Mathematico-mechanical socionics - (ancient thread w edits)

[Smilingeyes]

If

Ni equals I am object in the future.
Ne equals I am subject in the future
Si equals I am object at the moment
Se equals I am subject at the moment
Te equals Object-of-thought is subject and acts in clearly defined way [quality].
Fe equals Object-of-thought is subject and acts in not-clearly defined way [quality].
Ti equals Object-of-thought is object and can act in clearly defined ways [quality].
Fi equals Object-of-thoughts is object and can act in not-clearly defined ways [quality].

and

Model A = true

then

Ti => Fi => Se => Ne => !Te => !Fe => !Si => !Ni
= the division of conscious vs. subconscious

and

If

Attribute + -
X1 Intuition Sensing
X2 Logic Ethics
X3 Statics Dynamics
X4 Extroversion Introversion

and

X5 = X1*X2 Democracy Aristocracy (alpha + gamma) (beta+delta)
X6 = X1*X3 Judiciousness Resoluteness (alpha+delta) (beta+gamma)
X7 = X2*X3 Cheerfulness Gravity (alpha+beta) (gamma+delta)
X-7 = X1*X4 Carefree Calculating (EN + IS) (ES + IN)
X-6 = X2*X4 Compliance Obstinacy (ET + IF) (EF + IT)
X-5 = X3*X4 Irationality Rationality J / P
X-4 = X1*X2*X3 Taciturn Narrative (ENTP, INTJ, ESFP, ISFJ, ENFJ, INFP, ESTJ, ISTP) (ESTP, ISTJ, ENFP, INFJ, ENTJ, ENTP, ISFP, ESFJ) (rings of benefaction) (restrained action) (fanatical action)
X-3 = X1*X2*X4 Positivism Negativism (ENT, ESF, INF, IST) (ISF, INT, EST, ENF)
X-2 = X1*X3*X4 Tactics Strategy (NP+SJ) (NJ+SP)
X-1 = X2*X3*X4 Construct-creating, Emotion-creating (STP, NTP, NFJ, SFJ) (NTJ, STJ, SFP, NFP)
X0 = X1*X2*X3*X4 Process (the left ring) Result (the right ring) (rings of supervision)

and

Model A = true

then

Democracy equals things that happen in the future are clearly defined and things that happen now are not-clearly-defined.
Aristocracy equals things that happen now are clearly defined and things that happen in the future are not-clearly-defined.

Judiciousness equals I am object at the moment but subject in the future.
Resoluteness equals I am subject at the moment but object in the future.

Cheerfulness equals things can act in clearly defined ways but act in non-clearly defined ways.
Gravity equals things can act in non-clearly defined ways but act in clearly defined ways.

Carefree equals I am object now or my action is defined by how I can act now or I am subject in the future or the object-of-thought acts in the future.
Calculating equals I am subject now or my action is defined by how object-of-thought acts now or I am object in the future or the object-of-thought can-act in the future.

Compliance equals object-of-thought acts in clearly defined way or object-of-thought can act in non-clearly defined way or my reaction causes object-of-thought to act in not-clearly-defined way or my action causes object-of-thought to have capability to act in clearly defined way.
Obstinacy equals object-of-thought acts in non-clearly-defined way or object-of-thought can act in clearly defined way or my reaction causes object-of-thought to act in clearly-defined way or my action causes object-of-thought to have capability to act in not-clearly defined way.

Irrationality equals I define object-of-thought.
Rationality equals object of thought defines me.

Taciturn equals my action defines capability of object-of-thought in the future in a clearly defined way (ENTP)
or clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action in the future (INTJ)
or my action defines capability of object-of-thought now in a non-clearly-defined way (ESFP)
or non-clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action now (ISFJ)
or non-clearly defined action of object-of-thought causes me to react in the future (ENFJ)
or my reaction in the future causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way (INFP)
or my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a clearly defined way (ISTP)
or clearly-defined action of object of thought causes me to react now (ESTJ)

Narrative equals
my action defines capability of object-of-thought now in a clearly defined way (ESTP)
or clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action now (ISTJ)
or my action defines capability of object-of-thought in the future in a non-clearly-defined way (ENFP)
or non-clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action in the future (INFJ)
or non-clearly defined action of object-of-thought causes me to react now (ESFJ)
or my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way (ISFP)
or my reaction in the future causes object-of-thought to act in a clearly defined way (INTP)
or clearly-defined action of object of thought causes me to react in the future (ENTJ)

Positivism equals my action defines capability of object-of-thought in the future in a clearly defined way (ENTP)
or clearly-defined action of object of thought causes me to react in the future (ENTJ)
or non-clearly defined action of object-of-thought causes me to react now (ESFJ)
or my action defines capability of object-of-thought now in a non-clearly-defined way (ESFP)
or non-clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action in the future (INFJ)
or my reaction in the future causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way (INFP)
or my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a clearly defined way (ISTP)
or clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action now (ISTJ)

Negativism equals my action defines capability of object-of-thought now in a clearly defined way (ESTP)
or clearly-defined action of object of thought causes me to react now (ESTJ)
or my action defines capability of object-of-thought in the future in a non-clearly-defined way (ENFP)
or non-clearly defined action of object-of-thought causes me to react in the future (ENFJ)
or my reaction in the future causes object-of-thought to act in a clearly defined way (INTP)
or clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action in the future (INTJ)
or my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way (ISFP)
or non-clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action now (ISFJ)

Tactics equals I define object-of-thought in the future or am defined by object-of-thought now.
Strategy equals I define object-of-thought now or am defined by object-of-thought in the future.

Construct-creating equals I define object-of-thought in a clearly defined way or non-clearly defined action of object of thought defines me.
Emotion-creating equals clearly-defined action of object-of-thought defines me or I define object-of-thought in a non-clearly defined way.

Process equals my action defines capability of object-of-thought in the future in a clearly defined way
or my action defines capability of object-of-thought now in a non-clearly-defined way
or non-clearly defined action of object-of-thought causes me to react in the future
or clearly-defined action of object of thought causes me to react now
or clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action now
or non-clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action in the future
or my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way
or my reaction in the future causes object-of-thought to act in a clearly defined way





Result equals my action defines capability of object-of-thought now in a clearly defined way
or my reaction in the future causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way
or my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a clearly defined way
or clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action in the future
or non-clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action now
or my action defines capability of object-of-thought in the future in a non-clearly-defined way
or non-clearly defined action of object-of-thought causes me to react now
or clearly-defined action of object of thought causes me to react in the future

Now to understand what this is all about, please note how one of the dogmas of classical socionics "type does not change" is actually equal to the Ti function. The classical way of understanding socionics depends on this dogma but the dogma is not proved it is simply found useful. Now Ti is not the only available paradigm and so this is all about Te socionics. What if the paradigm is 'type changes'?

First of all, this alteration of paradigm is necessary for Te-Ni types to be able to use socionics creatively. Second, it explains all the errors of personality typing. Thus, it is useful to understand this paradigm as well.

Socionics is fundamentally based on functions but classical socionics ignores the meaning of the functions, concentrating on their static results.

Now by using the model above, we will be able to analyse any single action as 'personality type' according to the role the person is using when accomplishing the act.

Please note that this is also the fundamental explanation behind the 'many subtypes' theory.

So classical socionics describes how a person is used to act. Te socionics describes how a person is acting at any given moment.

In Te socionics the person goes through momentary changes between ideal archetypal states and is in constant fluctuation. Thus more information can be found about the state of the subject as the tools are more powerful. At the same time it must be understood that Te does not define the object in the way classical socionics does. Thus Te socionics is not really psychology. It is more like mathematics, programming theory, theatre or business strategy.

Having fun yet?

................

Scarecrow said:

I can follow how you draw your conclusions but not these premises. I am intrigued by how some of the conclusions actually seem to pan out given a reality check, which adds weight to the validity of the premise.

How is extroversion related to subject and introverted related to object when it seems like it should be the opposite? Are you implying that extroversion, in associating itself with the object, becomes subjective in reference to the object, whereas introversion, in disassociating itself from the object, becomes objective in reference to it? That is the only thing I can think of.

..........................

Smilingeyes answered:

Yes. Let us go deeper into these.

We know that T and F share the same conceptual space and so do S and N. In some way T does not coexist with F nor S with N nor E with I.

Also the T/F space has has a correlation of change of I/E to the S/N space.

There is no Ti-Si thing for example. Thus any description of function has to explain these rules.

Now it is not obvious how for example Time is opposite of Possibility. Therefore we must go deeper.

Now begins the part that is open to speculation. The descriptions above, while they fit all knowledge we have at the moment are not what can be considered proven. I just know that they work and for the moment that's good enough for me. But I will explain how I found them.

I know from personal experience, from gulenko's sexual types and from the badly defined reinin dichotomies that the people classified as dynamics are reactive while the statics are active.

We also know that the S/N dimension somehow correlates to the decision of how to act and we know that T/F dimension somehow correlates to judgement of what is correct action.

With this knowledge I can equate Si to the conception that I am being forced to act, I am a victim, I am an object to the things that happen outside.

Please note that I am talking about subject and object only in the sense that the subject acts whereas the object is acted upon. This has nothing to do with objective/subjective bias.

Now from here it is obvious how the S/N dimension unfolds.

Ni is reaction to things in the future.
Se is I act. This is in the sense that I decide of the action out of my own free will.
Ne is as with Ni the same as it's S counterpart except removed in the dimension of time.

Now begins the really difficult part.

Now the difference between F and T is what we commonly call subjective/objective but it would be mixed up with the subject/object difference and therefore I have substituted it with the more complicated but more easy to understand clearly defined or non-clearly defined quality.

Now if we compare this to the S/N dimension...

If Si equals I am object now. That means that something else is the subject. Thus T/Fe must be the subject. What is T/Fe? It is something that i excercise judgement about. It is the object of what I am thinking.

So

Te equals Object-of-thought is subject in clearly defined way
Fe equals Object-of-thought is subject in non-clearly defined way

Now we simply take the opposite of these to understand what is Fi and Ti.
Thus

Ti must equal Object-of-thought is object and has clearly defined quality x.
Fi must equal Object-of-thought is subject and has clearly non-defined quality x.

Obviously one can replace the word quality with 'capability' or 'can-act-in-a-way'.

Thus by making an assumption about what is Si we know what the meaning of all the other functions must be.

...

Ladadidam. Today... let's perform another magic trick.
I'll prove how the long distance and short distance forms of functions are created!

From what we know previously, we shall accept that what happens in the future is more uncertain than what happens now and things that have undefined quality are more uncertain than things with defined quality.

