Thank your for your post, I think the diagram pretty nicely encapsulate the relational structure of the reinin dichotomies and how they are connected to each other. I can promote this in viewpoints if you wish?
Thank your for your post, I think the diagram pretty nicely encapsulate the relational structure of the reinin dichotomies and how they are connected to each other. I can promote this in viewpoints if you wish?
Glad you liked it. Feel free to post this where ever you want. The more people who understand socionics, the better.Originally Posted by mu4
Do you think this is a good enough basis to go into more complex topics?
I'm not sure I understand all of it but some of the things are very interesting to analyze. You've put a lot of work into this so I should put the same work to understand it.
I probably will need to ask some questions about this as I get into it. Some parts of it where you get into typing was interesting but not sure if it helped explain the structure, more application?
I don't visualize the same way as you do but I see something interesting in the way this is being visualized.
You spend a lot of time explaining how you came to these conclusions but I'm trying to grasp what the pyramid represents.
Maybe when I see your multiple pyramid write up I can understand.
Also your ENTP notation is arbitrary, but what does this pyramid represent, and what CAN it represent and how to do it. Can it represent the type? Does it represent model a relations in a "space of" all possible types? If so then does some point in this pyramid represent a type?
I'm not very math saavy but these are things I'm getting from what you've written.
I do think what you've written is thought provoking and attractive, and I hope I'm not totally confused.
I haven't read her stuff, but from the pyramid I gather you can make any type into the pyramid by switching the main dimensions (which I'm sure you have seen already).
So the thing can represent the entire socion, but not at the same time.
I think it's basically the four letter notation (or three letter notation) but then optimised for visually oriented people (or maybe HP-cog although op is IEI so....)
You are right, the ENTP notation is arbitrary, but it is the standard established by Reinin himself in his mathematics and is standard practice for all socionics. This is already complicated enough, so let's go with it for now, but, you can redefine the system to have any type as the base type, meaning each corresponding dichotomy trait for that type is now the positive one.
What can it represent? Pretty much any system in socionics because everything was made with the same logic in mind. Specifically, the pyramid represent the abelian group Z2^4 (Z2 x Z2 x Z2 x Z2). But I don't like talking about the math because it is unnecessary and it tends to turn people off to the actual idea.
The image in the original post is a space showing all possible types, but a single type can be represented by defining the charge for each point (check out the post I just did for QuickTwist to see an example). For each type, all the small groups will have either 1 or 3 positive traits. They will look like the fano planes for the eight information elements and functions in the paper, except colored and 3d.
Thanks for the compliment, I put a lot of work into the visuals so it would make it easier for people to get into such an intense subject ^u^
Last edited by Lao Tzunami; 05-03-2016 at 09:43 AM.
Ok, cool, I wasn't criticizing with the ENTP being arbitrary btw, just wanted to understand the representation without any confusion on my part.
I have some more question and comments. I've always seen information preference typing as a matrix of traits(whatever) for which the solution is the type. This can apply to a empirical model as well not just socionics. Most big data marketing categorize people by some kind of single value decomposition which solves matrixs for any number of traits.
From what I understand a ableian group is just a special kind of matrix. This is essentially the same sort of technique you're proposing some sort of matrix solving technique.
There's a few directions this can be taken which can,
A. Guess at a type based on observed traits
B. Check type for accuracy
C. Derive additional traits
There's a few ways to do this.
Solve the Matrix to guess the type, then derive reinin from type and check this against traits
So Traits -> Type -> Reinin -> Parity check, I think this is close to your methodology?
This is pretty close to the way I see this occurring.
However, with enough data you can do something else too, which is find clusters of traits that arise in the data that we would need for the above method because you wouldn't really know what traits are applied to reinin.
So Traits -> Type -> Find traits clusters(should match Reinin)
The way I look at a socionics is that it presents a plausible solution to information precedence so this would be solution of some big data analysis where you would have type trait clusters and reinin trait clusters.
FWIW, you would not need to know what type these individual are or what even the data represents initially, you could do that by manually looking at the traits and associating with the sociotype.
Any big data analysis should produce some sort of type and sub clusters of dichotomies that matches Model A and Reinin Dichotomies. I think if a system can be created to analyze traits and create something that's close to socionics model(maybe not possible to be perfect because measurable traits are going to be likely behavior or self reporting) and then empirical out of this system can be analyzed for problems(which it will have) and inaccuracies.
I don't have a deep knowledge of the maths involved but you might so you might help me correct any understanding/misunderstanding I might have.
@mu4 i think you have the basic idea correct but the order is more flexible.
Once you have more than one dichotomy, you can begin to do a parity check. I see it as a dialectic process where the goal is to increase confidence and the problem becomes more complex as you go.
In my paper, all I did was solve for type and then fill in the remaining dichotomies to save space, but you can calculate each point one by one.
Basically these are the subgroups that I will get into later in the paper. I have a lot more to write about this topic.
# of independent dichotomies # of dependent dichotomies in system that can be used for a parity check total # of dichotomies in system, excluding the identity element (points) total # of small groups in system (lines) total # of dyad subspaces in system (surfaces) number of possible types 1 0 1 0 0 8 2 1 3 1 0 4 3 4 7 7 1 2 4 11 15 35 15 1
Last edited by Lao Tzunami; 05-04-2016 at 07:21 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote