Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: "Socionics Tweaks"

  1. #1
    AkuManiMani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default "Socionics Tweaks"

    So, for a bit over a year now I've been compiling small tweaks and quality of life improvements for Socionics in a gDocs entry. This work eventually culminated in an expansion to Model-A I created in collaboration with another World Socionics Society community member, which I've called "Model-L" in her honor. I've shared the document with a handful of other WSS Facebook community members, and one suggested that I post it here for wider feedback and questioning.

    Anywho, here's a link to the document representing about an year and a half of work I've done on the theory. I hope folks here find it enlightening and provide honest feedback -- positive, critical, or otherwise:

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...t?usp=drivesdk
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by AkuManiMani; 10-12-2019 at 05:28 PM.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,347
    Mentioned
    1038 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    instead of studing to use the normal theory noobs make new doubtful hypotheses
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  3. #3
    AkuManiMani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    instead of studing to use the normal theory noobs make new doubtful hypotheses
    Such hypotheses as...? ��

  4. #4
    AkuManiMani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
    I just want to do invisible standing ovation here ^_^
    Aw, thanks ^.^

  5. #5
    AkuManiMani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
    1. What is your type, AkuManiMani? How do you get your type?
    I'm an ILI. Learned my type about a decade and a half ago when I first got interested in Jungian typology. Discovered Socionics a few years after, reading up on it in sporadic spurts, here and there, before really getting into it in recent years.

    I'm guessing since you know Andrew you're aware that he's an IEI. Aleesha is an SLI


    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
    2. What is your role in your team right now? Are you a writer?
    The beginnings of this paper actually started back in early 2018. I'd been spending a good deal of time reflecting and meditating on the IMEs, trying to get a sense of what they literally referred to in practice. I drew up drafts of the compass diagram you see now at the top of the gDoc entry; I subsequently spent months coming up with, refining, and constantly revising, designations for each of the sub-element positions and dichotomy names, trying to find just the right terms.

    I shared a scan of my final diagram draft with Andrew, and he generously came up with the graphic you see now in the "Tweaks" gDoc. A member of AJ's "Socionics Math" community -- Mitch Newman -- encouraged me to compile the document after I shared some of my initial ideas in the Maths group.

    Aleesha got involved not long after I was recruited onto Jack Oliver Aaron's WSS diagnostic team, late in 2018. We hit it off well, and spent a lot of time conversing & comparing notes in the diagnostic group chat. It turned out we'd been coming to a lot of similar conclusions concerning element properties & interrelations, as well as the limitations of Model-A. Eventually, we began corresponding over DM and started seriously pursuing the idea of expanding Socionics's function model to include *all* 8 function block pairings, not just the 4 shown in classical Model-A. We continued sharing concept notes and documents back & forth for a number of months. She didn't have any fixed terms yet for many of her ideas, and was very shy about publicly disclosing them because of their rough state. I kinda nudged her to dust off a lot of her private work and assured her that I'd do my part to come up with fancy technical labeling if she wasn't certain on what terms to best use for her concepts.

    For instance, she'd already put together a preliminary layout for what I'd been calling coordinate function pairings (such as the one between the "base" and "demonstrative" functions), arraying them into what would eventually become the 4 row summary layout shown at the end of the Model-L section. I came up with the term "foci" for these coordinate pairs and introduced the idea of classifying block-paired, tandem elements as "modes". Eventually, Aleesha brainstormed names for the 8 "foci", with me suggesting some of my own names for 4 of them -- which she liked better than what she originally proposed ("Comprehension", "Animation", "Observance", and "Incitation" were the foci names I contributed). That then prompted me to come up with appropriate names for each of the 8 "modes".

    She and I had also been independently doing work on improving some of the Reinin dichotomy definitions. In addition to her own Reinin work, Aleesha also has notes expanding upon the communication styles, which she found to be an empirically reliable and useful feature of Socionics theory. Sadly, Aleesha has since gone inactive, and I haven't heard from her in a few months. Hoping everything's alright with her


    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
    3. Someone from your team made a statement that model G is unnecessary, which is really made me discouraged.
    Are you agree with him or not? Why? Explain your agree/disagreement.
    Ah, you're referring to the YouTube review Jack made about Gulenko's recently published book? I think his point is that Gulenko's "energy" model doesn't really add anything new to the theory, since "energy metabolism" is already assumed in the original Model-A as inseparable from "information metabolism".

    Personally, I find Gulenko's ideas tend to be like Nicholas Cage movies: they're very "hit or miss". I'm also not convinced "sub-types" are actually a thing; my impression is that they're a misguided attempt to reduce every individual variation to some typological explanation.

    TBH, I think Gulenko's more interested in self-promotion and competing for recognition than actually advancing knowledge =/


    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
    1. What is the background of all "term modification" in your paper? ...
    I mean, like, motives or reason that made you need to change its definition. Is it because of social phenomenons or something else?
    If it possible to explain, where, when and how it happened?
    It's really nothing special or particularly complicated. Once I get a solid, first-hand grasp of a particular concept and I think there's a term(s) that helps better convey the essence of whathat it refers to in practice, I use that instead.

