Help Understanding Dimensionality

[nyessss]

So one of the most widely accepted pieces of socionics theory is dimensionality. I'm confused because in practice I see people with talents that don't fit within the system of socionics. I see a surprising number of hard to type people or people that fit perfectly except that they possess much higher level of ability with a function that theoretically should be weak. I've been doing this a while and consider myself decent, but I suppose I could be mistaken. I'm starting to think we all get a random stat roll when we are born in each of the 8 functions and assigned a random type, with socionics dimensionality being the predictive indicator of what any given type is likely to excel at. Anyone else have a number of outliers or hard to type people?
Edit: similar to the general concensus that IQ/EQ is type unrelated although there are probably type tendencies in ability
Edit2: real life is fun. I play a lot of games so I like to think of socionics as similar to d&d "classes". I honestly think it should come as no surprise that some people pick up traits from other classes. Like a bowman being proficient in healing magic. I think dimensionality is less of a power level thing and more of tendencies towards certain skills. Some people roll well and some roll like shit, and most in the middle to fit in the predictive framework. We have what appears to be a smart group of people here. Anyone forcibly multiclass? I have an LII friend with quick reaction speeds who takes adderal regularily to get an edge over people in fighting games. And he's LII, Ni demonstrative Ti heavy and all.

[Exodus]

If people appear to be good at a weaker function usually it means they have learned by experience to be competent in a particular aspect of that function. This doesn't contradict dimensionality since the first dimension is experience, which is shared by all functions.

[Olimpia]

There are certain people who believe that individuals of types can have widely different competency at their functions.

While it is true that some people are more or less intelligent, and have different foci dependent on their subtype – all of this can influence the "strength" of certain IEs – I believe there is a limit to how different the dimensionality of the functions can be, in relation to each other within the specific individual. Because, if there was no limit, we would end up with someone who is no specific type or a hybrid of types, and that is technically impossible. (So far, I have only seen fictional characters coming close to this.)

So, if I haven't made it clear already: When we have two people of the same type, one can have a stronger Lead (or Creative, and consequently also HA or Seeking) function than the other, in terms of observable performance (so to speak). For instance, both people take a test that is adept at calculating the strengths of their Lead function, and one person scores as somewhat more competent than the other. This could be caused by subtype, intelligence, and/or experience how thehotelambush has pointed out. However, when you look at the strengths of one individual's functions in relation to each other, it will become apparent that they are structured in a certain way, that there is a certain harmony that "makes up" the type.

At this point, I would like to stress how to my knowledge there is no reliable typing test so far, that entirely accurately and without personal bias gives someone a result pertaining to their true functional strengths. What that means in practice, is that at the best a test gives someone the right type (but with somewhat inaccurate functional strength estimations), and at the worst it gives the person the type they are striving to become (with moderate to entirely inaccurate functional strength estimations).

 

I have had two female EII women score as LIE in some personality tests consistently, especially the one who is EII-2Ne Sp/Sx. She scores higher in Ne than a typical EII would, but also higher in Ti than an IEE would, and higher in Fi than an LIE would.

When you talk to her, she initially comes across as "very Ne", she does try to emphasize her Te and cite things that have credible sources behind them (not always doing that as well as she would like, especially not when she had no time to prepare for it beforehand), and she seems to skim around Fi topics – mostly those related to Social issues. So in that sense, her Fi isn't as strong, but it comes through in more subtle ways. The most obvious part is her Ne and Te "obsession", followed by her Si HA – to be healthy. Here, her SP instinct fully comes into bloom...

It took me a while until I had typed her with confidence. The first time I talked with her on video chat, the only IEs I could "tell" she valued were Te and likely Ne. That narrowed down my focus to the Delta Quadra. As I said, she would score as LIE in some tests, like the sociotype.com one, but I was highly skeptical of that result. It didn't seem to fit right. Once I talked with her more regularly in a personal chat, her Si HA came through. She has a certain obsession with looking healthier, related to skin care, and so forth. Drinking green tea in a certain manner, etc. She'd tell me how she loved taking naps in the day and how she struggled with "being lazy", but she wished she wasn't as lazy (in my experience, a typical EII concern). And she had certain idiosyncratic loves of specific animals, in this Fi lead kind of way... Difficult to describe. And she was an introvert, at the end of the day. Also, it became apparent that our (functional) strengths and weaknesses were almost the exact same. Sometimes when I told her about something I knew, she'd be slightly annoyed by it, in the manner of "I (already) know" and "But I don't actually care about it". EII-Ne and IEI-Ni more or less have the same functional strengths/weaknesses, (and our intelligence levels were similar), so that was interesting to take note of.

