You'll never get lost in thought again

[krieger]

OK, this is probably one of the daftest threads I've ever started, and utterly useless to anyone but the most geeky of xNTx's, but I'd still like to share this with the scarce few that might find it interesting.

Prototype map of the human psyche:

Ti -> Se -> Fi -> Ne -> Ti

^     ^     ^     ^     ^

Ni -> Te -> Si -> Fe -> Ni

^     ^     ^     ^     ^

Fi -> Ne -> Ti -> Se -> Fi

^     ^     ^     ^     ^

Si -> Fe -> Ni -> Te -> Si

^     ^     ^     ^     ^

Ti -> Se -> Fi -> Ne -> Ti

Vertical lines: Field, Object
Horizontal lines: Static, Dynamic
Diagonal lines, raising to the right, respectively:
Ti-Fe, Beta, Se-Ni, Gamma, Fi-Te, Delta, Ne-Si, Alpha, etc.
Diagonal lines, falling to the right, respectively:
Thinking, process, Sensation, result, Feeling, process, Intuition, result

The model shows the relative positioning of the psychological functions and the direction of transitional movements between them. The arrows denote the 'concretizing' transitions. Movements running counter to the arrows are called 'abstracting'. Concretizing: T > S > F > N. Abstracting: T > N > F > S.

The model allows us to study certain phenomena related to the positioning and flow of the functions. Take for example the dual-function axes. Movement from one dual function to another is both an abstracting movement in both dimensions, and a concretizing movement in both dimensions at the same time. It can be seen as a form of psychological two-way communication.

Yeah it's called a prototype. I'm still exploring this thing's potential and am not entirely certain of it's workability yet. Don't make the mistake of thinking I just arbitrarily made this one up though... Everything in the model is implied by the material. I am just pointing out it's existence.

[Jonathan]

For the benefit of those who are less familiar with this branch of Socionics investigation, can you give some references, beyond the passive words "are called"?

Obviously, the concepts of "concretizing" and "abstracting" seem important but since only a small subset of threads get into these issues regarding cycles, etc., some references are helpful. Are these your terms? Did Smilex invent them? Or is there something translated from the Russian that explains it?

I notice something interesting: There are only a limited number of sets of types that have the mathematical property of being symmetric around all axes [and spread out fully evenly within the space]. I think there's a term in group theory for that but I don't recall it (would be nice to know because there were some nice implications...).

Those sets are:
* Singleton (identity)
* Dual
* Some of the groups of 4 that Smilex likes to talk about, such as {NiTe,SeFi,FiNe,TeSi}
* This concretizing vs. abstracting thing
* The set of all types
And that's it, as far as I can see [oh, and the empty set].

Years ago when I thought about this in regards to MBTI, it seemed to me that these groups, such as the groups of 4, would be productive working together and grappling issues that require a wide perspective of the Socion, because it's an extension of the symmetry involved in duality. Obviously, that flies in the face of quadras, but there may be something to it.

The perfect symmetries may be seen in 4-dimensional space if one substitutes the dynamic-static dichotomy instead of rationa-irrational (so that duals have all four dichotomies different are seen as a symetrical pair of points in the 4D cube).

However, it seems to me a better way to picture these symmetries is by picturing the types as vectors on a cube, which may be closer to your and Smilex's cyclical representation that I never quite understood.

Here's how to generate the cube: Draw a cube where the square facing you has four vertices starting from the top left corner and going clockwise: Fe, Ne, Ni, and Fi. Connect this by four diagonal lines to a square on the opposite site, which has vertices strating from the top left corner and going clockwise: Se, Te, Ti, Si.

So, each type is represented by a diagonal arrow on one of the 4 sides where such arrows go between rat/irrat functions. For example, NiTe would the arrow from the bottom front right to the top back left.

The symmetry of duals is then clear, as they're diagonal arrows going in opposite directions on opposite sides of the cube.

Smilex's symmetrical 4-groups would be those sets where if you look at each of the 4 faces of the cube that have arrows, there is exactly one arrow on each face, going in the same direction [Edit2: for two consecutive faces] (if you're facing each side of the cube head on) [Edit2: and then for the other two faces going the same direction in terms of left or right, but opposite what it was before in terms of going down. Sorry, I kept getting it wrong, but I think I have it right now. Use the example set I mentioned earlier.]

[Edit: Or a variant is where the arrows are all going the same direction from left to right but are alternating going up or going down as you rotate around the cube. That would also preserve the symmetry I'm talking about. There would be exactly 8 such groups, unless I'm still missing any.]

The concretizing would be where each face has two arrows going to the right, and the abstracting would be where each face has two arrows going to the left.

Anyhow, hope I'm not taking over too much in this thread, and hope these ideas aren't just stuff that's been re-hashed and that everbody knows.

[FDG]

Sounds very good, Johnatan. I was noticing something similar, albeit in a much more primitive way in comparison to your analysis, yesterday, being inspired by the topic by ncassdy which dealt with subgroup separations.

I think it would be awesome if relations actually responded accurately to mathematical manipulations. Trouble is, this is going to be true IFF Augusta in developing the model defined the relations in such a way as to make this possible to happen.

[Jonathan]

Trouble is, this is going to be true IFF Augusta in developing the model defined the relations in such a way as to make this possible to happen.

This is a very good point. For any conceptions of symmetry and for the intertype relationships to work equally for all types, then we would have to establish that the model is both complete and symmetrical.

Possible distortions could be:
* Not everyone's perception is S or N; maybe some people are X, which is something outsite the model.
* Type definitions cause people who should be duals to not be duals; for example, if S or N were defined poorly, people who are theoretically duals may actually be illusionary partners.
* Distances between dichotomies may be different. For example, if F and T were very similar but S and N very different, then irrational types would experience super ego relations sort of like look-alike, in comparison to rational types.
* Other factors may be more critical in describing relationships than the ones in the model.

It would seem though that if the intertype relationships apply equally to all people, that should prove symmetry and at least part of completeness.

In practice though, many people themselves probably don't fit fully into the "ideal" prototypes, so actual relations may not be as symmetrical as the model. Clearly, other factors (e.g., differences of intelligence, culture, etc.) not in the model can enter into relations between people, which can complicate things.