    For instance, I came up with the terms and definitions for «content»/‹media› elements based on my own reflections of their properties. It wasn't until after the fact that I even realized they directly coincided with the classical "process"/"result" Reinin type dichotomy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
    2. The next Section 2 until Section 8 is safe for me. But in section 9, I had issues with blocks B and C.
    What is the reason of model creator (i know it isn't you, but if you might can explain) making that "hands" having row-based sub-blocks?
    I actually had some "naughty mind" to make that blocks being rotated 90 degrees clockwise...
    but since I want to respect the author of this model, I just curios why that block is being placed like that
    (even I might can guess what is the answer too -_-)
    Well, the main impetus for formulating Model-L in the first place is because Model-A only shows 8 out of the 16 function positions logically entailed by the theory's structure and borne out in practical experience. Some months before the actual structure of Model-L came into focus, I'd managed to figure out the formula for function dimensionality (which I explain in section 7 of the "Tweaks" entry). The following months were spent working out the visual format, discerning the properties of each of the new functions, and deciphering what all these new positions entailed for function dichotomies.

    That last part was particularly tricky, since I basically had to puzzle out that theoretical hurdle solo. Aleesha had been stuck on the old function dichotomy definitions, and was convinced that they were the final word on the matter. The problem is that this assumption was a dead-end, since a number of the original function dichotomy definitions simply do not work in a full 16 function model. As it turns out, many of what are assumed to be singular function dichotomies are actually two dichotomies that happen to completely overlap on the "central" functions of Model-A, but diverge on the "radial" functions that aren't explicitly represented in it. A prime example of this is the "valued"/"unvalued" function dichotomy of Model-A; it's actually a convergence of two separate dichotomies that diverge on the "radial" axis functions. I classify these two as "tract" dichotomies: they are "favored"/"menial" and "prevailing"/"subdued". The former coincides with the rational "alignment" of a TIM (Fe→Ti vs. Te→Fi), while the latter with their irrational "polarity" (Si→Ne vs. Ni→Se).


    As I mentioned earlier, the 4 row text summary of our 16 function model was developed from Aleesha's initial notes. The 4 "capacity" representational chart for Model-L was a visual decision I made to help illustrate the close functional interrelations between elements that share information aspect qualities (i.e. Detached (NT)/Involved (SF) & Internal (NF)/External (ST)). I'd started out struggling to create a visual layout closer in structure to the original Model-A, with all the functions stacked next to each other. However, Aleesha wisely pointed out that it's just a visual aid, and that it wasn't necessary to have all the functions grouped together. I agreed, broke with convention, and went with what seemed to work best.


    Quote Originally Posted by Andreas View Post
    3. I know this is not in a paper yet, but I am really want to see how it works in this model. Inter-type relationships.
    Since I see a lot of modification in terms and models, may I expect that it will affect inter-type relationships too?
    What is the big-picture about it might gonna be? How about duality? is it still "nature" in your model?
    How about conflict? because it seems you put contrast type as the opposites ones, not conflict ones ...
    (which is made me surprised because no other model put contrast type as opposites type)
    Functionally speaking, intra-axial ITRs (i.e. relations between types in the same or opposing quadras) pretty much accord with what's already shown in the classical Model-A layout. However, I've noticed that inter-axial ITRs (i.e. relations between the classical "democratic" vs. "aristocratic" TIMs -- what I call "transduction" and "conduct" types, respectively) aren't as they initially appear going off of the old Model-A representation.

    For starters, it becomes readily apparent that the so-called "asymmetrical" ring relations are actually symmetrical in a full, 16 function model. What's more, even the classically symmetrical, inter-axial relations take on different functional properties depending on the rationality of the types involved. For instance, "Kindred" relations between Rational types are functionally equivalent to Irrational "Look-a-Like" pairings, and vis versa for Irrational "Kindreds" & Rational "Look-a-Likes". This same rationality splitting also occurs between the classical "Mirage" & "Semi-dual" ITRs as well.

    Basically, it appears rationality splitting in general (whether in relation to function dichotomies, ITRs, or what-have-you) is an artifact of Rational (J) & Irrational (P) elements swapping roles between the two metabolic axes.
    Last edited by AkuManiMani; 10-12-2019 at 05:38 PM. Reason: minor typo corrections

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    832
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hello @AkuManiMani; I'm the guy who suggested that you posted this here. I have read this doc in full; overall, from what I've been able to make of it; very interesting, precise and well-put. It confirms some things on my +/- thread and brings new light to others that I might have to rethink (also on my two-subtype thread). I have some questions for you right now (btw, I'm studying this model more in-depth and might have more questions later):




    1. In section 5 of the document, you a make a connection between different IM's that you claim share a psychophisiological link (e.g. Se and Fe). Apart from the pairs described in this section, no other combinations would be possible? (e.g. Se and Fi -- meaning; a relation as the ones described in this section couldn't be found between IM's that do not share the "Ordinal aspect" and intro/extro trait?) Also, does this link mean that they are somehow mutually exclusive (as in being similar but operating the same aspect of reality on different terms) or are they in some cases complementary?