Anyhow, so far, it is a highly speculative matter when it comes to someone's exact functional strengths. The theory of Dimensionality provides a rough framework, by which the types "form" themselves.

Yes, you will come across individuals that will have seemingly unique or "odd" functional strengths.
In my experience, those can be explained through their (strong) subtype, their Enneagram type, their unique history and childhood experiences, and their desire to be a specific type due to certain reasons often related to childhood experience and/or cultural influences.

[Tigerfadder]

The theory goes somewhat that each extra dimension adds an other direction or layer to the use of the function. So the 1D is simplest and 4D most complex. Its like 1D only take account experience and 2D Experience and Norms.

So the dimensions are Experience, Norms, Situation, Time. 1D take account of Experience only and maybe by chance or by using someone else reasonings the other. 3D take account of Experience + Norms + Situation.

Higher dimension equal higher sophistication.

[mclane]

So one of the most widely accepted pieces of socionics theory is dimensionality. I'm confused because in practice I see people with talents that don't fit within the system of socionics. I see a surprising number of hard to type people or people that fit perfectly except that they possess much higher level of ability with a function that theoretically should be weak.

I've noticed many of those things as well. I've found possible explanations in subtypes, DCHN, dual type, experience and that simple random rolls you mention that people get when they are born on all their functions.

I've been doing this a while and consider myself decent, but I suppose I could be mistaken. I'm starting to think we all get a random stat roll when we are born in each of the 8 functions and assigned a random type, with socionics dimensionality being the predictive indicator of what any given type is likely to excel at. Anyone else have a number of outliers or hard to type people?

If I interact with someone for long enough I end up being able to type them almost all of the cases (even those hard to type people). The main type is always apparent in someone if you observe them consistently.

Edit: similar to the general concensus that IQ/EQ is type unrelated although there are probably type tendencies in ability
Edit2: real life is fun. I play a lot of games so I like to think of socionics as similar to d&d "classes". I honestly think it should come as no surprise that some people pick up traits from other classes. Like a bowman being proficient in healing magic. I think dimensionality is less of a power level thing and more of tendencies towards certain skills. Some people roll well and some roll like shit, and most in the middle to fit in the predictive framework. We have what appears to be a smart group of people here. Anyone forcibly multiclass? I have an LII friend with quick reaction speeds who takes adderal regularily to get an edge over people in fighting games. And he's LII, Ni demonstrative Ti heavy and all.

Your take is very interesting, I had imagined something like this as well. You should look into tcaudillg's dual type theory.

I like to imagine dimensions as a material passing through a valve; the lower the dimension, the tighter the valve is, not letting as much information pass, but at the same time that information will be more basic, raw, and at times accurate than if it had more dimensions.

More dimensions mean that you are able to pick on more nuances on information pertaining to the IM in question. This can be an advantage or a disadvantage. Accepting types often use their base in way that goes overboard, since it has 4 dimensions (one more than the 3 dimensions of the world). This means that one can be prone to build castles in the air with your base function (usually if you are the accepting subtype) or with the demonstrative function (if you are the producing subtype).

[nyessss]

If people appear to be good at a weaker function usually it means they have learned by experience to be competent in a particular aspect of that function. This doesn't contradict dimensionality since the first dimension is experience, which is shared by all functions.

This is where is gets mucky, experience is an extremely broad framework. People tell me it is varying levels of sophistication, though I fail to see how most people would not be able to pick up on norms (2d) or even situations (3d) from a supposed 1d function given enough "experience". I simply would not believe that there does not exist at least 1 person out there that could give the illusion of norms+ through a 1d function. If my LII friend got ripped and learned martial arts I'm certain his SE polr would be insignificant to the point he could develop controlled aggression for example. Something which gives the illusion of competency. Now is that extending beyond ordinary dimensionality? I don't know. Might I be overestimating his capability?Possibly. But what I want to know is if the illusion of competency is the same as competency within individuals with otherwise low base dimensionality in aforementioned areas. What do you guys think?

