Your type is a fractal

[Pa3s]

We have several subtype system, as you know. But maybe these don't take it far enough? There is the 2-4-8-16 subtype system and they're all linked. But why should it end after that? One major accusation socionists have to deal with is the fact that the theory can't encompass the human nature in all it's complexity. That's true, because it's just a mental abstraction of the huge amount of different personalities.

But if we think of the sociotype as a fractal, which goes on and on if you zoom in (like a mandelbrot set), we're one step closer the the real nature of personalities. This was also suggested before (probably even in jest) but maybe we should see every humans sociotype as a chain of the the known "main" types. That means you basically have all 16 types in a certain order, fitting your individual personality, your main, secondary tertiary type, ect.

What if you only behave like you idealised and standardized main type suggests about 70% of the time? You might doubt and change it, but actually you know that this one probably still fits best. But this could be the typical situation and not just an exception. If we assume that you act and feel like your main type about 70% of the time, all the other types left in the chain also have a certain percentage. Your second type maybe 7%, the next 3% and so on. Well, we have to stop after the 16th type, because after that it would just repeat itself, but the last types would have minimal importance anyway.

I actually still doubt the practical merit of the dual type theory, but theoretically, it definitely makes sense. And I came to the idea that this "second" type might influence your self as a whole to a certain extent. If I'm actually INTj-ISTp, then my dual seeking function of my main type would be my secondary type's polr. I'm seriously wondering why I believe that LII fits very well, except for that one point. The point in which INTj and ISTp extremely clash. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks this way and maybe the answer can be found in your dual type.

[Aleksei]

I'd be EIE-SLE or EIE-ILE or something, per this. It's a bit redundant though -- it doesn't cover any portion of personality that the Socion doesn't cover to begin with.

[Galen]

I don't see why socionics has to encompass everything about human nature. It's just one theory, and it'd be too ambitious and too pretentious to say that it can and should explain a person in his or her entirety.

[Pa3s]

I don't see why socionics has to encompass everything about human nature. It's just one theory, and it'd be too ambitious and too pretentious to say that it can and should explain a person in his or her entirety.

Sure, it doesn't have to. It's an abstraction which simplifies the human psyche to a level which is easily understandable. It's like compressing a bmp to a jpeg. It gets handy and small in size but something always gets lost. I only wanted to say that there could be more if we wanted "more". You can expand the theory beyound the boundaries of the 16 base types. There's nothing wrong if you prefer the normal model and accept that there are deviations from that ideal, which you certainly do. We all know that its important to remember we're not talking about actual humans if we discuss type descriptions.

[717495]

I can definitely picture a more complex system for personality relationships. But 16 is a good number, esp to learn and apply, and if lots of people can do it but all disagree with one another, then its just going to be a chaos. Imagine someone saying he's ESFJ-ISTP and the other rebuttals with ENFJ-ISTJ, or whatever it is. No one's going to know what each person is referring to in his own mind. There has to be some few fundamental concepts to tie to either way, or else there can be many concepts which aren't nearly universally postulated.

You can have a head start and come to think of some valid differences which affect relationships between people of the same type, and see if they have things in common with their conflictor, to pair them into some new kind of function or dichotomy.

[Galen]

Sure, it doesn't have to. It's an abstraction which simplifies the human psyche to a level which is easily understandable. It's like compressing a bmp to a jpeg. It gets handy and small in size but something always gets lost. I only wanted to say that there could be more if we wanted "more". You can expand the theory beyound the boundaries of the 16 base types. There's nothing wrong if you prefer the normal model and accept that there are deviations from that ideal, which you certainly do. We all know that its important to remember we're not talking about actual humans if we discuss type descriptions.

Why would you want to? Unless you want to go into exponentially more discrete and less understandable subtypes, I don't see much of a point in going past the type schema that already exists. People around here don't really know how to use these new-fangled subtype systems anyways, so why humor them with even more convoluted systems?

[EyeSeeCold]

Sure, it doesn't have to. It's an abstraction which simplifies the human psyche to a level which is easily understandable. It's like compressing a bmp to a jpeg. It gets handy and small in size but something always gets lost. I only wanted to say that there could be more if we wanted "more". You can expand the theory beyound the boundaries of the 16 base types. There's nothing wrong if you prefer the normal model and accept that there are deviations from that ideal, which you certainly do. We all know that its important to remember we're not talking about actual humans if we discuss type descriptions.

Why would you want to? Unless you want to go into exponentially more discrete and less understandable subtypes, I don't see much of a point in going past the type schema that already exists. People around here don't really know how to use these new-fangled subtype systems anyways, so why humor them with even more convoluted systems?

I'm pretty sure you've got the wrong idea. Think if types actually became clearer, like zooming in on a bunch of bugs, to find out not only are there different kinds of bugs, but there are different kinds of the different kinds of bugs; precision.

The problem with current subtype systems is that the 16 types we already have aren't as distinct and perceptible as they need to be, in order to consider a divide within a type.

[The Ineffable]

Sure, it doesn't have to. It's an abstraction which simplifies the human psyche to a level which is easily understandable. It's like compressing a bmp to a jpeg. It gets handy and small in size but something always gets lost. I only wanted to say that there could be more if we wanted "more". You can expand the theory beyound the boundaries of the 16 base types. There's nothing wrong if you prefer the normal model and accept that there are deviations from that ideal, which you certainly do. We all know that its important to remember we're not talking about actual humans if we discuss type descriptions.

Calling it simplification appears to me you have a different focus than what Socionics is about - the way I see it. Socionics deals with specific aspects, it does not try to simplify the whole human personality to make it understandable, there are some patterns that were discovered and investigated, and fortunately some further uses came out of this - eg types of relationships. Going ahead of things and trying to "determine" all combinations using the sociotypes is not the way to go, IMO. Why don't you combine all the 8 IEs do obtain a huge number of base types in the first place? Because there are reasons to be 16, the IEs mean something, there are rules, natural laws, like the valences in chemistry, you can't just combine the elements the way you like it. Of course, you can combine them on paper to have fun with, that doesn't mean you obtained something real or useful, when these natural constraints don't mean anything anymore, you enter the domain of fiction, IMO.

[Aleksei]

Pinocchio, are you implying that people are actually simple enough that subdividing them into more than 16 discrete types would result in non-existing type models?

[Gilly]

The problem with the fractal comparison is that human psychology is by no means neat and formulaic, at least not to the standards of a fractal equation.

[rat1]

That's not a fractal that's an exponent 2^X. And yeah, obviously type is based on that structure - I think that's apparent to anyone who looks at the information elements, and then considers Je/Ji/Pe/Pi, and then the 8 functions, and then the 16 types. Any person can see there is a pattern there.

People exaggerate the significance of fractals. Things will always defy your attempts to organize them, but you act like a fractal can organize everything. Well then how do you explain things that defy organization?

With more fractals regulating the relationships between exponents and fractals?

What you end up with is a complex of exponential and fractal relationships where the predictive capability of these patterns is lost and the complex itself becomes paramount (and defies all predictive mechanisms).

[krieger]

i don't think there are any factors among religion, interests, nationality, occupation and ethnicity that has any effect on how well i get along with a person. if i'm at some root level compatible with a person, the difference in interests (etc) is a reason to exchange information, not a deal breaker of any kind; quite the contrary. there is also the fact that many of these factors are under strong influence of fundamental personality traits. the surface manifestations are irrelevant in their own right.

this is one of those "conventional wisdom" bullshit myths that tend to keep getting propagated despite being fundamentally wrong.