    2. In section 7, you provide an explanation/formula for the dimensionality trait of model A. You provide an example with ILE. May I ask; could you please flesh out this example and say exactly what dimensionality would each of the 16 sub-elements have in ILI? Also, if it's not too much to ask, could you provide an example of the model L layout with all the functions filled in for ILI (or whichever TIM you prefer) in all four "positions" (ABCD)? I believe this fleshed-out examples would greatly enhance the comprehension of this model.


    3. If I understand it correctly, the following denominations would correspond with the following IMs:


    Ideation: Alpha Ne
    Inspiration: Delta Ne
    Apprehension: Beta Ni
    Aspiration: Gamma Ni


    Sentiment: Beta Fe
    Affect: Alpha Fe
    Soul: Delta Fi
    Animus: Gamma Fi


    Actuation: Beta Se
    Impetus: Gamma Se
    Observation: Alpha Si
    Stimulation: Delta Si


    Praxis: Delta Te
    Reason: Gamma Te
    Habitus: Beta Ti
    Intellect: Alpha Ti


    Are these terms end-in's, or could you think of alternate terms to describe these?




    4. (somewhat tangential) How would you describe what a "soul" is?


    5. What was the initial inspiration for this model? Was it built mainly from observation? Or was it made as a post-hoc rationale to accomodate for some of the unexplained areas of Model A? (IOW: was it built from the "inside-out" or from the "outside-in"?) On either origin, did you share opinion overall with the co-author of this model (ie. did you reach similar conclusions separately)?


    6. Are subtypes (two subtype theory) potentially accounted for in this model?


    7. Is DCNH potentially accounted for in this model?


    8. What do you think of VI? Do you share the stance of the WSS?




    Thanks in advance ^^.

  7. #7
    AkuManiMani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    1. In section 5 of the document, you a make a connection between different IM's that you claim share a psychophisiological link (e.g. Se and Fe). Apart from the pairs described in this section, no other combinations would be possible? (e.g. Se and Fi -- meaning; a relation as the ones described in this section couldn't be found between IM's that do not share the "Ordinal aspect" and intro/extro trait?) Also, does this link mean that they are somehow mutually exclusive (as in being similar but operating the same aspect of reality on different terms) or are they in some cases complementary?"
    I'm not just speaking in terms of theoretical abstraction. I mean that the sub-elements in question literally overlap with one another. In your example, physical impetus -- Se(F) -- physiologically conincides with physical affect -- Fe(S). Strength with one element necessarily entails equivalent strength with the other, hence why I call them "coordinate" elements. Together they comprise the "Animation" (SF)e metabolic focus.

    Fi(S) "Animus" has a "tandem" relation with Se(F) "Impetus"; they each respectively deal with the integral (Ji) and projective (Pe) aspects of volition -- i.e. the "Volitive" st(SF) mode of processing. It's not the same class of inter-element relation as that between Se(F) & Fe(S). So, to be clear, the default focus & mode of an SEE would be expressed as st(SF)e -- "Volitive Animation".

    I suppose a more tangible example may be of help in illustrating what I mean by "overlap":

    Te(S) "Praxis" and Se(T) "Actuation" are two different modes of physical action -- hence why we call it the "Action" (ST)e focus. While the former is about maximizing physical efficiency, the latter is more about projecting regulatory force over the physical environment.

    Likewise, the "Observance" (ST)i elements of Si(T) & Ti(S) are, respectively, one's bodily reception and encoded format. Both are concerned with passive uses of one's bodily structure(s). They're literally overlapping aspects.


    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    2. In section 7, you provide an explanation/formula for the dimensionality trait of model A. You provide an example with ILE. May I ask; could you please flesh out this example and say exactly what dimensionality would each of the 16 sub-elements have in ILI? Also, if it's not too much to ask, could you provide an example of the model L layout with all the functions filled in for ILI (or whichever TIM you prefer) in all four "positions" (ABCD)? I believe this fleshed-out examples would greatly enhance the comprehension of this model.
    Alright, so capacities A&D are just the original Model-A functions visually repositioned. A-capacity holds the "strong" functions, and D-capacity holds the "weak". So, an ILE would have:

    A1 (4d) - "Ideation" Ne(T)
    A2 (3d) - "Intellect" Ti(N)
    A3 (3d) - "Apprehension" Ni(T)
    A4 (4d) - "Reason" Te(N)

    D1 (2d) - "Impetus" Se(F)
    D2 (1d) - "Animus" Fi(S)
    D3 (1d) - "Stimulation" Si(F)
    D4 (2d) - "Affect" Fe(S)