Edit: I'm aware that both the creative and polr are producing functions. Except the creative is a contact function and assimilates information naturally. No information is weakness regardless of base potential, like a child still unlearned. With that in mind, how does the inert base function "learn" and improve if it does not assimilate information. This means it has to. It just doesn't improve. The also means the contact functions must increase in potential ability in theory. Now since the polr is inert, its potential is "set". Now I've seen some weird shit and believe in outliers. In theory can a polr be stronger than a creative function in highly inert subtyped and gifted individuals? I'm no such person, but I think I may know a handful if this is possible.

[nyessss]

More dimensions mean that you are able to pick on more nuances on information pertaining to the IM in question. This can be an advantage or a disadvantage. Accepting types often use their base in way that goes overboard, since it has 4 dimensions (one more than the 3 dimensions of the world). This means that one can be prone to build castles in the air with your base function (usually if you are the accepting subtype) or with the demonstrative function (if you are the producing subtype).

Ah, I suppose lower dimensions is limited in information in theory like a tightened valve. But in Jung's original theory for example descriptions of Si and Ni are very similar in that they operate on internal impressions or images. Except Ni is more focused on the connections between images as opposed to the images themselves. According to him the introverted irrational is often times unaware of these images being played from their unconscious. Arriving as sense impressions or gut feelings. In model A the functions Si and Ni in an introverted irrational are placed side by side and Augusta concluded when one is inactive the other is on. It sort of makes sense since observing an internal image is different than connecting to another image. The evolution is Ni whilst the act of looking is Si. But both constitute imagination. He also said within a dedicated intuitive, sensation will be the most repressed and vice versa, suggesting some groundwork for dimenstionality. In model A, a contact subtype for say, an SLI should be able to have a strong enough Ni to formulate these connections with ease. This is why I suppose they call the SLI and ILI lookalikes. Anyways my point is I think both are necessary and work well together.

[Exodus]

This is where is gets mucky, experience is an extremely broad framework. People tell me it is varying levels of sophistication, though I fail to see how most people would not be able to pick up on norms (2d) or even situations (3d) from a supposed 1d function given enough "experience". I simply would not believe that there does not exist at least 1 person out there that could give the illusion of norms+ through a 1d function. If my LII friend got ripped and learned martial arts I'm certain his SE polr would be insignificant to the point he could develop controlled aggression for example. Something which gives the illusion of competency. Now is that extending beyond ordinary dimensionality? I don't know. Might I be overestimating his capability?Possibly. But what I want to know is if the illusion of competency is the same as competency within individuals with otherwise low base dimensionality in aforementioned areas. What do you guys think?

I would say that developing skill in a very narrow area like that doesn't mean you are actually good at it. Even doing that would be unusual for the vulnerable function but it happens a lot with the mobilizing function.

The exact dimensions are a bit iffy IMO but I agree with the general idea that 4d is stronger than 3d is stronger than 2d is stronger than 1d.

Inert/contact on the other hand doesn't make any sense to me, the idea that you can't develop certain functions is just wrong.

[chemical]

I don't like viewing ability as anything more than a correlate of type. Yes there are correlates, but it is no big deal if they are not there. Perspective/priority are way more important.

[The Exception]

A 1-D function can still be relatively decent at an activity they have accumulated alot of experience in, but according to the theory, they wouldn't be able to fully grasp the norms, apply it to new unfamiliar situations or be able to track changes of over time.

So in that sense 1-D functions are our weakest function because they only have the dimension of experience.

[chemical]

I like the theory based on sophistication, actually

[Sanguine Miasma]

1D at suggestive spot can look active and very wacky but out of control (at least seen from beneficiary benefactor perspective: I correct Ti of EIE and EIE places extra pressure on my suggestive). PoLR? I think you might eventually accumulate something in there to avoid making same mistakes (whether it looks like it from external perspective or not maybe you just come up new variation...).