Thus...

TeNi+ = outside force -> increased knowledge of the future
NiTe- = understanding of the future -> less certain outside action
FeNi- = uncertain outside force -> less knowledge of the future
NiFe+ = understanding of the future -> more uncertain outside action

FeSi- = uncertain outside force -> more certain understanding of the moment
SiFe+ = certain action -> less uncertainty of outside action
TeSi- = outside force -> less certain understanding of the moment
SiTe+ = action -> more certain outside force

TiNe+ = Certain capability -> more uncertain result in the future
NeTi- = Result in the future -> Less certain capability
FiNe- = Uncertain capability -> less certain result in the future
NeFi+ = Result in the future -> more uncertain capability

TiSe- = Certain capability -> less certain action
SeTi+ = action -> more certain capability
FiSe+ = uncertain capability -> more certain action
SeFi- = action -> less uncertain capability
#

Insert maniac laughter here.
...........

fairgeek said:

The entire lecture was irrational.

Quote:
Irrationality equals I define object-of-thought.
Rationality equals object of thought defines me.


You defined the objects of thought, therefore it is irrational.

I'm just joking around. Don't take it seriously. Your statements actually do make some sense. Smile

Quote:
We know that T and F share the same conceptual space and so do S and N. In some way T does not coexist with F nor S with N nor E with I.


So you imply that each function exists independently of the other functions but is influenced by the other functions?

Quote:
Ti must equal Object-of-thought is object and has clearly defined quality x.
Fi must equal Object-of-thought is subject and has clearly non-defined quality x.


If the object of thought which is the subject has a clearly defined quality, and yet is not an object - perhaps a concept, such as logic...

IF Logic is subject AND Logic does not have a clearly defined quality (as it is subjective). Thinking about logic would be an Fi function.

However, because thinking about logic would then be associated with Fi... Thinking would be a defined quality of Fi.

So if logic was the object of thought, it would have the clearly defined quality of being a quality of Fi. Since something that is an object of thought & has a clearly defined quality is Ti, both logic and Fi would be Ti. Thus nullifying the idea that Ti & Fi could not co-exist.

Yea, I know that was total BS, but I was trying to make a point -
Not all objective statements dealing with objects of thought would be Ti, and not all subjective statements dealing with objects of thought would be Fi. Unless you can provide a counter argument proving independent existence, which shouldn't be too difficult since I based my argument off of an irrational statement.

...................
Scarecrow said:



Smilingeyes wrote:

I know from personal experience, from gulenko's sexual types and from the badly defined reinin dichotomies that the people classified as dynamics are reactive while the statics are active.


Would you care to elaborate?

BTW it seems perhaps you don't need to use the reinin dichotomies since you associate action and reaction soley with perception. You could just say extroverted perceivers are active and introverted perceivers are reactive. Although there could be a case to be made (perhaps you have) for "action of object of thought" (what you call extroverted judgement) to be inherintly reactive since the explication of thought is defined by the thought itself, whereas "capabilities of object of thought" (introverted judgement) gives the thought "room to play" and thus agency. If this is the case then both introverted perception and extroverted judgement become "reactive". Introverted perception reacts to perception and extroverted judgement "plays itself out." This implies that introverted judgment is associated with "value creation", wherease extroverted judgement is simply a "value judgement".

Smilingeyes wrote:

Ni equals I am object in the future.
Ne equals I am subject in the future
Si equals I am object at the moment
Se equals I am subject at the moment
Te equals Object-of-thought is subject and acts in clearly defined way [quality].
Fe equals Object-of-thought is subject and acts in not-clearly defined way [quality].
Ti equals Object-of-thought is object and can act in clearly defined ways [quality].
Fi equals Object-of-thoughts is object and can act in not-clearly defined ways [quality].


Your phraseology makes it seem here that the perceptive functions relate more closely to the "ghost in the machine" ("I" as subject of sentence vs. "Object-of-thoughts" as subject of sentence.) Perhaps this should be rephrased.

See:

http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/po...inds_ghost.htm

Overall though a good job of exorcism.

Here's a rundown of primary causal agents, tell me if you agree:

extroverted perceivers - their actions or impulses (blind)
introverted perceivers - their perception (hypnotized)
extroverted judgers - thought explication (fated?)
introverted judgers - thought implication (the only free type? which imlies our only freedom is value creation?)

How does an accepting first function and a producing second function fit in with reaction vs action? It doesn't seem to on its face.

Neitszche claims somewhere that the difference between a cause and an effect is simply that the cause has more power. It's like a billiard ball colliding with a ping-pong ball. The impact changes both their tragectories, but it would be more accurate to say the billiard ball "caused" the ping-pong ball to be displaced. Since the power differential is not so great between elements of the psyche it would be interesting to explore the reverse causalities of the normal flow of information metabolism as well.

................
Smilex answered to fairgeek


fairgeek wrote:
You defined the objects of thought, therefore it is irrational.


I didn't define object-of-thought. Object-of-thought is name of a variable in an equation.

fairgeek wrote:
I'm just joking around. Don't take it seriously. Your statements actually do make some sense. Smile

Ha ha, only serious Wink

fairgeek wrote:
So you imply that each function exists independently of the other functions but is influenced by the other functions?

That's one way to say it, thought not the words I privately use in my mind.


fairgeek wrote:
If the object of thought which is the subject has a clearly defined quality, and yet is not an object - perhaps a concept, such as logic...


I presume you are aware that using the word object in this thread when referring to a concrete item is just asking for misinterpretations...
Also... It is a point of endless argument whether logic is something that has clearly defined qualities.

fairgeek wrote:
IF Logic is subject AND Logic does not have a clearly defined quality (as it is subjective). Thinking about logic would be an Fi function.

In your first sentence you postulate that object-of-thought(logic) is subject. Thinking about subject with undefined quality is Fe.

fairgeek wrote:
However, because thinking about logic would then be associated with Fi... Thinking would be a defined quality of Fi.

Thinking as a word can be used about all the functions in this thread. While thinking about subject of undefined quality is Fe, Thinking about object with defined quality is Ti. Ok?

fairgeek wrote:
So if logic was the object of thought, it would have the clearly defined quality of being a quality of Fi. Since something that is an object of thought & has a clearly defined quality is Ti, both logic and Fi would be Ti. Thus nullifying the idea that Ti & Fi could not co-exist.


Deciding variables in an equation is act of Ti. That does not transform the variable itself into Ti. What you seem to be saying is equal to saying that not having clearly defined quality is a clearly defined quality. Sure. You can use Ti to understand Fi and Fi to understand Ti. They have interaction and understanding that interaction is what this is all about.

fairgeek wrote:
Yea, I know that was total BS, but I was trying to make a point -

The point was fair.

-Smilex
................

Smilex answers to scarecrow:

quote:
Would you care to elaborate?


Gulenko: Dynamic = servant or victim/ Static = aggressor or unbound child
Reinin: Dynamic = importance given to change / Static = importance given to the not-changing
Lev Kamensky: Dynamic = much aroused by environmental cues / static = little aroused by environmental cues
Own experience: I am constantly looking around me for rules that bind me so that I would not have to fight against those rules. Thus I am reacting to outside pressure.

Scarecrow wrote:

BTW it seems perhaps

Scarecrow wrote:
See:
http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/po...inds_ghost.htm

Ah, yes, but while they are proposing that the ghost-in-the-machine has no substance, and therefore is not a Ti/Te concept, it can still referred to with Fi/Fe Smile But yes, making any statements about the inner workings of the perception function are irrelevant for the model.

Smilex wrote:
my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way (ISFP)
[quote="Scarecrow"]
Here the chain of causation goes: perception -> reaction to perception -> feeling. Perception seems to have agency. (unless you would like explain more clearly exactly what the passive type is reacting to?)

while here:

Quote:
my action defines capability of object-of-thought now in a non-clearly-defined way (ESFP)

Scarecrow wrote:

perception seems to be left out of the equation. The "action" has agency, but without any outside input.


This is an important point you bring up. It is possible that action and reaction are not the best possible terms for the relation. Ascribing names is the domain of Ti people and I am quite open to changing any names or words within this theory for they are not important to the relations that this theory is about. But anyway. I've been intending to go deeper into this...

Now let's compare all the SFs. Both ESFP and ESFJ define themselves through outside action. The first sees his own action and is thus subject, the latter sees the action of others and is thus object.
ISFJ and ISFP define themselves independent of outside action. ISFJ lacks concept of action of others to relate to and is thus the subject. ISFP defines oneself but lacks concept of own action and thus to relate to ie. has no initiative and thus all his actions are reactions.

Scarecrow wrote:

Perhaps you meant to say:
my action creates a perception that defines the capability of object-of-thought now in a non-clearly-defined way.
This seems to make more sense, perception acting on judgment rather than the action itself.

This is another good way to put the same thing. If people like your way of putting it more, I'm willing to adopt it. There is no contradiction between the two suggested forms for the definition.

Scarecrow wrote:
Here's a rundown of primary causal agents, tell me if you agree:
extroverted perceivers - their actions or impulses (blind)
introverted perceivers - their perception (hypnotized)
extroverted judgers - thought explication (fated?)
introverted judgers - thought implication (the only free type? which imlies our only freedom is value creation?)

Very nice. Very very nice.

Thank you, my friend. It was a pleasure to hear from you, as always...

...


TeNi+ = outside force -> increased knowledge of the future
or clearly-defined action of object of thought causes me to react in the future (ENTJ)

Here, it is clear that Te is a limiting force that gives certain information about what kind of activity is expected in the environment through which we can gain positive results of understanding. Ni+. What kind of qualities do we expect to be associated with Ni+?

Consistency, a prediction, change of a situation in time, estimation of opportuneness and urgency of the actions of present moment, the skill to govern its internal time.
The model explains the results gained by statistical testing.

NiTe- = understanding of the future -> less certain outside action
or my reaction in the future causes object-of-thought to act in a clearly defined way (INTP)

Here, perception of future gives understanding and perspective that the current outside reaction will not last and will not necessarily have the most obvious results. Understanding increases complexity and variety of possible forecasts meaning that outside action seems less likely to have profitable results. Te- Again, What kind of qualities do we expect to be associated with Te-?
Uselessness, unprofitableness, deterioration, charges, expenditure, risk, the algorithm of general calculations, innovation in the systematization of processes.
The model explains the results gained by statistical testing.


FeNi- = uncertain outside force -> less knowledge of the future
or non-clearly defined action of object-of-thought causes me to react in the future (ENFJ)

Here, realisation, that there is outside forces that are unknowledgeable increases understanding that the future can not be known, thus creating a need to be prepared for many things. Ni-. Again, What kind of qualities do we expect to be associated with Ni-?

