Where do temperaments come from?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

This was not the issue, but the fact that Positivist+Process are all anyway Static, and so on, only two of these dichotomies were required, the other is redundant. This is obvious even for the fact that 16/2/2/2 = 2, instead of 4, so you would have needed 8 groups using 3 dichotomies.

Is there some point to this? I could have used 2 and omitted the third but chose not to. There is no rational reason to neglect mentioning one.

So I suppose there is no way that we talk on common ground, therefore to ever agree...

I don't see how that follows. We can exchange methods and paradigms and see how well they work for us.

So where are the higher fruits then, why can't people see them at all?

Some people see them more easily than others. Sometimes all it takes is for one person to point something out for the rest to notice the thing.

Totally irrelevant. The point was that those dichotomies don't exist and you can't prove them even to someone who has all the goodwill in the world (that doesn't include blind belief).

Then, you can check my posting history for explanations almost all my understanding, how the approach I use neatly, this time for real, matches everything with new insights and realizations of why old things were there already in the Socionics model descriptions. My last one is here, three posts. Things match perfectly with all what we know, descriptions of types and functions, quadra values, it's all explained there for a child to understand.
Now please, don't focus on me anymore, because I don't use j/p more than Irrationality/Rationality on functions so I don't have to prove anything about this matter, until the contrary is proven (by you or myself), these dichotomies simply don't exist for me.

They do exist and you are deficient in not noticing them. Gee, we seem to be at an impasse...

My opinion is that you'd better get on the real shit and don't waste any more time with that philosophy. We may have constructive discussions.

And btw, the concepts you use have proven by practice (our discussions) to be in contradiction to different things, to invent new problems, somewhere there is a contradiction. I don't remember much to be concrete, apart for that discussion we had when I was telling you that j/p is not fundamental, sadly at that point I had no argument against it so we got stuck that time.

There are no significant contradictions raised by my introductions. The last time we spoke about I/E and J/P and which of the two is fundamental you failed to provide proof of the claim that the Russian socionists consider J/P non-fundamental, on top of the fact that such an appeal to authority was the best argument you could suggest to provide in the first place.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Can you make a thread about your views on the fundamentality of I/E some time? I may be sceptical, but I am also curious about how you deal with the problems that would occur in the formation of a paradigm on that basis.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

It means you didn't understand the issue: the problem is keeping j/p as an independent base dichotomy. Combining for example j with T for some types, then j with F for others to create a new stuff is wrong, and it appears that the same bogus is caused by combining I/E with the T/P/N/S (eg. ET = Obstinate/Compliant) - we know that these functions are independently E or I.

Temperament and therefore J/P come about directly from the nature of the leading function. As I understand it, the difference with temperament and reinin dichotomies is that temperament and J and P are direct results from the nature of a types leading function, and therefore they exist as independent and not combinations of dichotomy traits, which is something else entirely, ie what Reinin is.

That is, J and P are direct manifestations of the properties of functions. Reinin combines derived dichotomy in combinations to create new dichotomies.

So I suppose it's possible to dispute not quite theexistance but more the empirical validity of Reinin, but it's not as easy to dispute the J and P since it is derived from function base and therefore closer to the 'source'.

Edit: I should say I don't have much interest in Reinin, just that Reinin and the 4 main dichotomies are derived in a different way. And if you accept that types have a leading function, then it necessarily follows one has to accept that types also have a life 'rhythm', and I don't see how it's manifestation doesn't easily stand up to personal experience.

Hmm, I also don't particularly see the point in Reinin dichotomies, as they just go back to Model A to try to describe themselves, and I find these combinations to be rather vague in practice, but i'll keep an open mind.

[Aiss]

It is redundant in every way, except in that it so nicely fits the quadra succession paradigm: + is what you "receive" from the previous quadra in the chain, whereas - is what you pass on to the next quadra in the chain.

I've been thinking about process/result, or as Gulenko calls it, evolution/involution dichotomy, in context of quadra progression, and I think it makes more sense this way. The idea to define the dichotomy by the direction of supervision rings seems to make sense in that the usual progression of quadras (Alpha -> Beta -> ...) is associated with development, building upon, which matches with evolutionary, while the reverse direction would be more conclusive than developmental - what Gulenko describes involutionary as, reducing the complexity.

By this dichotomy, you could say that the first group builds upon, "diverges from the given material", as you wrote about Static vs Dynamic (which I can't completely agree with), while the other reduces what there is to its principles or usable/coherent form, or applies it. I can actually see process/result working this way, more so than by your definitions - perhaps because of difference in focus between quasis; I can see how developmental would imply 'obstacle overcoming' and conclusive the opposite, though I'm not sure if it's the way you meant it.