    Now, B-capacity is just the perceptive (P) analogue & preceptive homologue (J) of a TIM's A-capacity, and likewise C is the perceptive (P) analogue & preceptive homologue (J) of D. These two "radial" capacities have an overall "moderate" strength, with all their "bold" functions being 3d and "cautious" positions being 2d. For an ILE, they are as follows:

    B1 (3d) - "Actuation" Se(T)
    B2 (2d) - "Habitus" Ti(S)
    B3 (2d) - "Observation" Si(T)
    B4 (3d) - "Praxis" Te(S)

    C1 (3d) - "Inspiration" Ne(F)
    C2 (2d) - "Soul" Fi(N)
    C3 (2d) - "Aspiration" Ni(F)
    C4 (3d) - "Sentiment" Fe(N)

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    3. If I understand it correctly, the following denominations would correspond with the following IMs:
    For the most part, yes. But you mixed up the receptive (Pi) sub-elements. They're actually:

    Apprehension = Gamma Ni*
    Aspiration = Beta Ni*

    Observation = Delta Si*
    Stimulation = Alpha Si*

    One can denote the 16 sub-elements in any number of ways. In my gDoc I also mark them by the "process"/"result" dichotomy using the «»/‹› symbols as brackets. Some, like Ibrahim Tencer use the +/- symbols to mark them as per the "positive"/"negative" dichotomy, while Vladimir Vincent qualifies them with their aspect designations, like "External Se" vs "Involved Se" and uses the +/- signs to mark them by process/result.

    If categorizing them by their respective Quadra circuits works best for you, by all means, go for it

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    Are these terms end-in's, or could you think of alternate terms to describe these?
    I actually spent the first half of 2018 agonizing over what would be the best terms for these "sub-elements" while drawing out my early draft of the compass diagram. Some of them that I've settled upon (like "Habitus" and "Affect") are already established technical terms in numerous fields, and I mean them as such.

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    4. (somewhat tangential) How would you describe what a "soul" is?
    The "motive core" of an individual. Basically the totality of one's abstract, inner value states that define their overall moral character.

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    5. What was the initial inspiration for this model? Was it built mainly from observation? Or was it made as a post-hoc rationale to accomodate for some of the unexplained areas of Model A? (IOW: was it built from the "inside-out" or from the "outside-in"?) On either origin, did you share opinion overall with the co-author of this model (ie. did you reach similar conclusions separately)?
    It basically started with me drawing out, and meditating on, the original compass diagram Andrew's graphic is based on. My goal was to get a solid, more detailed grasp of what the IMEs literally are, as apposed to just treating them as vague adjectives like in classical Socionics. As my understanding of them sharpened, the implications regarding Model-A became more clear to me.

    Aleesha independently came to similar conclusions regarding function positions not accounted for in classical Model-A.

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    6. Are subtypes (two subtype theory) potentially accounted for in this model?

    7. Is DCNH potentially accounted for in this model?
    As I mentioned to Andreas earlier, I'm very skeptical of sub-types. I'm currently not convinced that they're an actual thing, and I think they're a misguided attempt to reduce all individual variations to typological explainations.

    So fars I've been able to discern, type is simply defined by which "sub-element" a subject's center of awareness defaults to, with one's functional layout & relative strengths being a consequence of that element's metabolic properties and interrelations with the other elements.

    That said, TIM is not the end-all-be-all of who and what a person is. It's just a single, albeit complex, trait that accounts for many generally features of an individual -- not every particular.


    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    8. What do you think of VI? Do you share the stance of the WSS?

    Thanks in advance ^^.
    I'd say VI is no more reliable than trying to determine something like beliefs or sexual orientation based off of external appearance. Outward appearance may sometimes express aspects of one's inner self and personality, but it doesn't define it.

    I think VI is of marginal supplementary use, at best.
    Last edited by AkuManiMani; 10-12-2019 at 06:23 PM.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    832
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thank you for your answers. Sorry for mistakes but my Ti(N) is a bit rusty. I have a few more questions :

    1. Could you please explain this sort of notation?

    Code:
    A - Si(Ti) |= Te/Se B - Ni(Ti) |= Te/Ne C - Si(Fi) |= Fe/Se D - Ni(Fi) |= Fe/Ne

    2. Okay, so in the ILE example you gave, if I'm not mistaken the following functional position in the C and B blocks would correspond with the following roles:

    B1 (3d) - "Actuation" Se(T) ("correspondent")
    B2 (2d) - "Habitus" Ti(S) ("collaborative")
    B3 (2d) - "Observation" Si(T) ("compensatory")
    B4 (3d) - "Praxis" Te(S) ("instrumental")

    C1 (3d) - "Inspiration" Ne(F) ("subsidiary")
    C2 (2d) - "Soul" Fi(N) ("negligent")
    C3 (2d) - "Aspiration" Ni(F) ("prompting")
    C4 (3d) - "Sentiment" Fe(N) ("activating")


    My question is; do you plan on providing behavioral explanations for these new denominations in a future version of the document(or could you perhaps provide them now) ?

  9. #9
    AkuManiMani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    1. Could you please explain this sort of notation?
    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    Code:
    A - Si(Ti) |= Te/Se B - Ni(Ti) |= Te/Ne C - Si(Fi) |= Fe/Se D - Ni(Fi) |= Fe/Ne


    Alright, so this notation was developed from Aleesha's own initial notes in what I would later go on to call "foci". This is initially explained in section 8 "Foci & Modes", using SLI and LSI as illustrative examples.

    Every row is a notation readout for the default modal interactions in each of a TIM's four capacities, listed in alphabetical order. The left side of each expression shows the main focal element interaction of the given capacity -- i.e. the first function acting upon the fourth [1.(4.)]

    The |= is the "entailment" symbol, denoting that the secondary focal relation on the right side of the expression -- i.e. second function production with third function occlusion [2./3.] -- is a logical consequence of the main interaction. Basically, the first function of each capacity -- the default "accepting" function -- sets its metabolic pace.

    [ Of course, a TIM can temporarily switch modes by shifting their conscious focus to the capacity's alternate accepting function. A prominent example of this would be switching gears to actively engage one's A3 (i.e. the "ignoring" function) to handle tasks it's better suited to than the base function. This is more difficult to pull off in the other capacities -- particularly with one's D-capacity. ]


    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    2. Okay, so in the ILE example you gave, if I'm not mistaken the following functional position in the C and B blocks would correspond with the following roles:
    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    Code:
    B1 (3d) - "Actuation" Se(T) ("correspondent") B2 (2d) - "Habitus" Ti(S) ("collaborative") B3 (2d) - "Observation" Si(T) ("compensatory") B4 (3d) - "Praxis" Te(S) ("instrumental") C1 (3d) - "Inspiration" Ne(F) ("subsidiary") C2 (2d) - "Soul" Fi(N) ("negligent") C3 (2d) - "Aspiration" Ni(F) ("prompting") C4 (3d) - "Sentiment" Fe(N) ("activating")

    That is correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    My question is; do you plan on providing behavioral explanations for these new denominations in a future version of the document(or could you perhaps provide them now) ?

    I was intending to fully articulate descriptions for each new function position at some point when I had the time to properly do it justice. I was hoping their titles would connote an intuitive sense of what they do, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to give short explanations for each, as well as a general description of the capacities they operate in.

    First tho, I think I should reiterate that the capacities are, in a sense, echoes of a TIM's A capacity. Function positions of the same number hold elements of the same phase, each serving comparable roles to their equivalents in the other capacities -- qualified by the varying function dichotomies and dimensionalities of each position, of course.

    Now, with that disclaimer out of the way...






    B-Capacity - this and the A-capacity together comprise the "foreground" facet of a TIM. They hold the elements that take the fore in one's active engagement with the world, with the B Capacity serving an auxiliary role to the A -- its metaphorical "right-hand".

    B1. "Correspondent" (bold, strong, favored & subdued) - this function is usually right at the periphery of one's awareness, acting as a ready liaison and complement to one's "base" (A1). One values and is fairly confident in their use of this function, which typically overshadows the usage of its background counterpart, the "role" function (D1). As with one's "base", once conclusions are formed via this function, they tend to be firm and unwavering. However, being as how it operates against the grain of one's prevailing direction of metabolic flow, maintaining focused attention on it for extended periods can be somewhat draining. Shifting one's awareness through this position is also necessary to engage and enable conscious usage of the "collaborative" (B2) function.

    B2. "Collaborative" - 2d - (cautious, weak, favored & subdued) - use of this function is careful and deliberate, with element aspects in this position being taken seriously enough to direct the application of its stronger B1 tandem partner once engaged. The "collaborative" is most comparable with the "creative" function of A-capacity (A2). However, unlike with A2, a TIM generally lacks the same surety and easy facility with this function, so they tend to welcome constructive feedback and co-operative support from others in its output. Due to its relative weakness, manifestation of this position's element is often heavily influenced by the "instrumental" function.

    B3. "Compensatory" - 2d - (cautious, weak, menial & prevailing) - an individual discreetly, and offhandedly engages this function out of necessity -- often as a means of shoring up weaknesses of their "suggestive" function, or facilitating conscious B4 usage. Like the "Ignoring" function (A3), one doesn't usually bother paying much direct conscious attention to it. Even so, the "compensatory" is liable to be consciously engaged somewhat more frequently, even if in much shorter spurts than it's A3 counterpart.

    B4. "Instrumental" - 3d - (bold, strong, menial & prevailing) - this function gets a lot of mileage, often having steady automatic use even while one's direct attention is focused on their "base". More conscious usage of this function occurs via the engagement of its accepting "compensatory" (B3) partner. Similar to the "demonstrative" (A4) function, use of the "instrumental" function is strong, confident, and largely taken for granted. However, the difference is that while it too isn't prized as a metabolic end in itself, it's taken somewhat more seriously as a reliable supplementary tool in the service of one's favored metabolic ends.





