Dimensionality of psychic functions

[machintruc]

I came across a very strange russian socionic material which talks about the "dimensionality" of functions :

URL 1

URL 2

1 - base, four-dimensional
2 - creative, three-dimensional
3 - normative, two-dimensional
4 - painful, one-dimensional
5 - suggestive one-dimensional
6 - activation, two-dimensional
7 - program, three-dimensional
8 - instrument, four-dimensional

1 - experience, standard, situation, the time
2 - experience, standard, the situation
3 - experience, the standard
4 - experience
5 - experience
6 - experience, the standard
7 - experience, standard, the situation
8 - experience, standard, situation, the time

[krieger]

They are a bit vague about what each of the four terms mean, aren't they. I wonder if those concepts are connected to more rigidly defined notions from ontology/AI/cybernetics...

I noticed this is of some relevance to the idea of possible 'quadra progressions', as a change of preference of a function would be accompanied by a change of dimensionality, which, if all this is as solidly founded as it is made to seem should be fairly easy to detect and/or 'test'.

[Exodus]

I think it has something to do with how autonomous each function is. This is closely related to function strength. For example, UDP (?) recently mentioned how the Dual-seeking function was, in a sense, the weakest function since it is so susceptible to external influence. It would make sense to say the 1st and 8th functions are the most autonomous.

Experience - quite base regularity, is present in all functions, which guarantees to system the "concept" about each of the aspects. This that what is the direct experience of the perception of information about the aspect.

Standard - information of the estimation of the perception of aspect by others, i.e., tool for the estimation from the point of view "as it is accepted", "as it is must".

Situation - variability of information processing taking into account the parameters of concrete situation.

Time - possibility of evaluating (transfer) the situation in the time, simulation in other time (not to confuse with the white intuition).

My translation:

experience - using the function; knowing what it is
standard - forming rules of thumb
situation - judgment; knowing where to apply the function
time - using it over the long-term; making it a higher purpose in itself

[Rick]

This is an interesting area of socionics that has not yet been discussed at this forum, but is almost common knowledge over here. People talk about their "three dimension white logic," etc. I've been intending to write a summary of it all one of these days. Basically, it's an attempt to describe the differences between the functions in a systematic way.

So, the 1st function has all four dimensions at its fingertips, the 2nd - 3, the 3rd - 2, and the 4th just one. The 1st is capable of grasping new information "in the air," while the 4th is basically limited to personal experience. The passive functions are sort of a mirror image of the active ring, but there's more to it than just that.

[Exodus]

Rick, doesn't this violate the accepting-producing symmetry in a sense?

[Rick]

Rick, doesn't this violate the accepting-producing symmetry in a sense?

Yeah, it essentially ignores it. But that's not necessarily a bad thing...

[Rick]

Fir tree about the fourth regularity in the y-oy function

I love these machine translations!!

[Rick]

Here's the Russian wiki article on Model A.

[machintruc]

but what does accepting-producing really mean ?

[Exodus]

Rick, doesn't this violate the accepting-producing symmetry in a sense?

Yeah, it essentially ignores it. But that's not necessarily a bad thing...

It's like Reinin dichotomies, but for functions. (Much like the short range/long range aspects.) This could have interesting consequences, I suppose.

I'm sick of all this theory. But have fun with that!

[Rick]

Let me help a bit:

Dimensions: (each "dimension" is a kind of instrument that is available or unavailable to the function)
1. Experience - What the individual has personally experienced
2. Norms - What is customary; widespread social opinion
3. Situation - Recognition of situational differences
4. Time - Ability to model different situations in the past and the future

(these are approximate definitions)

This helps to explain phenomena such as why the role function can often "miss the mark." It has a one-size-fits-all understanding of how the function is to be applied.

There are characteristics of functions that the dimensionality concept does not address, such as why one would tire from using the Super-ego functions. Also, I forget how everythng works for the passive functions.

[Rick]

I'm sick of all this theory. But have fun with that!

Said like an IEE!

[machintruc]

Rick, doesn't this violate the accepting-producing symmetry in a sense?

Yeah, it essentially ignores it. But that's not necessarily a bad thing...

It's like Reinin dichotomies, but for functions. (Much like the short range/long range aspects.) This could have interesting consequences, I suppose.

I'm sick of all this theory. But have fun with that!

in the wikipedia article, two dichotomies are lacking : 1458 / 2367 and 1368 / 2457

further, I found about the Model T, a model with 4 functions and 4 parameters for each, I don't really understand, but types are like :


[sup:d5be061c82]в[/sup:d5be061c82]И[sub:d5be061c82]н[/sub:d5be061c82] [sup:d5be061c82]в[/sup:d5be061c82]Л[sub:d5be061c82]в[/sub:d5be061c82] [sup:d5be061c82]н[/sup:d5be061c82]С[sub:d5be061c82]н[/sub:d5be061c82] [sup:d5be061c82]н[/sup:d5be061c82]Э[sub:d5be061c82]в[/sub:d5be061c82]

[Rick]

Here's an excerpt on dimensionality:

Ex (Eng. Expirience) - experience. All functions can accumulate and use their own life experience. Functions managing only experience (painful, suggestive) frequently act inadequately situation, if situation by them is not familiar according to the experience. Faith Novikov introduced the concept of the regime of the perception of information. The perception of information according to these functions occurs in the regime of the past. Reaction according to the function is frequently inadequate the existing situation, understanding situation comes after a certain, frequently prolonged time, when urgency has already been lost.
Nr (Eng. Norm) - standard. All functions manage standards, except painful, and suggestive. The standards include social standards (etiquette), rules, laws, strange experience. The measure of standard defines the receptivity of functions to how others act in the situation. On The the novikovoy the regime of perception - static present. Reaction according to the current situation, without the calculation of pozmozhnykh consequences.
St (Eng. Situation) - situation. All strong functions manage situation. They are capable of working out new solutions, of effectively using exception to the rules, of generalizing regularities — to generate new experience and knowledge. On The the novikovoy the regime of perception - dynamic present. Actions according to the situation taking into account of tendencies and possible development of situation.
Tm (Eng. Time) - time. Only program and background functions manage time. Reaction is attached to the time: reaction to a similar situation at another moment of time can be already different, estimations change. On The the novikovoy the regime of perception - future. Prognostication of situation, action on the lead, on the prospect, capability for thinking in virtual time scale.

[snegledmaca]

I'm curios as to how would time function in the fourth dimension?

Shouldn't these be called levels of activation instead? (More true to their intended meaning?)

One thing I'm wondering, and which I have experienced, is it possible to "attach" yourself to another's level of functioning? For example, when I'm with my IEE friend (Or around Ne dominants) he "boosts" my Ne usage to include other references and things I normally don't notice and effectively boost my ability to make accurate conclusions and predictions. I've noticed this with a lot of other people as well, even times when my presence changed their thinning style and conclusions making process.

[krieger]

Since we're talking about these models anyway; this line from the russian wiki caught my eye:

The motion of information in the model A is accomplished in the mental ring on the cycle = > 1 = > 2 = > 3 = > 4 = > and in the vital ring on the cycle = > 5 = > 6 = > 7 = > 8 = >

Seems innocuous at first sight, but it is actually far from that. If functions progress in the sequence denoted here, process group types and result group types move in opposite direction relative to one another. After all, process types have concrete accepting functions and abstract creative functions, and result types have the opposite.

Take for example the INTj and ISTj. If both succeed their base with the creative function...

the INTj moves from Ti -> Ne, which considering Ne is placed on the abstract side of Ti (i.e. to the left in the alpha-beta-gamma-delta sequence) causes movement in the abstract direction. This can be called an 'abstracting' movement.

the ISTj moves from Ti -> Se, which conversely is a movement to the concrete direction. 'Concretizing' movement.

(think of 'abstract' and 'concrete' as 'left' and 'right' respectively in regard to directions in the sequence of quadras and functions. for easy visualization look up the 'easy-to-use behavior tracker' in the article section)

I'd like to add to this that I don't believe for a moment that each type is restricted to movement in either direction. It's counter-intuitive.

[Rick]

Since we're talking about these models anyway; this line from the russian wiki caught my eye:

The motion of information in the model A is accomplished in the mental ring on the cycle = > 1 = > 2 = > 3 = > 4 = > and in the vital ring on the cycle = > 5 = > 6 = > 7 = > 8 = >

Seems innocuous at first sight, but it is actually far from that. If functions progress in the sequence denoted here, process group types and result group types move in opposite direction relative to one another. After all, process types have concrete accepting functions and abstract creative functions, and result types have the opposite.

Take for example the INTj and ISTj. If both succeed their base with the creative function...

the INTj moves from Ti -> Ne, which considering Ne is placed on the abstract side of Ti (i.e. to the left in the alpha-beta-gamma-delta sequence) causes movement in the abstract direction. This can be called an 'abstracting' movement.

the ISTj moves from Ti -> Se, which conversely is a movement to the concrete direction. 'Concretizing' movement.

(think of 'abstract' and 'concrete' as 'left' and 'right' respectively in regard to directions in the sequence of quadras and functions. for easy visualization look up the 'easy-to-use behavior tracker' in the article section)

I'd like to add to this that I don't believe for a moment that each type is restricted to movement in either direction. It's counter-intuitive.

I would just ask a rhetorical question: what in the world does "The motion of information" mean in the context of the psyche?

[tcaudilllg]

It means that all psychic content can be reduced to motion in that ring.

[Rick]

It means that all psychic content can be reduced to motion in that ring.

content = motion ?

[tcaudilllg]

It means that all psychic content can be reduced to motion in that ring.

content = motion ?

Yep.

[machintruc]

Since we're talking about these models anyway; this line from the russian wiki caught my eye:

The motion of information in the model A is accomplished in the mental ring on the cycle = > 1 = > 2 = > 3 = > 4 = > and in the vital ring on the cycle = > 5 = > 6 = > 7 = > 8 = >

an article said that is 1234, and another said that was 53412...

[meatburger]

One thing I'm wondering, and which I have experienced, is it possible to "attach" yourself to another's level of functioning? For example, when I'm with my IEE friend (Or around Ne dominants) he "boosts" my Ne usage to include other references and things I normally don't notice and effectively boost my ability to make accurate conclusions and predictions. I've noticed this with a lot of other people as well, even times when my presence changed their thinning style and conclusions making process.

Yeah i suppose if you see someone else using a function effectively, it can give you a glimpse into how you can use it. I have noticed that my INTj lecturer describes things so clearly, it seems to have some affect on my Ti temporarily. I have also noticed that if im talking with another ENFp for instance, its possible for our Ne to basically go nuts and ideas just flood in, so the functions seem to synchronise.

Anyway this dimension stuff seems really interesting but im out. Too much talk about motion in rings for my liking

[Exodus]

I'm sick of all this theory. But have fun with that!

Said like an IEE!

Actually my reasons are quite INTj. I'm only sick of it because of the lack of formal proof involved. The head spins with vague theoretical ideas and no empirical grounding. On the other hand, this thread inspired me to write down some philosophical notions that have been floating around in my head for a while. It's more difficult to put them in writing than I thought!

in the wikipedia article, two dichotomies are lacking : 1458 / 2367 and 1368 / 2457

Yeah, that occurred to me. There would be 7 -- for both functions and information elements. The dimensionality of a function would be formed on the intersection of two functional dichotomies. (Where did you find mention of the dichotomies exactly?)


Note also that

D = 5 - d

where D is the dimensionality of the function in one's dual and d is the dimensionality of the function in oneself. This also holds true for conflictors.

further, I found about the Model T, a model with 4 functions and 4 parameters for each, I don't really understand, but types are like :


[sup:7943baadf2]в[/sup:7943baadf2]И[sub:7943baadf2]н[/sub:7943baadf2] [sup:7943baadf2]в[/sup:7943baadf2]Л[sub:7943baadf2]в[/sub:7943baadf2] [sup:7943baadf2]н[/sup:7943baadf2]С[sub:7943baadf2]н[/sub:7943baadf2] [sup:7943baadf2]н[/sup:7943baadf2]Э[sub:7943baadf2]в[/sub:7943baadf2]

Hm.

[tcaudilllg]

I read the site and I still don't understand what the half-shaded symbols mean.

[krieger]

Yeah, that occurred to me. There would be 7 -- for both functions and information elements. The dimensionality of a function would be formed on the intersection of two functional dichotomies. (Where did you find mention of the dichotomies exactly?)

Did you find out which dichotomies combine to form the exact dimensionality numbers as they are given in the article? I tried toying around with them for a while, randomly assigning values to each dichotomic property, but the correct sequence has so far eluded me.

[machintruc]

in the wikipedia article, two dichotomies are lacking : 1458 / 2367 and 1368 / 2457

Yeah, that occurred to me. There would be 7 -- for both functions and information elements. The dimensionality of a function would be formed on the intersection of two functional dichotomies. (Where did you find mention of the dichotomies exactly?)

[web:2e82264ab8]http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=ru_en&trurl=http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C_%D0%90[/web:2e82264ab8]

[Exodus]

Thanks, machintruc.

Yeah, that occurred to me. There would be 7 -- for both functions and information elements. The dimensionality of a function would be formed on the intersection of two functional dichotomies. (Where did you find mention of the dichotomies exactly?)

Did you find out which dichotomies combine to form the exact dimensionality numbers as they are given in the article? I tried toying around with them for a while, randomly assigning values to each dichotomic property, but the correct sequence has so far eluded me.

I made a slight error - it would require three dichotomies, since there are four dimensional categories. It's fairly easy if you just look at which dichotomies, say, the 1st and the 8th share. Mental/vital is out, as is valued/non-valued. It just so happens that the two unnamed dichotomies combine with the strength dichotomy to make dimensionality.

1368 / 2457
-corresponds with homeoversion/heteroversion (with respect to the base function).
1458 / 2367
-I might call this one central/peripheral (any better ideas?). Central are the dominant elements of one's Identical, Conflictor, Dual, and Quasi-Identical.

[table:f0459ee9b3][col:f0459ee9b3]Dimensionality[col:f0459ee9b3]Dichotomies
[row:f0459ee9b3]4[col:f0459ee9b3]strong, homeoverted, central
[row:f0459ee9b3]3[col:f0459ee9b3]strong, heteroverted, peripheral
[row:f0459ee9b3]2[col:f0459ee9b3]weak, homeoverted, peripheral
[row:f0459ee9b3]1[col:f0459ee9b3]weak, heteroverted, central[/table:f0459ee9b3]

1 - base, four-dimensional
2 - creative, three-dimensional
3 - normative, two-dimensional
4 - painful, one-dimensional
5 - suggestive one-dimensional
6 - activation, two-dimensional
7 - program, three-dimensional
8 - instrument, four-dimensional

[machintruc]

1368 / 2457
-corresponds with homeoversion/heteroversion (with respect to the base function).
1458 / 2367
-I might call this one central/peripheral (any better ideas?). Central are the dominant elements of one's Identical, Conflictor, Dual, and Quasi-Identical.

What does central/peripheral means for you ?

[krieger]

I made a slight error - it would require three dichotomies, since there are four dimensional categories. It's fairly easy if you just look at which dichotomies, say, the 1st and the 8th share. Mental/vital is out, as is valued/non-valued. It just so happens that the two unnamed dichotomies combine with the strength dichotomy to make dimensionality.

1368 / 2457
-corresponds with homeoversion/heteroversion (with respect to the base function).
1458 / 2367
-I might call this one central/peripheral (any better ideas?). Central are the dominant elements of one's Identical, Conflictor, Dual, and Quasi-Identical.

Dimensionality Dichotomies

4 strong, homeoverted, central

3 strong, heteroverted, peripheral

2 weak, homeoverted, peripheral

1 weak, heteroverted, central


1 - base, four-dimensional
2 - creative, three-dimensional
3 - normative, two-dimensional
4 - painful, one-dimensional
5 - suggestive one-dimensional
6 - activation, two-dimensional
7 - program, three-dimensional
8 - instrument, four-dimensional

Gotcha. I was using a very awkward approach compared to yours; hehe.