Error check, avoiding of danger, uneasiness, vague anxiety, skill to be insured against troubles, the skill to govern the time of other people, to see prospects on the basis of the calculation of errors - tendency toward the predictions.
The model explains the results gained by statistical testing.

NiFe+ = understanding of the future -> more uncertain outside action
or my reaction in the future causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way (INFP)

Here, understanding of long-term events creates understanding of the possibilities of outside action, creating more freedom to choose personal reaction to the outside world and thus increases personal power to affect one's surroundings. Fe+ Again, What kind of qualities do we expect to be associated with Fe+?

personal emotions, its mood, its passion, personal artistic taste and artistic taste of one concrete actor, its nervousness, power engineering its the nearest environment, the open expression of its emotions, the demonstration of its feelings

The model explains the results gained by statistical testing.


FeSi+ = uncertain outside force -> less certain understanding of the moment (sorry, this was reversed in original message)
or non-clearly defined action of object-of-thought causes me to react now (ESFJ)

As the outside conditions are uncertain at the moment, there are less forces that affect my decision of reaction, thus current reaction can be chosen more freely. Si+ Again, What kind of qualities do we expect to be associated with Si+?

Pleasant sensations, comfort, convenience, harmony, beauty, appeal, rest, health, slackness

The model explains the results gained by statistical testing.

SiFe- = certain action -> less uncertainty of outside action (sorry, this was reversed in original message)
or my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a non-clearly-defined way (ISFP)

As the person reacts to outside forces at the moment, he defines the outside action more clearly by his input. Thus the qualities of the outside action become less uncertain. Fe-
Again, What kind of qualities do we expect to be associated with Fe-?

sensitiveness, drops in the moods, fervency, fanaticism on a global scale, the open expression of its emotions, the demonstration of its feelings the forcing of situation, tendency toward the oratorical skill and intrigues.

The model explains the results gained by statistical testing.

TeSi- = outside force -> less certain understanding of the moment
or clearly-defined action of object of thought causes me to react now (ESTJ)

Outside force affects me in a clear way thus giving me less freedom of choosing my own current reaction. Si-
Again, What kind of qualities do we expect to be associated with Si-?

Unpleasant sensations, discomfort, inconvenience, disharmony, suffering, pain, the ability to feel interaction of the physical properties of objects in the space, ergonomics of space, topographical design, tendency toward the tactile contact as the method of the collection of information about the physical properties of objects.

The model explains the results gained by statistical testing.

SiTe+ = action -> more certain outside force
or my reaction now causes object-of-thought to act in a clearly defined way (ISTP)

My current reaction has certain consequences of outside action. Thus outside action is certain Te+ Again, What kind of qualities do we expect to be associated with Te+ ?

Advantage, benefit, profitability, putting in order, a practicality, understanding the working qualities of objects, the ramification of the facts, which are concerned the concrete matters, optimality in the concrete realization of anything, advantage and benefit for itself.

The model explains the results gained by statistical testing.

I'll do the other half later...

[Smilingeyes]

In all the material in this thread, there are only two assumptions: that Si correlates to my current perception and reaction to outside forces and that the model A is correct in describing the two first functions. Everything else flows naturally from this assumption and just happens to correlate to what we know of socionics by statistical methods.

TiNe+ = Certain capability -> more uncertain result in the future
or clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action in the future (INTJ)

Knowing clearly my capabilities and the capabilities of certain other things, I have more information on what I or others can achieve in the future. Ne+ And the qualities we expect from Ne+:

estimation and the skill to recognize the positive potential qualities of individual person, his possibility, aim to the novelty, the hypothetical nature, the originality, the unusualness, Prospects, opportunities, singularity, unreality, belief

The theory fits the results of previous research.

NeTi- = Result in the future -> Less certain capability
or my action defines capability of object-of-thought in the future in a clearly defined way (ENTP)

Trying to achieve future goals makes me less certain of the concrete capabilities of myself and others to achieve the results. Ti-. And the qualities we expect from Ti-:

abstraction, generality, universality, system, classification, the general laws, the analysis, logic of a science, criteria, the composition of strict laws, standards, rules, instructions for the hierarchy of society, the valid distribution of rights and responsibilities, the assignment of equal possibilities for all people

The theory fits the results of previous research.

FiNe- = Uncertain capability -> less certain result in the future
or non-clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action in the future (INFJ)

Uncertainty of my and others capabilities leads me to abstain from trying to reach goals in the future Ne-. And the qualities we expect from Ne-:

Hopelessness, alternative, negative potential, the paradox, mediocrity, the suppressed opportunities, disbelief, black humor, estimation and the skill to recognize the negative potential qualities of people.

The theory fits the results of previous research.

NeFi+ = Result in the future -> more uncertain capability
or my action defines capability of object-of-thought in the future in a non-clearly-defined way (ENFP)

Trying to reach uncertain goals requires marshalling as much resources to the task as possible. If quality is undefined, one must have more attempts to reach the goal and thus experiment with the quality of things. Fi+ And the qualities we expect from Fi+

Good relation, friendship, sympathy, an attraction, heat of attitudes, the sociability, a close psychological distance, kindly, pity, humanist ideals, feeling of debt, responsibility with respect to the individual.

The theory fits the results of previous research.

TiSe- = Certain capability -> less certain action
or clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action now (ISTJ)

With full knowledge of my capabilities and those of others I am certain of myself have no need to prove myself by achievement. I thus use my capabilities to stop others from doing harmful things. Se- And the qualities we expect from Se-

Capture of authority, submission, attack, aggression, attack, the initiative, persistence, insistence, strong-willed pressure from top to down, the statement of the interests due to others, overthrow, weakness, lack of will, mastering.the skill to defend the collective interests: piercing power, persistence, confidence in itself.

The theory fits the results of previous research.

SeTi+ = action -> more certain capability
or my action defines capability of object-of-thought now in a clearly defined way (ESTP)

I do things and achieve things and by checking what I am capable of I have perfect knowledge of my capabilities and those of other things. Ti+ And the qualities we expect from Ti+:

Reality, detail, detailed study, carefulness, severity, place in hierarchies, laws, decisions, instructions, a choice of the best variant, logic of the organization,

The theory fits the results of previous research.

FiSe+ = uncertain capability -> more certain action
or non-clearly defined capability of object-of-thought defines my action now (ISFJ)

Uncertainty of capabilities of oneself and others forces me to protect what I know is certain and distrust the claims of others as to their capabilities Se+. And the qualities we expect from Se+:

Deduction of authority, insubordination, protection, defense, retaliation, hardness, upholding of the interests, strong-willed pressure from below upwards, will power, possession;

The theory fits the results of previous research.

SeFi- = action -> less uncertain capability
or my action defines capability of object-of-thought now in a non-clearly-defined way (ESFP)

By my action I try to clarify the non-clearly defined qualities of things, find things that are potentially dangerous and stop them from doing harm. Fi-, And the qualities we expect from Fi-.

tendency toward the rigid morals with the polar views, to create and to impose its moral standards, the moral estimation of behavior and judgments of people as societies, responsibility with respect to of group

The theory fits the results of previous research.

............................
Waddles W said:

Well, smilingeyes, you have certainly given me a "positive" example Wink

I typically sift while researching, noting what catches my eye, working from general pillars of knowledge, rather than following a linear path of learning. So, with this said I may have missed something which details the succeeding question:

Why do you suppose, for example, that Ni will perceive itself as being an object in the future? Or Ne as a subject in the future, etc...

I'll just need a quick run down on your terminology so I can integrate it into my understanding. I will say now that this system of thought you have developed has a strong correlation with many more intuitive ideas I have had, so it is extremely appealing to me.

Smilingeyes wrote:
Ni equals I am object in the future.
Ne equals I am subject in the future
Si equals I am object at the moment
Se equals I am subject at the moment
Te equals Object-of-thought is subject and acts in clearly defined way [quality].
Fe equals Object-of-thought is subject and acts in not-clearly defined way [quality].
Ti equals Object-of-thought is object and can act in clearly defined ways [quality].
Fi equals Object-of-thoughts is object and can act in not-clearly defined ways [quality].


so just a little explanation of how and/where you reached these conclusions.

.............................

Smilingeyes answered to Waddles:

There might be some native disposition, though speculating on it seems worthless. I would presume that in childhood the child picks some cues on what strategy of action leads to good results. Later on I would presume that there is a major component of habit, but I still believe that a person is able to shift from one strategy and paradigm to another if a situation clearly demands the shift. Thus I presume the one word answer would be 'habit'.

I tried to explain the origins of the explanation of functions previously in another post and I still think that is the definitive answer, but I'll try to give you another version that is not so explicit and complicated and concentrates on what I think is important to understand the meaning and less on the thought process involved in finding the terminology.

Ni equals I am object in the future.
Ne equals I am subject in the future
Si equals I am object at the moment
Se equals I am subject at the moment
Te equals Object-of-thought is subject and acts in clearly defined way [quality].
Fe equals Object-of-thought is subject and acts in not-clearly defined way [quality].
Ti equals Object-of-thought is object and can act in clearly defined ways [quality].
Fi equals Object-of-thoughts is object and can act in not-clearly defined ways [quality].

The most important thing to note is that these are not built according to structure of English but that of mathematics.
Another way to put the same issue would be: (allowing that action in future is not as definite as action now)
Ni = I*Obj*NotDef
Si = I*Obj*Def
Ne = I*Subj*NotDef
Se = I*Subj*Def
Te = Thought*Subj*Def
Fe = Thought*Subj*NotDef
Ti = Thought*Obj*Def
Fi = Thought*Obj*NotDef

So what we have is some very basic building blocks that create a system.

The following is NOT a definitive guide, nor is the power of the theory dependent on the absolute correctness of the following descriptions.

The Subject and Object cathegories define whom has the initiative in action. What is perceived by thinker to be the cause of action.

I and Thought (Object-of-thought) is about what is the parameter that makes the decision about what is correct action. If it is I, I can decide freely what I do, (or at least react as I wish). If it is Object-of-thought, the decision is made according to the qualities of the situation.

Definite and Nondefinite is the perception of certainty. If action is definite, it has high probability of success but it's results are limited by it's definition. If an action is nondefined, it has high probability of failure, but it's possible results are not limited sometimes resulting in achievements that are not possible through definite action.
If object-of-thought is definite, it limits choice of action a lot. If object-of-thought is not definite, it limits choice of action only little.

Was that what you wanted Ww?

Trivia corner:

There is an interesting probable connectio to the p/j cathegory of MBTI.
MBTI p/j: j=high probability of achieving results / p= high probability of starting new things.

Now if we make an assumption that choice is more limited and thus action more definite, if object-of-thought defines action than if I am free to choose action on my own...

AND

also assume that an introvert is more likely to finish an action that he has started than an extrovert (who is likely to react to environmental cues)...

we can make a proposition that the person most likely to start new things has type E(extrovert)N(non-defined action)F(non-defined knowledge)P(freedom-of-choice) ENFP

and the person most likely to finish something started is for the same reasons ISTJ.

As it happens, according to Lytov the socionics cathegories are distributed on the MBTI p/j axis in such a way that ENFp is on one end and ISTj in the other.

---end of trivia corner---

....

Smilingeyes answeres to not-shown suggestion by Cheerio(Typhon):

It's an interesting proposition you made, Cheer. I discussed the very same thing with my ex-wife a while back and we ended up with the following: Si and Se too have a connection to the past and indeed I would postulate that understanding of the past equals "the knowledge-functions" (Ti,Fi,Te,Fe) and thus when eg. an INTP reacts by "being subject in the future" what he does is create a judgement of a good pattern of action Te as an estimation of past and future. What say you?

--------------------------------------

Another day, another mathematical magic trick awaits. Smile

Today we will prove the nature of good and evil,
Ha ha, only serious.

Ok, we'll look at why F is "ethical" and T "not-ethical", good enough?

If

x1 = input
x2 = action
x3 = resources
x4 = decision

and

x1*x2*x3*x4 = probability of getting exactly the result you wanted

x1 can have values E or I, I>E
x2 can have values S or N, S>N
x3 can have values T or F, T>F
x4 can have values p or j, j>p

then ENFp has probability p1 to achieve result that he wanted
and ISTj has probability p2 to achieve result that he wanted

p1 << p2

So... To achieve wanted result, ENFp has to make many many more attempts than ISTj. He also has to try harder, use more energy and so on. Now ENFp is an "ethical" and ISTj is a "not-ethical" what does this mean?

Imagine you are an ISTj. You know what you need to do to succeed. Why should you do wasteful, unneeded things? You don't. Should you care about people who are not related to you in any way? Who have no worth to how you act in life, and you know this for a fact? *shrug*

Now imagine you are an ENFp. You don't know who is powerful, who is not. You don't know why people act the way they do. Your goals and your interests constantly change. Is there anyone who you can hurt and be certain that you are not shooting yourself in the foot? Is there anything of which you know that you will never need it?

For these reasons people who perceive an F-type, perceive him as ethical. He is more likely to be social because he is more likely to perceive a complete stranger as a possibly important person. Extrapolate to E,N,P and voila... that is why power corrupts.

...................................

Cheerio(Typhon) answered Smilingeyes:

I see. What I meant is that yes, S has a connection to the past(or perhaps its just the S type's use of N that grumbles in the background, but whatever), but S is more focused in the present if Im aware, whereas N can be in the past or in the future but since it has no sense of the present it cant distinguish past and future unless it tries. I usually find myself anywhere but the present moment, which is often the past but is also the future and it can actually be both at the same time without consciously making the distinction.

Perhaps you could say that:

Ni equals I am object anywhere but the present moment (and place)
Ne equals I am subject anywhere but the present moment and place

the "place" aspect I added comes from the fact that if you "aerent" in the present physical situation, as sensing types tend to be, you could be "somewhere else" which could be anywhere and anyplace without making marked distinctions between past and future, here and there. So an N type has an easier time making connections between past, future, here and there without necessarily making a distinction between these things. Of course thinking does make a distinction between these things, as T tends to make distinction between things. So I guess your right- when an INTP uses Te he spontaneoulsy creates a judgement of pattern of action temporarily distinguishing between past and future, here and there. I say temporarily, because he doesnt use Te all the time.

So lets cut to the chase: What difference does it make if Ni and Ne were to equal what I wrote them to equal as opossed to what you wrote them to equal? Is this a trivial detail I brought up, or is does it have any implications, good or bad, in your system? If this system is to help us understand people, does it complicate things, or can it reveal something more?
...........................

Smilingeyes answered Cheerio(Typhon):

Ni equals I am object anywhere but the present moment (and place)
Ne equals I am subject anywhere but the present moment and place


This is a very good way of putting it, better than my original one, since this brings the situation closer to the yes-no structure inherent to the system. But I would presume that the most basic form to understand the difference would be through undefined action vs. defined action.

Ni equals I am object in an undefined way.
Ne equals I am subject in an undefined way.

You went the same direction by adding the place aspect to the equation. My original suggested form was used mainly to help people understand the connection to the usually accepted version of Ni = Time.

On the whole I approve heartily of your analysis.

[Smilingeyes]

So... I'm going to go back to the beginning for a bit and investigate dichotomies...

Starting at the beginning we have:
Democracy = alpha + gamma
= things that happen in the future are clearly defined and things that happen now are not-clearly-defined.
= Te-Ni+, Ti-Ne+, Fi-Se+, Fe-Si+, Si+Fe-, Se+Fi-, Ne+Ti-, Ni+Te-
= Concrete personal action is paired with uncertain knowledge and abstract personal action is paired with certain knowledge.

If we accept the definition of certain result, we note that there is a balance. Everyone has some certain capability and some uncertain. There is a balance of power and thus of responsibility. Everyone has to think about the actions and interests of at least someone else. There is interdependence. These are all attributes of a theoretically stable society.


Aristocracy = beta + delta
= Fe+Ni-, Te+Si-, Ti+Se-, Fi+Ne-, Ni-Fe+, Ne-Fi+, Si-Te+, Se-Ti+
= Aristocracy equals things that happen now are clearly defined and things that happen in the future are not-clearly-defined.

As opposite here we notice that there are types that have a very high and on the other have very low level of certainty in their actions. The power and responsibility is centered to the few who can achieve plenty and do not need others. At the same time these few are very incapable of adapting or gaining new information. They are destined to drive themselves into situations from which they can not extract themselves. (Unless their dual is there to give them an out) On the other hand there are types here who have no power and thus no responsibility.

These are attributes that when extended to the level of society tend to be thought of as bad as they polarize the system and have more of a tendency to turn violent and corrupt.

(edit)
(I'm dodging log-outs by first making a smaller post and then adding content)

Next up:
Judiciousness and Resoluteness

Judiciousness
= (alpha+delta)
= I am object at the moment but subject in the future.
= Te+Si-, Fi+Ne-, Ne-Fi+, Si-Te+, Ti-Ne+, Fe-Si+, Si+Fe-, Ne+Ti-,

First, a moment of pondering.

What does I am object at the moment mean? Why is it not simply I am object? Does not the simple statement of "I am object at the moment" mean that there is probably some other period in time towards which I prepare by allowing myself to be object at the moment? Otherwise the idea is that I am object now and forever. Si abhors Ni and demands Ne. This is why a paradigm, a world view, a decision always supposes that if Si exists, Ni must not. This is the manner in which Ego, SuperEgo and SuperID are connected. You have to believe that the SuperEgo things do not exist or otherwise you're a wreck.

Back to Judiciousness itself...

Simply, Judiciousness seems to entail that if there is action to be done, it should not be done by you, at least not now. If you are forced to act, now, you should perform the action as quickly and efficiently as possible and simultaneously remove the reason to act.

Resoluteness
=(beta+gamma)
= I am subject at the moment but object in the future.
= Te-Ni+, Fi-Se+, Se+Fi-, Ni+Te-, Fe+Ni-, Ti+Se-, Ni-Fe+, Se-Ti+

Being the opposite of judiciousness, the time to act is now, because if you let the situation pass, you will lose your chance and things will only get worse.


I think that the only real ideas I've had here are 1. what is the basic form of each function to which it should be reduced for analysis and 2. that each action should be typed separately. All the other stuff is trivial when compared to these. And those ideas might very well have been previously had by someone else. But if any great name socionist happens to visit this thread and notice something interesting and new that he wants to publish it's ok by me. As long as he (when he gets his nobel prize for efforts towards peace and conflict resolution Wink) notes in cocktail party speeches that he got his ideas from a cyberspatial zen-jewish witch. Laughing .

I do feel I want to publish some of this stuff myself, but I think I'm going to turn it into a children's book in story form.

on to today's dichotomies...

Cheerfulness vs. Gravity

Cheerfulness
= (alpha+beta)
= things can act in clearly defined ways but act in non-clearly defined ways.
= Se-Ti+, Ni-Fe+, Ti+Se-, Fe+Ni-, Ti-Ne+, Fe-Si+, Si+Fe-, Ne+Ti-,

Okay. Another moment of pondering follows... We expect as previously with Si-Ne, that paradigm of Ti demands paradigm Fe. Why is this?

1. Object-of-thought can not simultaneously be subject and object.

But why is this? Physics applies. If you affect something you are likewise affected by it. True, but for any given effect the subject is either object or subject. A causes effect x to B. Simultaneously B causes effect y to A. Ok. That't the theoretical answer.

2. Let's assume, that we know what properties and qualities an object has Ti. We know, therefore we can not not-know Fi. Naturally we can make a mistake here to believe that you know and to believe that you not know are both simply paradigms. You can make an error both ways. Now if we know what properties an object has, that has become the defining characteristic of the object. What happens to the object is not really important as it's definition will not be changed as nothing can happen to the object that its definition did not allow. Thus knowledge of action is unimportant. It does not limit our understanding of our environment and is therefore undefined Fe.

Basically, you can only base your world-view for any given decision to one kind of knowledge. You can factor in things that are Ti, Fi, Fe and Te, but something is ultimately the deciding factor.

Thus Cheerfulness presumes that events and single actions have little meaning as nothing important can happen.

Gravity
= (gamma+delta)
= things can act in non-clearly defined ways but act in clearly defined ways.
= Te+Si-, Fi+Ne-, Ne-Fi+, Si-Te+, Te-Ni+, Fi-Se+, Se+Fi-,Ni+Te-

Gravity presumes that everything is limited by it's interaction with others and thus action and singular events are the only thing of which there is importance. Thus, the quality of things must be proved once and again by action.


Carefree vs. Calculating

Carefree
=(EN + IS) I am object now or my action is defined by how I can act now or I am subject in the future or the object-of-thought acts in the future.
=Ne-Fi+, Si+Fe-,Si-Te+, Ne+Ti-, Fe+Ni-, Te-Ni+, Ti+Se-, Fi-Se+,

Here, we have the observation of the outside world and motivations of others connected to general undefined action
and current actions connected to personal motivation.

This can be perceived as creation of situations where generally action takes in consideration the wishes of others but where need arises you can act as you wish.


Calculating
= (ES + IN) I am subject now or my action is defined by how object-of-thought acts now or I am object in the future or the object-of-thought can-act in the future.
=Se-Ti+, Ni-Fe+, Ti-Ne+, Fe-Si+, Te+Si-, Fi+Ne-, Se+Fi-, Ni+Te-

Here on the other hand one expects to find singular actions that consider other people to create situations of your own long-term advantage.

Example of action: a carefree contract is a gentleman's contract. You know it holds because it's fair and you know that the opposing party will break it if need forces and that's fair too. A calculating contract is a legal contract. You insert gems in it to make it look good, but you also enter traps which you hope the other party will not notice but will later be forced to comply with.


On to next dichotomy

Compliance vs. Obstinacy

Compliance
=(ET + IF)
=object-of-thought acts in clearly defined way or object-of-thought can act in non-clearly defined way or my reaction causes object-of-thought to act in not-clearly-defined way or my action causes object-of-thought to have capability to act in clearly defined way.

Here Definite knowledge exists in connection with looking at the outside world and undefined knowledge is connected with self-preservation.

So... Compliance is knowing what are the intentions of others and uncertainty of your own capabilities to resist change.

Obstinacy
= (EF + IT)
=object-of-thought acts in non-clearly-defined way or object-of-thought can act in clearly defined way or my reaction causes object-of-thought to act in clearly-defined way or my action causes object-of-thought to have capability to act in not-clearly defined way.

And as an opposite to the previous, obstinacy is not-understanding what is happening and certainty of your own need and capability (for example to resist change).


Irrationality vs. Rationality

We know this one rather well already but I'm going to show a couple of things I haven't discussed yet.

ENTP is similar to ENTJ except that he's irrational.

In this system ENTP means my action defines capability of object-of-thought in the future in a clearly defined way

ENTJ means clearly-defined action of object of thought causes me to react in the future .

In both systems, there is concrete action in "the outer world" that has a general, long term effect that creates more potential to "I". The difference between the way ENTP functions and the way ENTJ functions seems to be on this level too, exactly what I have said before about irrationality and rationality

Irrationality equals I define object-of-thought.
Rationality equals object of thought defines me.

BUT. If the two are so close together, how come they don't have any of the same functions? Well... Basically it's a question of nomenclature. We have defined the functions so that certain connections in the system are easy but that does not remove the possibility of other connections.

So, let's define a mathematical function called Rationality or Rat()

Rat (ENTP) = ENTJ
Rat (ENTJ) = ENTP
Rat (Ne+Ti-) = Te-Ni+
Rat (Te-Ni+) = Ne+Ti-

So far it's easy, but if we make such a definition, from there it naturally follows that

Rat (Ne+) = Te-
Rat (Te-) = Ne+
and the same applies to all the functions.
This means that Te- and Ne+ actually involve similar information except that one operates according to the paradigm that "I am subject" and the other according to "I am object". And that is why quasi-identicals are so bloody similar.

Warning. Don't over-apply Rat(). You'll end up in deep trouble.

It should be noted that dual partners share the same cathegory within all the previous dichotomies but not in the next few.

Please note that in all situations of I/E, S/N, T/F, J/P, the latter has a function of quality control to the actions of the other. The first cathegory has an agenda, and must persuade the latter cathegory that it is in his interests to follow the agenda. On with the show...


Taciturn
=(ENTP, INTJ, ESFP, ISFJ, ENFJ, INFP, ESTJ, ISTP) (restrained action)
= Judiciousness * Logic + Resolute * Feeling

Judicious person thinks it's better to postpone action but has to persuade the resolute group that this is best idea.


Narrative (ESTP, ISTJ, ENFP, INFJ, ENTJ, ENTP, ISFP, ESFJ) (fanatical action)
= Judiciousness * Feeling + Resolute * Thinking

Resolute person thinks it's best to act now, but has to persuade the judicious partner that it's best to do so.

Positivism
=(ENT, ESF, INF, IST)
=Carefree * Thinking + Calculating * Feeling
Carefree has to persuade Calculating that good results will follow action.

Negativism
=(ISF, INT, EST, ENF)
=Carefree *Feeling + Calculating * Thinking
Calculating has to persuade Carefree that bad results will follow action.

Tactics
=(NP+SJ)
Already discussed in another thread.
Situational varying courses of action with a large variance of results. Volatile system.
Lots of attention to pattern of action needed.

Strategy
=(NJ+SP)
Already discussed in another thread.
General, unvarying course of action. Small variance of results.
Stable system.
Little attention to pattern of action needed.

Construct-creating
= (TJ+FP)
The Judging partner has to persuade perceiving partner to follow rules. Good control of pace of advance.

Emotion-creating
= (FJ+TP)
The Perceiving partner has to persuade judging partner to follow him.
Good control of direction of action.

Process (the right ring)
= Tactics * Thinking + Strategy * Feeling
The tactical person has to persuade the strategic person that he knows the situation and the correct pattern of action to situation.

Result (the left ring) (rings of supervision)
= Tactics * Feeling + Strategy * Thinking
The strategical person has to persuade the tactical person that over-managing a system creates a worse result and that only a general understanding of the course is needed.


Some notes about dualism and Te-socionics.

We assume that person's usual type is what is normal behaviour for person but we do not assume that this behaviour is constant.

We note that many proponents of classic socionics accept the concept of a creating and an accepting subtype. This is understood to be preference for second or first function. Now we must understand what this means.

For example. Let's assume Ni+Te-. Everything he does is Ni+Te-. If he does something that is not these functions, he is changing type to something else. If he prefers one of these functions, it means he uses it more than the other. The most reasonable way to understand this is that a Ni+Te- who prefers his second function, will usually change to Si-Te+ and one who prefers his first function will usually change to Ni-Fe+ when he encounters a situation which does not suit his primary functional combination.

Now this gives us important information about duals, for if dual is of same subtype as you, his second preferred function configuration is of same quadra as yours and when you both use your secondary type, you are again duals. If your dual is of different subtype as you, he will become, when both of you use your secondary type, your contrary partner. Now the funny thing here is, that this will probably cause you two to have more common interests.

[Smilingeyes]

A few issues about the permanency of type...

Classic socionics claims that type does not change. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence for this. This is what is conventionally seen to be true.

The functions, as defined in this thread are such that a person can momentarily choose to act according to any type.

Indeed, the functions are such that to be able to survive, a person must use more than one type. Eg. INFP, which can be put in form: "I decide that I don't have definite knowledge and I don't act for now, despite that my environment tries to force me to." Everybody acts and reacts. Everybody has purposeful action. Even the mildest NF can be provoked to an argument of the ST variety and so on.

These two paradigms work well together for the following reasons...

A person's worldview, habits, association with other people, ethics and other environmental phenomena enforce certain type of behaviour. The more you have freedom to choose your environment, the easier it is for you to settle into a comfortable life-style, using same functions constantly.
This qualifies as a partial explaining factor for things like why certain types seem like they were of a different type when they're not yet adults or when they act with their family members or in other special circumstances. Also, this is a quick and easy fix to the "problem" of subtypes. Essentially, what this theory suggests is that a person generally has just one type that should be analyzed but the possibilities of variation within type are infinite, thus creating a wide field open to creative definition of subtypes.

Now I'm going to elaborate on a subject I've touched before...

If we accept that a person has a certain type but to survive, he has to periodically change to other types, and allowing for force of habit, we can assume that everyone has a secundary type they prefer to change to when first one fails. Now common sense says that this secondary type would be close to the first one and that would mean as little change of functions as possible. Turning from SeTi to NeTi for example. This correlates to the "thinking subtype" of classical socionics. Now as it happens... we will note that if this type of preferred change is universal:

The following dichotomies always change:

Democracy <>Aristocracy
Taciturn <>Narrative
Positivism <>Negativism
Process <> Result

The following might:
Sensory<>Intuitive
Thinking<>Feeling
Judiciousness<>Resoluteness
Cheerfulness<>Gravity
Carefree <>Calculating
Compliance <> Obstinacy
Tactics <> Strategy
Construct-creating <> Emotion-creating

And these never do:
Static <> Dynamic
Introvert <> Extrovert
Judging <> Perceiving

This would seem to implicate that from the point of view of personality analysis, most of these dichotomies are at least quasi-irrelevant because they are very labile. BUT, not so from the point of view of strategy analysis. Indeed, this allows us to create decision-trees for different types, understand how certain situations can motivate a person to change types.

For example, the ENTj. The ENTj is a "result" cathegory, implying that it is not interested in action, indeed it's functions imply that the ENTj tries to understand need for action. This is useful. Now... both ENFj and ESTj, the closest types, are "process" cathegories, which seems reasonable as an alternative and as a result of understanding the reason to act. More clearly: When the ENTj finds the answer to his most basic question "Should I do something now, and if so, what?" there are two possible answers, "Yes, I must act" which directs him to ESTj type behaviour until his immediate need to act goes away when he returns to analysing the environment (ENTj) or he can get result "I don't understand the environment and therefore can not act" (ENFj) at which point he will start actively avoiding to take part in what is happening in his immediate surroundings until the situation changes allowing him to return to the norm (ENTj).

I'm in a hurry so just a couple of quick notes...

Cone: You're very much on track. Couple of points I'll have to get back on.

To the case of "type changes". The type is a title, a name. Socionics tries to describe what it is, but does not 1:1 correlate it with a single phenomenon. In this thread what is meant by type is a different thing than that to which classical socionics refers to. Therefore it is senseless to say that this thread is erroneous when it says that type changes. This thread refers with type to a person's single action. Standard socionics uses it as a term for the fuzzy concept of a person's whole lifestyle or even "soul" (psyche). Now this "psyche" is created from the accumulation of all single actions and is usually typed according to the most common type of action to a person. You have to understand that it is even theoretically impossible to prove that a person's type does not change according to circumstances and the structure of classical socionics does not even require this assumption to be fully functional. Please try to keep in mind the difference of type according to classical socionics and the concept of type in this thread. You will avoid much silliness.

[Smilingeyes]

Hello Rocky,

When you refer to your interpretation, I assume you mean your post

"Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:47 am"



Rocky wrote:
*ahem*

So are we saying that democratic is Logics + Intuition & Ethics + Sensory, while aristotic is Sensory +Logics, and Intuitive + Ethics?


and so on.

In that post you mainly tried to ascertain which types fall into which cathegories. Here's the complete information for that issue.

Attribute + -
X1 Intuition Sensing Don’t act Act
X2 Logic Ethics Know Don’t know
X3 Statics Dynamics
X4 Extroversion Introversion Outside makes rules I make rules
x9 Irrationality Rationality I don’t follow rules I follow rules

x3*x4 =x9
x9*x4 = x3
and


X5 = X1*X2 Democracy Aristocracy (alpha + gamma) (beta+delta)
X6 = x1*x9*x4=X1*X3 Judiciousness Resoluteness (alpha+delta) (beta+gamma)
X7 = x2*x9*x4 = X2*X3 Cheerfulness Gravity (alpha+beta) (gamma+delta)
X-7 = X1*X4 Carefree Calculating (EN + IS) (ES + IN)
X-6 = X2*X4 Compliance Obstinacy (ET + IF) (EF + IT)
X-5 = x9= X3*X4 Irationality Rationality J / P
X-4 = x1*x2*x9*x4=X1*X2*X3 Taciturn Narrative (ENTP, INTJ, ESFP, ISFJ, ENFJ, INFP, ESTJ, ISTP) (ESTP, ISTJ, ENFP, INFJ, ENTJ, INTP, ISFP, ESFJ) (rings of benefaction) (restrained action) (fanatical action)
X-3 = X1*X2*X4 Positivism Negativism (ENT, ESF, INF, IST) (ISF, INT, EST, ENF)
X-2 = x1*x9= X1*X3*X4 Tactics Strategy (NP+SJ) (NJ+SP)
X-1 = x2*x9= X2*X3*X4 Construct-creating, Emotion-creating (TP, FJ) (TJ, FP)
X0 = x1*x2*x9= X1*X2*X3*X4 Process (the left ring) Result (the right ring) (rings of supervision)

...

Now the information above is just nomenclature and thus theoretically absolutely correct but also trivial and irrational. As it happens it is useful though. It can be read as follows:

ISFJ
=SF = Democracy = Doesn’t know, acts
=IS = Care-free = I choose to act
= IJ = Static = I choose to act according to rules
=IF = Compliance = I choose that I don’t know
=SJ = Tactics = Acts as a rule
=FJ = Construct-creating = Doesn’t know, as a rule
=ISJ = Resolute = I choose to act as a rule
=IFJ = Gravity = I choose not to know know as a rule
= ISF = Negativism = I choose to act, despite that I don’t know
= SFJ = Result = Act, despite that doesn’t know, as a rule
= ISFJ = Taciturn = I choose to act, despite that I don’t know anything as a rule.

And another example:

ENTJ
=NT = Democracy = Knows, but doesn’t act
=EN = Care-free = World forces me not to act
=EJ = Dynamic = World forces me to go by rules
=ET = Compliance = I know what world is trying to make me do
=NJ = Strategy = doesn’t act as a rule
=TJ = Feeling-creating = Knows, as a rule
=ENJ = Resolute = World forces me not to act as a rule
=ETJ = Gravity = The World forces me to know as a rule
=ENT= Positivism = The world forces me not to act and I know why and how
=NTJ = Result = Don’t act and I know why, as a rule
=ENTJ = Narrator = The world forces me not to act, and I know why and how as a rule.

These kinds of constructs can be made for all types.

The most important idea under this thread is the truth of what is a personality type is defined by the truth of what do the binary cathegories:
sensory/intuitive, introvert/extrovert, logical/ethical and rational/irrational mean.

Last edited by Smilingeyes on Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:03 am; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

FDG



Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 4191
Total Words: 205,029
Location: Venice, Italy

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:15 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I get it perfectly now that you have provided examples! Thanks!
_________________
ESTp 7w8 sx/so/sp
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
ICQ Number

discojoe



Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 2585
Total Words: 107,919
Location: P'yongyang

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:30 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Pedro-the-Lion wrote:
lol


Oh man. That is some funny, funny shit.
_________________
100 dollars in the bank is mostly just 100 dollars in the banks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger

Rocky



Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 4743
Total Words: 339,380
Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:11 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I understand it now.

But what's the justification for the original terms? For example, INTP is a Negativist because they "choose not to act despite that they know"? What makes that negativism?
_________________

while your wife
sits at home
i plant the vermin
because she needs it so


vague wrote:
Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address

Rocky



Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 4743
Total Words: 339,380
Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:02 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
ISTP

=ST= Aristocracy= knows and acts
=IS= Carefree= I choose to act
=IP= Dynamic= I choose to act not according to the rules
=IT= Obstinancy= I choose to know
=SP= Strategy= acts, but not as a rule
=TP= Construct creating= I know, but not as a rule
=ISP= Judicious= I choose to act, not as a rule
=ITP= Gravity= I know I choose to act not as a rule
=IST= Positivism= I know that I chose to act
=STP= Process= Acts, knows, not as a rule
=ISTP= Taciturn= I choose to act, while knowing, not as a rule
_________________

while your wife
sits at home
i plant the vermin
because she needs it so


vague wrote:
Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 794
Total Words: 191,940


PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:22 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Rocky wrote:
I understand it now.

But what's the justification for the original terms? For example, INTP is a Negativist because they "choose not to act despite that they know"? What makes that negativism?


An excellent question!

First of all, we need to understand that this model only emphasises the importance of subsets of functions. The names for these subcathegories are easily disputable, but reflect one way of understanding these groups.

Discussion on these subgroups could and should be immensely useful.

So, I'll explain my interpretation on negative vs. positive.

X-3 = X1*X2*X4 Positivism Negativism (ENT, ESF, INF, IST) (ISF, INT, EST, ENF)

It is usually most useful to first consider the case of the ISTJ, because it is easiest to explain and understand. In this case IST = I choose to act because I know everything relevant to the action. In this case, it's easy to interpret that action is in connection to firm belief that positive results will follow the action.

Now if we invert the object/subject cathegories we are faced with the EST situation in which the outside world forces you to act and you have definite understanding of everything related to the action. This correlates to a situation in which you are trying to avert a bad, even scary situation. Thus EST is fixated with negative results.

If we invert the choice to act we get INT. Now we find a situation in which a person chooses not to act because he knows that this gives the best results. To the INT personal choice of action seems to result in negative results, so s/he chooses not to act.

If we invert understanding of the situation we get ISF. The ISF acts despite a belief of understanding the results of his/her actions. This is a fatalistic outlook in which action exists without expectation of good results, another form of negative expectation.

So far it's pretty simple but when we use more than one case of negation, the situation becomes more complex.

Let's start again from the other end of the spectrum, the ENFP or in this case ENF. The ENF believes s/he is in a situation which the outside world forces him/her not to act and she doesn't even know why. This can be understood as a feeling of imprisonment if person is ENFj or a form of total liberation from caring about measurable results in the case of the ENFp. Nevertheless in the ENF case there exists an idea that any definite action on ones part would definitely carry negative results.

Now the ENF is in this sense a form of pure negativity, whereas INT, EST and ISF escape positivity into negativity. The final three cathegories ENT, INF and ESF can be said to escape negativity into positivity...

ENT is forced into inaction by the outside world but he knows and understand the particulars of the situation and this permits him to think that its all for the best. He understands that he is actually being productive by withdrawing from action.

INF believes him/herself ignorant of what is happening and what s/he is able to do but doesn't really feel any pressure from the outside. Thus s/he can feel positive about his/her dormant situation.

ESF believes s/he is in a situation where the outside world expects something from him/her but she doesn't understand how to fulfill the expectations. Nevertheless she acts out of hope and believes this action carries the potential to relieve him/her from the expectations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Rocky



Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 4743
Total Words: 339,380
Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:33 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, thanks, very insightful. I can see how all the labels apply now.

[Smilingeyes]

It seems this thread needs about 350 more views and about 20 posts at the moment (to be the most popular thread of the gamma forum) Wink

so I'm going to spend some time and bandwidth with the other subcathegories.

I'll go with Process/Results first.

X0 = x1*x2*x9= X1*X2*X3*X4 Process (the right ring) Result (the left ring) (rings of supervision) or Process (NTP, SFP, NFJ, STJ) Result (NFP, NTJ, SFJ, STP)

Starting again with the ever so helpful ISTj we find him cathegorized as STJ (process). The ISTj acts with certainty but his action is not just any action, it is definite action dictated by absolute logical laws (judging). He has to act and he has to act in a particular manner -> process.

If we negate the action (NTJ), we have a situation in which the person knows that it is better not to act, than to follow a certain routine process. S/he restrains him/herself because s/he sees that this gives him/her the best _results_.

If we negate the certain knowledge of the STJ we get SFJ. Here, there is action forced by circumstances but there is no certainty of what particular action is mandated. Without no knowledge of process, results are appreciated by their own merits.

If we negate the forcedness of the action we get STP. There is no need for anything to happen, but still it happens. Why? Because the subject wants to get something done. He wants to change his surrounding circumstances, and this change is results.

Again, to the other end of the spectrum... The NFP... Does not act and does not believe s/he understands the circumstances of his/her inaction. Nevertheless s/he is not required to follow the rules of the situation but s/he chooses this situation because s/he prefers this state. As there is no forced change of circumstances, the situation is a continuous existence in the state of "results".

If we invert the choice of the NFP we get NFJ. Here we are in a situation in which the NFJ is forced to inaction by the circumstances of not knowing. There remains a controlled struggle to change the circu
mstances but lacking any specific method to do so the NFJ is forced to monitor the process of events without participating.

If we invert the action of the NFP we get SFP. Here we have a person who chooses to act despite having no knowledge of what the action means. S/he simply likes the action and the process.

If we invert the belief of knowledge of the NFP we get NTP. Like the NFP, the NTP chooses him/herself inaction over action. The difference is that the NTP has a specific reason not to act. S/he dislikes the surrounding circumstances and waits for a more opportunate time to act, thus spending his/her time monitoring the process of events.

and now for a word from the sponsors...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Rocky



Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 4740
Total Words: 339,101
Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:02 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I was actually just thinking that you need to explain how you get the Tactics/Strategy part. Wink

It's definately different from the Kiersey/MBTI views on this. Not that I trust them or think that their ideas are any better, but I just wanted to hear your justification for it.


And why is this in Gamma? Are you just a post whore? Razz This should be in the general or article section or something.
_________________

while your wife
sits at home
i plant the vermin
because she needs it so


vague wrote:
Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 790
Total Words: 188,363


PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:49 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Rocky wrote:
I was actually just thinking that you need to explain how you get the Tactics/Strategy part. Wink


I'll try to do that tomorrow. That one's easy and I've actually already covered it somewhere on these forums.

Rocky wrote:

It's definately different from the Kiersey/MBTI views on this. Not that I trust them or think that their ideas are any better, but I just wanted to hear your justification for it.

And why is this in Gamma? Are you just a post whore? Razz This should be in the general or article section or something.


This model isn't built on socionics or MBTI per se. There appears to be a strong correlation but this theory exists interdependent of them. The basis for this material is strategic modelling. I'm creating idealized forms that have very simple characteristics because I find them to be practically useful.

It was at some point suggested that I create a summary article for the articles board but I preferred to keep this material here for three reasons.
1. It is very easy to misinterpret and think that I'm talking about standard socionics in this thread.
2. If someone wants to learn secret gamma psyche-kung fu, he needs to honor the gamma forum by visiting there. Wink
3. I'm an ENTj, I need my very own playground/kingdom/private hell. As long as its here I feel free to f**k around, post fun stuff or simply erase it all if I'm so inclined Razz

p.s. only types that don't whore for anything are the IJ's.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

maze



Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 879
Total Words: 35,206


PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 1:47 am Post subject: Reply with quote
=)

Last edited by maze on Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 790
Total Words: 188,363


PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:35 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Smilingeyes wrote:
Rocky wrote:
I was actually just thinking that you need to explain how you get the Tactics/Strategy part. Wink


I'll try to do that tomorrow. That one's easy and I've actually already covered it somewhere on these forums.


Oh lookee lookee, the search-command works! Here's a reprint of the original:

Smilingeyes wrote:

It's obvious that strategy has nothing to do with being an introvert. Nevertheless there are at least three ways the concept of strategy is used in personality typing. For some, all intuitive types are strategists and all sensory types tacticians. They say this because they think that strategy = long-term, tactics = short-term.

Some say that irrationals are tacticians and rationals are strategists.
They say this because they think that strategy = consistent, tactics = changing.

The two previous viewpoints are based in Ti, trying to connect certain attributes to certain names. Both these of views of tactics and strategy are reasonable. After all, tactics and strategy are just words.

The viewpoint in this thread is deconstructive and as it happens, deeper and able to connect the meanings of S/N P/J.

Let's look at what each of the groups does.
NP perceives long-term trends around him but does not do work to uphold them. He adapts to them and uses the trends for momentary personal advantage. This too can be called tactics.

SJ maintains decisions and continues them until runs into an obstacle, but even small obstacles can trigger a decision to change course of concrete action radically. Thus an SJ moves in life erratically, moving logically but getting side-tracked by trivialities. This too can be called tactics.

NJ acts according to a long-term vision, consistently, accepting set-backs and refusing to turn course. This is easy to see to be strategic.

SP has both the properties previously called tactical. SP reacts to each moment according to what at that moment looks best for immediate result. From the big picture view an SP moves in life changing course so often and for so small reasons that essentially stays in the same place. Or you can put it in another way. SP corrects his course so often that he ultimately stays going to the same direction. This too is strategy of sorts.

You could also put this in terms of consistency versus inconsistency. NJ and SP are consistent and predictable. NP and SJ are inconsistent and unpredictable.


A bit old but still sort of functional. I think that's enough about that subject.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 790
Total Words: 188,363


PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:24 am Post subject: Reply with quote
maizemedley wrote:

Where are you getting all this from? Where is this info. available? Or is it all comin' from your noggen? Embarassed I hate that I pretty much just feel inclined to commend all this info. I don't want to sound all google eyed, but damn, great processing of observations. It all rings true.


Originally, there was an article in russian on this http://efremov.info-esta.ru/ website. Someone took a net translation of that articles first page and posted it here: http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...er=asc&start=0

Now the original article seems to be down but that's not much of a loss because besides the table that's already reprinted here multiple times it was rather a waste of space and letters, playing with concepts without any serious attempt to understand them. It wasn't really a source, more like an inspiration for the material here.

I dislike the idea of a single person taking credit for "inventing" or "finding" such basic and fundamental constructs but the only source material I'm using while I'm interpreting the table are my own private notes. Is that an answer to your question?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 790
Total Words: 188,363


PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:25 am Post subject: Reply with quote
X-1 = x2*x9= X2*X3*X4 Construct-creating, Emotion-creating (TP, FJ) (TJ, FP)

Ok, here we are on slightly border-line territory. These names and interpretations rely a bit too much on standard socionics for my tastes. But I'll do my best.

Starting once again with the TJ...

TJ has facts forced upon him, he has a ready framework in which he has to operate. He does not himself create constructs or theories in this sense. He upholds them by using them. The TJs perception of the framework he is working in is often not entirely correct and this creates conflict with his surroundings as he tries to further force his own perception. This use of force is emotional power, passion, an affect, if you will.

If we invert the forcedness we get TP. The TP is not forced to choose the framework. He chooses his own certainties. He creates frameworks, constructs in the most concrete of senses.

If we invert the certainty we get FJ. Here we have a person who has to function in a constant manner but one of which he doesn't feel certain, one in which he can't really rely. The framework is looser than that of the TJ and thus there is no need to create passion to enforce it. Instead the FJ is content to create a number of theories of what the true parameters of the framework are.

In the other end of the spectrum we have FP, who doesn't feel the need to pick any truths to rely on but chooses instead to work strictly through the power of his personal will and effort. He feels that a framework is a constraint and prefers to work outside of one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

maze



Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 879
Total Words: 35,206


PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:56 am Post subject: Reply with quote
=)

Last edited by maze on Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 790
Total Words: 188,363


PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
At this point I feel a need to apologise for something, the inconsistency in this thread on the subject of what J/P means and what I/E means.

Both are aspects of the decision-makings process but I've been in inconsistent in the use of verbs and characteristics in connection to these...

First of all, most traits of these properties are your standard socionics fare but the definitions could be more clear.

J means that the person feels that there is a "correct" action for a situation, one that should be taken. This is a case of the person being subservient to the situation.

P is the direct opposite. The situation is what you make of it. The situation is subservient to a person's willpower and ability.

I have said that a person makes a choice himself if he is P and has the choice made for him if he is J. This is incorrect. It is what the individual perceives in the situation, if he feels he is making the choice or has the choice made for him.

E means a person follows environmental cues.

I means he follows cues of his inner state.

Again, I have said that E means that a person has a choice made for him, I means he makes it himself but again this is incorrect.
OTOH it is easy to understand how a spectator of the process might think so...

Any suggestions for better verbs than "choose" to describe these processes are welcome.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 790
Total Words: 188,363


PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:44 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Ooo-kay, about 90 and 10 to go, easily past halfway, this thread is getting old.

And that means it's time to change the tune again and I'll start it off with a bit of meandering pondering. Love that pair of words.

I'd like to quote the: http://www.socionics.us/intro.shtml in that
"(socionic) types often display similar values, life strategies, general behavior, and facial expressions, "

Which one of those is four is different?

Life strategies. A strategy is cognitive creation whereas the others are more or less affected by feelings, transformational experiences, unconscious behavioural patterns etc. Furthermore I find that facial expressions, general behavior and values are not randomly chosen but are often automatical reactions that support a person's life strategy.

Copying a part of another discussion:

What this seems to suggest is that there is for a given person a theoretical optimal state of mind which is called the personality type. Fluctuation from this state seems according to Jung to be so common that he can point out characteristics that accompany this fluctuation. It seems that the claim of type not changing is actually an idealization because the state of the person's personality type does not always exist.

Also, this "staying out of your personality" type can last for years.

Your life strategy is directly related to survival. You choose your job, your friends etc. because you find them beneficial to you either on the level of emotional support or on the level of concrete more concrete benefits.

Thing is... hobbies, job descriptions, organizations, belief systems, corporations, animal behaviour can all be typed according to strategy.

Now to flourish, your strategy needs to fit your environment. If your environment changes, it is beneficial that you have the ability to change into a different environment. If your environment does not change, it is beneficial to further adapt to your environment even if this makes you less likely to be able to adapt to other environments.

When adapting to another environment, the pathway of least resistance is taken.

In the socionics system there are four "macroenvironments", the quadras.

You see where this is going?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

implied



Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 2634
Total Words: 40,356


PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:56 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Extraverted ThinkingIntroverted IntutionExtraverted SensingIntroverted Feeling
_________________
[Click to view full-size]

Last edited by implied on Sat May 13, 2006 12:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 790
Total Words: 188,363


PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:43 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
implied wrote:

i think i'm going to have to join Cone in kissing your ass, Smilingeyes.


Well, now, I thank you for the sentiment but can't allow that to happen. What you should do instead is kiss something of Cone's and send us a picture. Everybody will be happier that way Smile















Lips, I meant lips, yeah.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 790
Total Words: 188,363


PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:42 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Hmm, feeling rather annoyed with myself at the moment. The posts on subcathegories of type I've been making recently... I had completely forgot that I'd talked about that stuff already on page 3. Well, if there's anything good in repetition I seem to have used the technical notation previously and the redone explanations might be clearer to some of the readers.

In the beginning I tried to be as correct possible, write only things that derived automatically from notation. Now I don't.

...


The challenge I set for myself a couple of posts back was to take up the strategic environments. There's a certain difficulty here. Considering that
1. there exists a correlated theory that describes the social relations
2. I'm not explaining but predicting relations between abstract (non-existing) entities
3. atomic entities, once produced in sufficient numbers tend to create interactions with unfathomable complexity...

...there exists a considerable pressure to "predict" similar results that are gained from socionics. Therefore I'll try to be clear, concise and avoid guessing.

1. new supposition

Every strategy creates repeated choices which result in appropriate actions.

2.
The sustainability of a strategy requires appropriate resources.

3.
A hostile environment can make a strategy unsustainable even in the presence of abundant resources.

4.
Different "trivial actions" require different skills, tools and language.

5. The two axis j/p and E/I describe motivation of choice whereas S/T and N/F describe choice and resulting action itself.

Prediction 1.
If the above holds true, people who share S/T or N/F qualities tend to share more skills, tools and words together.

Supposition 6.
Different skills require different environments.

Prediction 2.
People who share S/T or N/F tend to spend more time in similar environments and therefore have more contact together than people who don't.

Supposition 7.
Opportunities for use of skills are limited.

Prediction 3.
If two extroverts see the same opportunity in their environment, they compete for it.

Prediction 4.
Extroverts can understand each other's motivations but they have difficulty finding situations in which they can help each other.

Prediction 5.
Since introverts react to their inner state, they don't react to each other, therefore they tend to drift apart through the effect of environmental forces.

The predictions so far seem to expect a presence of "skill-environments" that correspond to socionic clubs. In these clubs the extroverts would seem to come together and tear apart quickly, the introverts come together and apart rather slower and some extroverts stick to some introverts.