    C-Capacity - this and the D-capacity together comprise the "background" facet of a TIM, with C elements being considerably easier to maintain focus on and use than their D counterparts. Expression of these functions is usually filtered through, and from the perspective of, an individual's foreground elements.

    C1. "Subsidiary" - 3d - (bold, strong, menial & prevailing) - sharing the same metabolic phase and polarity as one's base function -- while being of "menial" value -- this position's operations end up being largely subsumed by the usage of it's A1 counterpart. One can readily & confidently engage this function, but its usage is most often in the background of one's awareness, and overwhelmingly co-opted in favor of the agendas set with a TIM's "base" function. This typically results in careless output from the "subsidiary's" tandem partner, the "negligent" (C2) function.

    C2. "Negligent" - 2d - (cautious, weak, menial & prevailing) - a TIM's attitude towards the element occupying this position is most comparable to that of their "vulnerable" (D2) function. This function is pretty much used with the same reckless indifference as its D2 counterpart, but with significantly more ease, and usually operating more at the margins of one's awareness. Not much care is afforded to the expression of this function, so long as it's in accord with the element occupying the "activating" function (C4).

    C3. "Prompting" - 2d - (cautious, weak, favored & subdued) - this position functions somewhat similarly to one's "suggestive" function" (D3). However, being a 2-dimensional function, one has a considerably easier time using it on one's own, though outside contributions from others is often appreciated. In the absence of an outside source providing quality input, this function generally operates very much in the background of one's awareness, occasionally chiming in with apparently spontaneous feedback pertinent to the usage of a TIM's "base" element. This position is also crucial in modulating it's tandem partner, the "activating" (C4) function.

    C4. "Activating" - 3d - (bold, strong, favored & subdued) - this position is functionally akin to one's mobilizing function; running in the background, heavily influencing the usage of one's valued foreground elements. In this case, however, being a 3d position makes conscious engagement with this function considerably easier, and the subject has a greater mastery of it. More than almost any other background function, a TIM is liable to consciously engage and eagerly bring feedback from this function to the fore of their interactions -- especially in response to "collaborative" function requests for assistance. When not being consciously engaged, this function "revs up" the conscious output of one's "creative" function (A2). Unlike the "mobilizing" function, however, C4 doesn't direct the application of a TIM's creative output.
    Last edited by AkuManiMani; 10-19-2019 at 04:26 PM. Reason: formatting headaches, function description updates

  10. #10
    I had words here once, but I didn't feed them Khola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    TIM
    ILE/ENTP-A
    Posts
    3,548
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Personality typology is generally flawed, due to inadequate description of personality facets across different contexts, and how differently individuals behave from each other (even within "same" types) across those contexts. They're a bit of fun on Tinder I guess.
    Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .



  11. #11
    Investigator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    84
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I retired from reading this when I saw usage of words psychic and spirit.

  12. #12
    AkuManiMani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Investigator View Post
    I retired from reading this when I saw usage of words psychic and spirit.
    TBH, I realized ahead of time that the choice of words would be triggering to some...

    ...Was a big reason why I decided to go ahead with it anyway

    Really, tho, do you have any objections to the actual definitions the terms in the doc are referring to, or are you having an emotional reaction to certain connotations they evoke in your mind?
    Last edited by AkuManiMani; 10-15-2019 at 02:21 AM.

  13. #13
    Investigator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    84
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AkuManiMani View Post
    TBH, I realized ahead of time that the choice of words would be triggering to some...

    ...Was a big reason why I decided to go ahead with it anyway

    Really, tho, do you have any objections to the actual definitions the terms in the doc are referring to, or are you having an emotional reaction to certain connotations they evoke in your mind?
    definition of psychic:
    "lying outside the realm of physical science or knowledge: immaterial, moral, or spiritual in origin or force." -Merriam Webster Dictionary.

    Reviewers of your intellectual material can't follow along with what you are saying if you claim to have knowledge of something outside the realm of knowledge. Therefore, use of this word alone makes peer review of your work virtually impossible.

    Besides that, I don't see what this theory contributes. A lot of definitions are a rewording of already known definitions (i.e Quadra descriptions). There is good usage of specific definitions, but I am not seeing much logical flow (i.e radial functions needs a simplified explanation) in terms of the manipulation of these definitions/notation. I see these types of models as the reason some people give up on socionics. Over-abstractions that seem to come out of no where (i.e why choose circuits for representation). Before abstractions and fancy words, there needs to be a rigorous logical build up with a spice of intuitive metaphors/analogies if this is needed to "set the stage."

    Only things I liked was the distinction of information flow between conflict quadras (i.e Gamma and Alpha being transductive circuits). I also like the attention brought to what you call element overlaps. For example, ENTj who emphasize Te will have increased value in their Ne as they move away from Ni. For ESTj's who emphasize Te will have emphasize Ne. There shows that even though "circuits" might serve different roles, they still help each other out and the flow of information isn't random.

    Overall, certain derivations of your conclusions seemed over-complicated to me, but maybe that's just me.