So to arrive at the dimensionalities, we can assign values as follows:

Strong = 3
Weak = 1
Homeoverted = 1
Heteroverted = 0
or;
Strong = 4
Weak = 2
Central = 0
Peripheral = -1

Or add some base value and lower attributes attached to either dichotomy accordingly.

Anyone have any paranoid theories on why the only two dichotomies that matter for this exercise happen to be missing from the wikipedia article?

[Exodus]

Anyone have any paranoid theories on why the only two dichotomies that matter for this exercise happen to be missing from the wikipedia article?

It's basically because they are not obvious from the shape of Model A. They don't split it in half, for instance. As I mentioned before, dimensionality doesn't preserve the accepting-producing distinction.

1368 / 2457
-corresponds with homeoversion/heteroversion (with respect to the base function).
1458 / 2367
-I might call this one central/peripheral (any better ideas?). Central are the dominant elements of one's Identical, Conflictor, Dual, and Quasi-Identical.

What does central/peripheral means for you ?

My reasoning behind it is that those four elements are the dominant dominants of one's own dyad and the conflicting dyad. They more directly form a person's innate idea of good and evil. The 2nd, 7th, 3rd, and 6th functions are not perceived as intensely, IMO.

[krieger]

Hmm; that does assume that accepting-creating is in some way of elevated impact/importance compared to the other dichotomies. Alternatively it could equally well be seen as just another dichotomy, in which case the dichotomies being missing look rather suspect.

Any way there is still something that bothers me that I have not seen fully explained by the math... The article makes it seem as if the dimensionalities come from four sepperate sources which either do or do not get tapped into by each individual function (experience, standard, situation, time). Our catagories don't seem to easily account for them...

[Exodus]

Any way there is still something that bothers me that I have not seen fully explained by the math... The article makes it seem as if the dimensionalities come from four sepperate sources which either do or do not get tapped into by each individual function (experience, standard, situation, time). Our catagories don't seem to easily account for them...

Yeah, you would have to assign point values or something to account for that.

[Olga]

I don't have much understanding about dimensionalities. I know so far that the Shcool of Systemic Socionics is using it and they have a huge questionnaire - many questiona for each function when they try to establish the dimensionality of each function. I did not notice that many others use dimesionality by typing people.

I personaly think it depends pretty much on the eye of the beholder? on the perception. On the forums it is a usual stuation that people are not happy with the way they have been typed and retyped by different socionists and at the different forums. I have also understood that different school have got different paradigm, do not understand each other and do not often know what the opposite school means exactly regarding the definitions. Again and again people ask what is it exactly TIM - type of informational metabolism? what is changing and does not change. The dynimic model of Mitin suggests that we need more accurate estimation of the type because the model A measures rather approximate. More people talk and support the idea of dynamic development and changes within the TIM, the development of intertype abilities, correction of the TIM. There are however oppositions: some believe that TIM is unchangable and only the character may change? but you cann not possibly change the dimensionality of the functions. In parallell with this notion? it is believed that you can "fill" the functions or gain the experience but you would not be creative on those functions.
Those who believe and support interinfluences and dynamics believe that it could be possible to slide from one type to another, to develop intertype abilities, to correct the type. There is a need for the theories how it is possible to correct/improve the type, as one type seems to be not enough to fullfill yourself and to develop a harmony within the psyche. Is the way to future of socionics - what is your opinion?

I have heard that the School of Humanitarian Socionics has got kinda dynamic models or deals with the dynamic nature of psyche somehow but I have not read about it, can't say much.


I have recently come to different ideas which cross somehow with understanding of strong -weak function. I will present my ideas at some point on the site/ I have even created a little test- "colourtest", which is nothing special, just a bit different. I use simple questions like everyone else and some of them are based on associations. It was not a perpous in itself, but a spontenious try. I did realise though that it works for me better than any other test and use it since that in typing people. I will bring it all to you + some of my other crazy ideas after the meeting in London

[tcaudilllg]

Let me help a bit:

Dimensions: (each "dimension" is a kind of instrument that is available or unavailable to the function)
1. Experience - What the individual has personally experienced
2. Norms - What is customary; widespread social opinion
3. Situation - Recognition of situational differences
4. Time - Ability to model different situations in the past and the future

(these are approximate definitions)

This helps to explain phenomena such as why the role function can often "miss the mark." It has a one-size-fits-all understanding of how the function is to be applied.

There are characteristics of functions that the dimensionality concept does not address, such as why one would tire from using the Super-ego functions. Also, I forget how everythng works for the passive functions.

This seems to run counter to exertion theory... specifically, the ability of an exertion type to perceive the evolution of the IM function its is paired with.

But I believe ignorance of the role of exertion in Model-A may be the cause of a great many missteps in socionics research.

[machintruc]

Let me help a bit:

Dimensions: (each "dimension" is a kind of instrument that is available or unavailable to the function)
1. Experience - What the individual has personally experienced
2. Norms - What is customary; widespread social opinion
3. Situation - Recognition of situational differences
4. Time - Ability to model different situations in the past and the future

(these are approximate definitions)

This helps to explain phenomena such as why the role function can often "miss the mark." It has a one-size-fits-all understanding of how the function is to be applied.

There are characteristics of functions that the dimensionality concept does not address, such as why one would tire from using the Super-ego functions. Also, I forget how everythng works for the passive functions.

This seems to run counter to exertion theory... specifically, the ability of an exertion type to perceive the evolution of the IM function its is paired with.

But I believe ignorance of the role of exertion in Model-A may be the cause of a great many missteps in socionics research.

why do you always relate evolutionary things with ?

[machintruc]

I've done some research and I can make this hypothesis :

physical model

Ex : space
Nr : space and time
St : space and time in the context of space
Tm : space and time in the context of space and time

social model

Ex : individual, subjective
Nr : collective, subjective
St : individual, objective
Tm : collective, objective

correlation with Spiral Dynamics and Feldman's Level Theory

Ex : Levels 1 and 2
Nr : Levels 3 and 4
St : Levels 5 and 6
Tm : Levels 7 and 8

[Mariano Rajoy]

I wanted to bump this thread in order to see if anyone has anymore information on the dimensionality of functions.

It is very interesting, and UDP's SLI/LII problem comes to mind. What the dimensionality of functions allows is independant development of functions, or if not completely independant then at least more flexible. Development of one function within the traditional model A begs the question: are you sure of your type? One can either respond by changing their initial type, or acknowledging that each function develops at the same pace. However, acknowledging that functions 1,2, and 3 have developed through using Se is harder to see and substantiate.

Dimensionality of functions allows, in UDP's case, an explanation for his initial comfort with using Se. Over time UDP has developed Se through experience, and will continue to develop the function. If he so chooses, he could even work in Se heavy jobs and really become comfortable telling people off. (Police officer, military, coerrections). The distinction between LII and LSI would become harder to distinguish, especially on a web forum.

I would like to encourage anyone with more info on DOF to post post post!

[krieger]

It's seems kind of hard to understand these without knowledge of the greater algorithmic system they play a part in. I say it's either intuition translated to bullshit, or a leaked bit of info on a horribly complex theory of cognition.

Now which is a person like Bukhalov more likely to come out with? Do we know anything about the guy?

Probably UDP's dillemma is due to a hazy understanding of what the functions mean in the first place. Se is not just about forcefulness, and it's not unthinkable that Ne can be used in a forceful manner. Se is also about accepting and living as a stereotype, and doing whatever you can to be succesful at it. At least, that is how I see it.

[tcaudilllg]

Boukalov? Oh man, the ENTp with the "fractal psyche" theory. He's got like, math proofs for socionics linking it to the age of the universe(!) and stuff.

[Exodus]

@Mariano, dimensionality has nothing whatsoever to do with development of functions in the way that you're describing.

Boukalov? Oh man, the ENTp with the "fractal psyche" theory. He's got like, math proofs for socionics linking it to the age of the universe(!) and stuff.

Where? Sounds interesting...