To be continued...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Typhon



Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 649
Total Words: 49,897
Location: Brussels Belgium

PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 8:28 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Smilingeyes wrote:
implied wrote:

i think i'm going to have to join Cone in kissing your ass, Smilingeyes.


Well, now, I thank you for the sentiment but can't allow that to happen. What you should do instead is kiss something of Cone's and send us a picture. Everybody will be happier that way Smile















Lips, I meant lips, yeah.


Kinky.

Anyways I havent had the courage to read the rest of this thread because its had so much added to it since I left. But I'll try and catch up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 790
Total Words: 188,363


PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 9:59 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
The thread is finally the most viewed one on the gamma forum, which of course means that I can post just a couple of posts full of unreadable trash and reach the target I set for myself, ha!

But... that would be cheating.

So...

Supposition 8
People can't be constantly active.

Supposition 9
Each strategy leaves some things undone, some threats uncountered, some need unfulfilled.

Prediction 6
Rest is easiest to achieve in circumstances where you can't perform your work duties or use your skills. The less it reminds you of work, the better, meaning you should best be able to relax in an environment as different from your "club" as possible.

On the issue of cooperation
and on the issue of J/P
Supposition 10
P is more likely to try things and more likely to adapt to things.
J is more likely to use more energy on chosen things.

Supposition 11
Cooperation requires mutual use of force and mutual coordination.

Prediction 7
Cooperation is best achieved when there is interest (one partner I one partner E) and ability to communicate (shared SNTF) and one partner can adapt (P) to the goals the other partner is working for (J).

Prediction 8
While under activity cooperation is preferred, under rest it isn't.

And that takes care of the contrary, dual, identity, activity, mirror, superego, conflicting and quasi-identical relations.

Almost finished.

[Smilingeyes]

Finally bothered to correct the rings of benefaction in the tables...
the ones of which Cone complained like x months back.

Ha! What a cheap post. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 786
Total Words: 184,898


PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 12:09 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Concerning the interaction-material. Some things need to be clarified.

I claimed that one's strategic type requires the mirror relationship for optimal activity and dual relationship for the optimal inactivity. Where does the activity-pair come in? One doesn't seem to directly need one's activity-partner. OTOH the activity partner sort of requires the presence of the same things you do. Also, your activity partner can help out your dual in ways you can not.

On communication with your dual partner. In previous posts I claimed that it's difficult to communicate with one's dual partner. OTOH people tend to claim that communication with their dual partner is the easiest of all. Well thing is... that's how it's supposed to go. Your dual is the person who is supposed to do his/her thing without active prodding on your part. Try to explain to your dual the intricacies of your own strategy, job and active duties, your dual will listen eagerly but not really understand what you said and it won't matter at all because that's entirely irrelevant to you getting what you really need out of your dual. You might think your dual smiles at the things you say but really the dual smiles because you're cute. Then your dual goes and does whatever and you think you somehow affected the outcome, yeah, right.

Mirrors. You produce like a soviet arms factory on steroids but then you wear out.

A small table to remind of the shared subgroup-qualities in each of the most important relationships.

Constants
Democracy-Aristocracy
Judiciousness-Resoluteness
Cheerfulness-Gravity

Mirrorpairs
One carefree, one calculating
One compliant, one obstinate
Both dynamic or both static
Both taciturn or both narrative
One negative, one positive
One tactics, one strategy
One construct-creating, one emotion-creating
One result, one process

Dualpairs
Both either carefree or calculating
Both either compliant or obstinate
One dynamic, one static
One taciturn, one narrative
One negative, one positive
One tactics, one strategy
One construct-creating, one emotion-creating
Both result or both process

Activitypairs
One carefree, one calculating
One compliant, one obstinate
One dynamic, one static
One taciturn, one narrative
Both positive or both negative
Both tactics or both strategy
Both construct-creating or both emotion-creating
One result, one process
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 786
Total Words: 184,898


PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:38 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
About subtypes and strategies.

I'm a creating ENTj and I recognise myself daily using ENFj, ESTj and ESFj strategies. There have in my life been moments, when I have attempted to use other strategies but I have failed and felt bad afterwards. If someone else can effectively use strategies that are not part of his/her bouquet, I don't know, but I would find it miraculous.

When I find myself using secondary or tertiary strategies, I still tend to use them in the service of trivial goals that are only useful for my primary strategy. Also I tend to carry over small habits that are useful for my primary strategy but harmful for what I'm doing at that moment. I do not find it all strange that a person who uses typewatching or socionics might think that I have not changed.

I only change strategies when I can't use the one I was using anymore. Now let's suppose two different ENTjs, one ENFj and one ESTj. They are all in a situation where the ENTj strategy is useful and act like an ENTj. Suddenly an obstacle appears. The ESTj and the Thinking ENTj start to act like an ESTj while the ENFj and the Intuitive ENTj start to act like an ENFj.

In an environment where decisions have major results, be it business, politics or your social life, it should be obvious that this is of utmost importance. In the above example, two of the people would attack the obstacle, two would look for a way around it. You do not want to find yourself suddenly alone at the wrong moment. You could also think about preparing to act in this specific context counter to your instincts and with the manner your partner expects of you. You can relax knowing that your partnership will normalize as soon as the crisis is over.

ps. why is it your duty to act according to your partners subtype and not your partner's? Because you know socionics and can anticipate the situation, s/he doesn't.

pps. this is the point at which you kick yourself if you've within the past 24 h thought that subtype doesn't matter, thank you Laughing

ppps. that seems like enough for the next 6 mths, yeah, call me when the patient needs another dose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Rocky



Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 4726
Total Words: 338,753
Location: New York

PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 9:37 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
pps. this is the point at which you kick yourself if you've within the past 24 h thought that subtype doesn't matter, thank you


That would be me.


No one is able to describe exactly *how* subtypes work or what drives them, so I'm skeptical.
_________________

while your wife
sits at home
i plant the vermin
because she needs it so


vague wrote:
Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address

tcaudilllg



Joined: 27 Oct 2005
Posts: 878
Total Words: 117,610


PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:48 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I think I finally understand this post.

But Smilingeyes, I have a question: what are your function strengths? (percentage-wise)
_________________
INTj
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ICQ Number

Gronau



Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 87
Total Words: 2,503


PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:59 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I´ve read the whole thread and be fascinated. This kind of theory is missing to me.


Can you explain the difference between static and dynamic?

One other question: is X-5 just J/P or EJ, IP/EP, IJ?
_________________
"Wenn der Deutsche in einen Satz taucht, dann hat man ihn die längste Zeit gesehen, bis er auf der anderen Seite des Ozeans wieder auftaucht mit seinem Verb im Mund." - Mark Twain
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 786
Total Words: 184,898


PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 6:38 pm Post subject: Re: Mathematico-mechanical socionics Reply with quote
Anonymous wrote:

Ni equals I am object in the future.
Ne equals I am subject in the future
Si equals I am object at the moment
Se equals I am subject at the moment
Te equals Object-of-thought is subject and acts in clearly defined way [quality].
Fe equals Object-of-thought is subject and acts in not-clearly defined way [quality].
Ti equals Object-of-thought is object and can act in clearly defined ways [quality].
Fi equals Object-of-thoughts is object and can act in not-clearly defined ways [quality].

The most important thing to note is that these are not built according to structure of English but that of mathematics.
Another way to put the same issue would be: (allowing that action in future is not as definite as action now)
Ni = I*Obj*NotDef
Si = I*Obj*Def
Ne = I*Subj*NotDef
Se = I*Subj*Def
Te = Thought*Subj*Def
Fe = Thought*Subj*NotDef
Ti = Thought*Obj*Def
Fi = Thought*Obj*NotDef

So what we have is some very basic building blocks that create a system.

The following is NOT a definitive guide, nor is the power of the theory dependent on the absolute correctness of the following descriptions.

The Subject and Object cathegories define whom has the initiative in action. What is perceived by thinker to be the cause of action.

I and Thought (Object-of-thought) is about what is the parameter that makes the decision about what is correct action. If it is I, I can decide freely what I do, (or at least react as I wish). If it is Object-of-thought, the decision is made according to the qualities of the situation.

Definite and Nondefinite is the perception of certainty. If action is definite, it has high probability of success but it's results are limited by it's definition. If an action is nondefined, it has high probability of failure, but it's possible results are not limited sometimes resulting in achievements that are not possible through definite action.
If object-of-thought is definite, it limits choice of action a lot. If object-of-thought is not definite, it limits choice of action only little.

Was that what you wanted Ww?

Trivia corner:

There is an interesting probable connectio to the p/j cathegory of MBTI.
MBTI p/j: j=high probability of achieving results / p= high probability of starting new things.

Now if we make an assumption that choice is more limited and thus action more definite, if object-of-thought defines action than if I am free to choose action on my own...

AND

also assume that an introvert is more likely to finish an action that he has started than an extrovert (who is likely to react to environmental cues)...

we can make a proposition that the person most likely to start new things has type E(extrovert)N(non-defined action)F(non-defined knowledge)P(freedom-of-choice) ENFP

and the person most likely to finish something started is for the same reasons ISTJ.

As it happens, according to Lytov the socionics cathegories are distributed on the MBTI p/j axis in such a way that ENFp is on one end and ISTj in the other.

---end of trivia corner---

-Smilex


Okay, now as it happens, I did not, while I wrote the thing above, more than a year ago, know this, but what I had come to realize was the same thing that Augusta apparently meant with the extroversion of functions. That is the clearly defined aspect in the way that S is more clearly defined and concrete than N, T more than F, E more than I. And, perhaps J more than P but that one has a catch.

It's funny to read the arguments of the thread in light of this, seeing how a rephrasing of one of Augusta's main points somehow got the image of being something revolutionary. Not so. Of course, it does take the idea magic of having 'discovered something new' away, but at least I intuitively grasped the substance of it somewhat independently. Some people still don't.

And this gave me an idea that I'm going to put somewhere else.

EDIT: And that somewhere else appears to be the second page of this thread: http://the16types.no-ip.info/forums/...pic.php?t=6511
_________________
- Tools are the most clever prison of them all.

- The best player destroys the game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Smilingeyes



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 786
Total Words: 184,898


PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:08 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Gronau wrote:
I´ve read the whole thread and be fascinated. This kind of theory is missing to me.


Can you explain the difference between static and dynamic?


I don't know. I've certainly tried.

Gronau wrote:
One other question: is X-5 just J/P or EJ, IP/EP, IJ?


X-5 is just J/P, yes, I know there are multiple definitions of rationality/irrationality, but in this case J/P applies

[squark]

bumping this because there's something in it I was thinking about, and I'm making it easier to find later when I'll have the time.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

duuuude