Last edited by asd; 10-27-2020 at 06:30 PM.
If subtype affects dimensionality the sociotype would change. Therefore we wouldnt be talking about "subtypes" anymore but the whole "type" instead.
As example Dimensionality goes like this:
If you change the dimensionality of those you wouldnt have an SLI anymore but a different type.
Using @Tommy 's example
Look at the dimensionality difference for each subtype (SLI-Si vs SLI-Te)
SLI Si Te
4DSi 4.5 3.5
3DTe 2.5 3.5
2DNi 1.5 2.5
1DFe 1.5 0.5
1DNe 0.5 1.5
2DFi 2.5 1.5
3DSe 3.5 2.5
4DTi 3.5 4.5
why mistypings may happen. ex: look at the SLI-Te 's 4.5DTi.... Can lead to mistakingly type as an LSI
Last edited by peteronfireee; 10-03-2020 at 03:10 AM.
It just means that strengths and weaknesses exist ona spectrum relative to one's own psyche....The numbers (+,-) are there to simply illustrate this relativity.
Kinda reminds me of the MBTI % score strengths of each function, a spectrum or think of it as shades of a particular color.
When it comes to socionics dimensionality,
You can look at it as how easy it is for you to develop abilities in that area and maybe how confident you are with that area. Again, like a spectrum:
(Greater than) 4 D: “I know my shit.”
(Greater than) 3 D: “I am rather good at this.”
Greater than 2 D: ”I can handle this.”
Less than 2 D: “I think I need help.”
(Less than) 1D: “I don’t know I need (a lot of) help.”
So lets say you're trying to type someone, and you were looking at a questionnaire they filled out, you'd compare his functions amongst him/herself and not compared to a different person.
As for the 5th dimension ??? I have no idea
Last edited by peteronfireee; 10-03-2020 at 03:01 AM.
I have thought about having a partial dimension but then even I couldn't fool myself to make it sound. There are projections from m to n for instance like in computer graphics but even those deal with integers. You can restrict the dimension in terms of access in R for instance... but it still remains an integer even if it is a point in its own dimension and nothing else. Please, do not use half dimension if you can not explain it.
Uncertified public verbal executioner of ESI. Tickets will be available soon.
Winning is for losers
Your life is too short to actually do anything useful with it without being wasteful.
I've wondered the same
so then the "other type" that is not a pure SLI is basically a "subtype" since all the dimensionalities are being adjusted in proportion to the others.. ?
I sort of agree with the arguments of people who don't believe in subtype, but IRL i definitely observe individuals who of the same type who have different accentuations, so.. i'm not sure what to think
SLI-Si is SLI-SEI aka Alpha subtype, and SLI-Te is SLI-ILI aka Gamma subtype.
Ofc if you don't go into newer Gulenko, other subtyping systems etc.
Dimensionality is something that describes the functions of your model A and placement of IEs there. The functions and the placement of IEs are not affected by any kind of subtypes, so sociotype's ".5 1.5" etc. denotations have no effect on function D's.
Hmm. Something about the dimensionality of the functions is a bit 'too pretty' or neat. I think it's possible (for example) to maybe have a PoLR even weaker than a single dimension, receiving it you get extra irritable/emotional lol and break down and psychologically disintegrate even more so maybe it's like .6 dimensional, but then to compensate for this you could have a Role or HA function that's a bit better than normal, so it could be like 2.4 dimension to compensate. It might also explain the more interesting nuances of why you don't get along or get along with certain types 'you're not supposed' to as well. Also some types seem way better adjusted naturally , whereas others have much obvious greater weaknesses but also potential for greater gifts and some types are just really more average, rounded-out and Karen-y even within the same types. Also brings more individualism into socionics, because the idea that there's only '16 types of people' seems dumb.
I even think the guy from sociotype.com doesnt even use .5 on subtypes (at least I've never seen a result with .5). He just uses 0 (to indicate no subtype) or 1,2 and 3.
I don't see the point in partial dimensions. The demensionality should stay the same within a type to retain the integrity of the system. Subtype is a better way to explain the difference in behavior and appearance than information metabolism.