I think probably ∘ or * should be used instead of + here; + usually implies that the operation is commutative.Originally Posted by ajsindri
I think probably ∘ or * should be used instead of + here; + usually implies that the operation is commutative.
I was thinking '+' in terms of concatenation, but I'm happy to change it if you think it is best. The relations are group actions, correct? I noticed in your article, you used a dot operation. Is that the standard, non functional notation of a group action?
You realize socionics is base entirely on a symmetrical linear representations of human interaction, right?
Dot also works - anything but +
The relationships are group elements.
Last edited by Exodus; 10-06-2018 at 06:00 PM.
Ok, should be fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.Dot also works - anything but +
The relationships are group elements.
That's likely part of Socionics' problem. Feedback loops, which I'm sure are present in these information control systems, do create a certain amount of non-linearity.....
a.k.a. I/O
Also, @ajsindri, there should probably be some indication also that "Reinin relationships" are Democracy/Aristocracy preserving while "Tencer relationships" are Rationality preserving.
I'm not sure what you mean by "symmetrical linear representations." "Linear representation" has a formal mathematical meaning that does apply to socionics, which doesn't contradict the fact that the rotations (order 4 relationships) give circular loops (the benefit and supervision loops).That's likely part of Socionics' problem. Feedback loops, which I'm sure are present in these information control systems, do create a certain amount of non-linearity.....
For example, the Ti-set of an ESE doesn't map one-for-one into the Ti of a LII; there can only be, at best, a partial mapping but processing priorities will likely obscure most of that. The arrows themselves must be nonuniform because information transformations will likely depend on type pairings - and mapping one way won't be the same as in the opposite direction.......
a.k.a. I/O
That's an interesting point. Very broadly the types all "have" the same elements, but you're right that they are differentiated in ways not captured explicitly by Model A.For example, the Ti-set of an ESE doesn't map one-for-one into the Ti of a LII; there can only be, at best, a partial mapping but processing priorities will likely obscure most of that. The arrows themselves must be nonuniform because information transformations will likely depend on type pairings - and mapping one way won't be the same as in the opposite direction.......
a.k.a. I/O
Oh is that what you mean? That is already a common understanding in model A. Nobody is saying different types express the information elements the same. Projections from the suggestive function is often a need/ request. In duality, both people's suggestive function projects onto their partner's base, which are easily reciprocated. But in the benefit relation, the benefactor projects their suggestive function onto their beneficiary's vulnerable, which cannot be reciprocated. Over time, this creates a dynamic where the beneficiary is not able to fulfill the needs of their partner, and the benefactor's unfulfilled requests stack up, which is why benefit is also call the intertype relation of 'request' by some schools.
Reply With Quote
