock face) and you are concrete Ti after that point. I think the two, um, states - if you will - can extent all the way to the other side of the clock face (where Fi is strongest), but I think it's most often used in reference to the quarters (or even eighths) closest to whatever point it is.

[xerx]

Perhaps you are forgetting the "abstract"/"concrete" concepts? Abstract is where you are before a certain point; concrete is where you are after a certain point, and each has its own properties. E.g. abstract Ti is where you are "before" the strongest point of T (3:00 on the clock face) and you are concrete Ti after that point. I think the two, um, states - if you will - can extent all the way to the other side of the clock face (where Fi is strongest), but I think it's most often used in reference to the quarters (or even eighths) closest to whatever point it is.

Yes this explanation works since it means that subtypes don't change function strength, just certain general traits associated with a type. Abstract and concrete are the traits in this case.

Thanks.

If this is true, then I think I'm beginning to understand why Smilex is against model A so much. Model A (and Rick) is all about function strength.

[UDP]

functional strength should really be called functional focus. This idea of people "increasing the strength" of functions seems kind of silly.

Perhaps function isn't even the right word, maybe element.

[krieger]

There is no such thing as "maximum Ti" among EPs, since the T dichotomy isn't affected by the change from ILE to SLE. So what's the purpose of grafting Ti to the right side of the clockface? Does this mean that subtypes are not fully defined in Smilexian socionics?

To echo Minde: T goes from being - to being +. Smilingeyes thought of the EXTp type, with it's maximally strong Ti, as a type of it's own that a person changed "through" in between of a change from ENTp to ESTp or vice versa. He also spoke of people that spent time focussing on Ti to exclusion of other functions for long periods of time. Such a person would have a more or less stable EXTp "type".

If you change N >> S, the strength of T isn't affected at all.

Under a sliding continuum interpretation the strength of T would first raise until the EXTp state is reached, and then drop again to reach a strength level at ESTp equal to the one it was at at ENTp. One implication of this is that T is strong but raising in ENTp, and equally strong but falling in ESTp. It's all solely academic, of course, because "raising T" is "strong N" and "falling T" is "strong S". You can drop the whole raising/falling terminology and just use strong/weak without missing anything.

[xerx]

Under a sliding continuum interpretation the strength of T would first raise until the EXTp state is reached, and then drop again to reach a strength level at ESTp equal to the one it was at at ENTp. One implication of this is that T is strong but raising in ENTp, and equally strong but falling in ESTp. It's all solely academic, of course, because "raising T" is "strong N" and "falling T" is "strong S". You can drop the whole raising/falling terminology and just use strong/weak without missing anything.

Why is Ti falling in Se egos. Can't Ti strengthen in the clockwise direction?

[xerx]

Reading the posts in this thread, I take back what I said about smilex not liking function strength.


So as far as I can tell, the criteria for assigning "strength" to a creative function as you move along the clockface is rather arbitrary.

There is no reason that the point between Ne and Se is maximum Ti. This is only the point where ENTp's Ti blends with ESTp's Ti. Nothing could possibly suggest that this is where Ti is strongest, only where it is least differentiated ---> which ironically could imply that it is weak/useless.

The whole clockface analogy seems wrong. Creative function strength doesn't move in any kind of continuum.

[xerx]

The problem is that Smilex is trying to alter one dichotomy, in order to create a two subtype system.

You need to alter at least two dichotomies to arrive at 2x2 = 4 subtypes. This is a model in which talking about function strength is actually a well-defined proposition.

And no, I'm not trying to be a DCNH ideologue or anything.