    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
    Last edited by Investigator; 10-15-2019 at 05:25 AM. Reason: Added Quote

  14. #14
    AkuManiMani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Investigator View Post
    definition of psychic:
    "lying outside the realm of physical science or knowledge: immaterial, moral, or spiritual in origin or force." -Merriam Webster Dictionary.

    Reviewers of your intellectual material can't follow along with what you are saying if you claim to have knowledge of something outside the realm of knowledge. Therefore, use of this word alone makes peer review of your work virtually impossible.
    My use of the term "psychic" is specifically in reference to the "psyche" -- as in, concerning the mind, psychological states, properties, & contents. This pretty much directly applies to all the "Abstract" element aspects I discuss in the gDoc entry -- i.e. "Intuition" (N) and it's paired preceptive (J) aspects.

    I don't at all agree with the contention that such things are outside the realm of scientific investigation (the fields of psychology & psychiatry being a case-in-point). As a matter of fact, I think Socionics has the potential to bring a greater degree of scientific rigor to the subject of consciousness qua consciousness. This is an epistemological "foot in the door" to a domain that's been considered off limits to scientific inquiry and explication by many. I intend to do my part by helping to kicking that door wide open... >:}


    Quote Originally Posted by Investigator View Post
    Besides that, I don't see what this theory contributes. A lot of definitions are a rewording of already known definitions (i.e Quadra descriptions). There is good usage of specific definitions, but I am not seeing much logical flow (i.e radial functions needs a simplified explanation) in terms of the manipulation of these definitions/notation. I see these types of models as the reason some people give up on socionics. Over-abstractions that seem to come out of no where (i.e why choose circuits for representation). Before abstractions and fancy words, there needs to be a rigorous logical build up with a spice of intuitive metaphors/analogies if this is needed to "set the stage."
    Terms like "circuits" and "axes" are the metaphors I've chosen to communicate the intuitive impressions I've gleaned from months of reflecting on this subject matter and my own faculties (the former term refers to the circular feedback relation between Quadra elements, while the latter analogizes different metabolic dichotomies as perpendicular "axes" one would use on a number graph or compass chart). Much of the new terminology & tweaks I made are what I felt were necessary additions and improvements that better communicate the essence of what the theory is attempting to describe in practice (for example, the "metabolic phase" terms and definitions account for general element properties better than the classical "temperament" behavioral designations).

    TBH, this particular entry was written with an audience already familiar with Socionics in mind. And while I have added a lot of new technical terminology, I've also grounded many of the theory's fundamentals in more concrete terms. For instance, I define the IMEs as actual, verifiable faculties (many of which have already been established in other fields), rather than just using lists of vague adjectives as is typically done in classical Socionics. My goal was/is to increase the descriptive depth, accuracy, and resolution of the theory so that it's better prepared for the rigors of scientific scrutiny.


    Quote Originally Posted by Investigator View Post
    Only things I liked was the distinction of information flow between conflict quadras (i.e Gamma and Alpha being transductive circuits). I also like the attention brought to what you call element overlaps. For example, ENTj who emphasize Te will have increased value in their Ne as they move away from Ni. For ESTj's who emphasize Te will have emphasize Ne. There shows that even though "circuits" might serve different roles, they still help each other out and the flow of information isn't random.

    Overall, certain derivations of your conclusions seemed over-complicated to me, but maybe that's just me.

    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
    I totally understand your sentiments in this regard. I recall saying similar things years ago about overuse of technobabble in other fields. However, after working on further developing the theoretical underpinnings of Socionics, I've found that increasing the level of descriptive complexity was inevitable.

    That said, I'm perfectly capable of explaining any portion of my work in common language (though not without loss of descriptive resolution, unfortunately). If there's any portion of the doc you require clarification on, let me know and I'll address it as best I can here

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    832
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Kimani, I'm going to borrow some of your terms for my +/- thread (I especially like the term "aura" for Se(F)). I will link this thread as source. Is that okay with you?

  16. #16
    AkuManiMani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    Kimani, I'm going to borrow some of your terms for my +/- thread (I especially like the term "aura" for Se(F)). I will link this thread as source. Is that okay with you?
    Sure thing, man. Just keep in mind that my use of the term "aura" collectively refers to all SF sub-elements -- i.e. "Animus" Fi(S), "Impetus" Se(F), "Stimulation" Si(F), and "Affect" Fe(S).

    The "capacities" I reference are basically the elemental correlates of the "Club" small groups.

    NF:
    Capacity - "Spirit"
    Club - "Idealists"

    NT:
    Capacity - "Mind"
    Club - "Conceptuals"

    ST:
    Capacity - "Body"
    Club - "Pragmatists"

    SF:
    Capacity - "Aura"
    Club - "Socials"

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    832
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have another question; Could you please explain the selection of the term "observation" for Si(T)?

  18. #18
    AkuManiMani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    I have another question; Could you please explain the selection of the term "observation" for Si(T)?

    Ah, that's probably the simplest term I'm using:

    It literally refers to physical observation in the standard sense of the word -- i.e. controlled focusing of one's sensory attention on particular details.

    [ FYI, it's Involved counterpart of Si(F) "Stimulation" refers to one's felt, subjective experience of incoming bodily stimuli and physical vitality. ]

  19. #19
    Investigator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    84
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I see, we disagree on a fundamental level. I am in the camp that thinks that spiritual matters are by definition outside of human scientific inquiry.

    I do agree that some work needs to be done to make socionics more presentable, but our approaches are much different. Functions and the potential work they do together should not need intense specification. The biggest intellectual sin in my experience is people making extremely specific metaphors such that some of the details miss the point throwing off the entire meaning of the metaphor (rendering it invalid). Instead of detailed metaphors or analogies we need general metaphors with good derived axioms and rigorous deductions. Therefore, we have a logically refined framework on cognition that we can apply to other frameworks that relate to a person (i.e frameworks on a person’s intelligence, environment, psychological health, etc.). Remember actions of people with the same type are going to look and be different (most of the time), but their actions are still derivatives of the structure of their cognitive function preferences and strengths. If descriptions aren’t general in nature then they are more likely to contain derivatives of the functions and their structure, so when you go to make conclusions on a person’s behaviour and it doesn’t follow from your descriptions directly you come to incorrect statements/claims.

    Socionics needs less complex descriptions and more clever descriptions with even more clever deductions from those descriptions.
    Last edited by Investigator; 10-15-2019 at 07:51 PM.

  20. #20
    AkuManiMani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Investigator View Post
    I see, we disagree on a fundamental level. I am in the camp that thinks that spiritual matters are by definition outside of human scientific inquiry.
    I think the methodology required to approach this domain is, on it's face, significantly different than what's suited for the physical sciences (for instance, comparative introspection would be required as a means of falsification/verification). However, empirical experience, logic, and critical thinking are still applicable to the domain of the psyche. It's not only possible, but imperative, that mankind develop the same level of epistemological rigor with regards to the "internal" aspects of reality as it's achieved with the "external" sciences.

    Quote Originally Posted by Investigator View Post
    I do agree that some work needs to be done to make socionics more presentable, but our approaches are much different. Functions and the potential work they do together should not need intense specification. The biggest intellectual sin in my experience is people making extremely specific metaphors such that some of the details miss the point throwing off the entire meaning of the metaphor (rendering it invalid). Instead of detailed metaphors or analogies we need general metaphors with good derived axioms and rigorous deductions. Therefore, we have a logically refined framework on cognition that we can apply to other frameworks that relate to a person (i.e frameworks on a person's intelligence, environment, psychological health, etc.). Remember actions of people with the same type are going to look and be different (most of the time), but their actions are still derivatives of the structure of their cognitive function preferences and strengths. If descriptions aren't general in nature then they are more likely to contain derivatives of the functions and their structure, so when you go to make conclusions on a person's behaviour and it doesn't follow from your descriptions directly you come to incorrect statements/claims.

    Socionics needs less complex descriptions and more clever descriptions with even more clever deductions from those descriptions.
    That's just the thing:

    Nothing in my refinements attempts to describe specific details and peculiarities of individuals. As I mentioned in some of my earlier comments here, I think "subtype" systems are themselves misguided attempts to reduce every individual variation to some typological explaination.

    I'd go as far to say that Socionics doesn't measure raw aptitude, or even describe individual personalities. What the theory does is define the properties and interrelations of conscious faculties common to us all. Type is determined by which of these faculties one's center of awareness defaults to, with one's relative ease, general patterns and preferences of use being a consequence of the aforementioned properties and functional interrelations between them. Simply put, TIM is just a single -- albeit complex -- trait.

    The contents of my entry aren't merely arbitrary, ad hoc, bell & whistle additions to Socionics just for the sake of intellectual peacocking. It's all based on reflections & comparative observations of the subject-matter, and logical extensions of the theory's own basic premises.

    For instance, I *explain* dimensionality rather than just assume it. I provide a more detailed, practical accounting of the nature of element "duality". We provide more grounded metabolic explainations for a number of Reinin dichotomies that, heretofore, have had little more than vague descriptions of emergent behaviors that may or may not even be correlated with the TIM properties in question. We account for the other 4 block pair positions entailed by the logic of the theory, but left out of the classical Model-A presentation. Etc.

    I could go on, but I think you get the picture. There's a practical rhyme and reason behind every theoretical tweak, refinement and addition included in this entry. It's all to make the theory provide a more accurate, detailed accounting of what it's meant to model in reality, which can be verified by direct experience.

  21. #21
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    818
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This thread feels constructive. I mark entire thread as constructive conversation.

  22. #22
    echidna1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    London, England
    TIM
    ILE-Ne, ENTP, 7w8 sp
    Posts
    302
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    instead of studing to use the normal theory noobs make new doubtful hypotheses
    He isn't a noob. He's on the WSS diagnostic team. I think that's a respectable position from which to begin hypothesising developments to the theory.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •