A Primer On My Research Into Socionics and Personality
I intend to make of this thread a detailed description of the theory which up to now has been called "psychorelativity". I intend to finish some of the description now and some of it later. I will digress from ambiguity at all points: what you will see is the state of the theory's structure as it stands now. It is very unlikely there will be any changes or revisions to what I present here, although like all theories it will be an incomplete model and subject to additions.
My research focuses on two areas: the structure of the psyche and the manifestation of the functions in model A. I will be discussing the structure of the psyche first, because the work of the functions comes into it, and the functions are, ultimately, variations of structure in the psyche.
We perceive the world through recognizing objects. Objects are recognized on the basis of two criterion: what attributes they possess, and what traits they have. When events occur, objects change. We call the attributes that remain to the object the statics of the object, and the attributes that are changed its dynamics. Objects also posses energy, of which there are two kinds potential and kinetic. We say that the potential within an object that remains unchanged in the course of an event is its static potential. The new potentials created by the change are its dynamic potentials. Kinetic energy behaves similarly: the behaviors (traits) of an object that remain static after change are its static kinetics. We call its new behaviors and traits, in contrast, its dynamic kinetics.
Because these aspects variously conflict and contrast with each other, we keep them seperate in our perception and only consider them compatible to our consciousness if we are confident they are equally relevant to an understanding of the object. To focus on one mode of perception over another aligns us with a definite point of view that others who are similarly aligned at that time will be capable of understanding. We are allowed to see some aspects clearly and others not at all. Our view can be said to be restrained and subjective, counter to the objective reality that we are actually experiencing. When after seeing a situation from all four sides we find common ground between them, we consider the commonalities of view to be objective.
We thus say that our psyche is comprised of four kinds of information, which when reconciled create a fifth kind. Because the unreconciled information is incompatible with its contrary, we must seperate our psyche into subdomains specific to the information considered. Together these domains comprise our objective psyche.
Because the information aspects are necessarily seperated they must be processed
individually. One can only process one aspect of information at a time. Because
of this one's thought is divided into four seperate, alternating processes that
can be continued and discontinued at will. When one selects a stream to process,
one is capable of exchanging information with others who have selected the same
stream. One thus shares a common line of thought or context with individuals
who are focusing on similar information aspects. Because there are four aspects
to perceive, as we have seen, we say there are four lines of common context that
can be shared.
These four lines remain in the memory of oneself and others at all times. When
one selects a line for processing, one is capable of using all other psychological
functions in the context of the selected line. These functions can be used to
communicate information that is exclusive to the aspect domain of the line. Over
the history of mankind these lines have developed and evolved as new outlooks and
information has become apparent to us. Effectively, the lines have developed into
unique worlds all their own. Each has a preferred method of adaptational strategy
that emphasizes its respective information aspect over all others. Thus when one
chooses an aspect to focus on, one is engaged in its adaptational strategy.
By selecting an aspect to focus on, one chooses to ignore the aspect contrary
to the selected. To perceive the influence of an aspect on its contrary is to
witness the mutually annihilitory potentials of the considered views. Static
potential, having as its domain of consideration that which remains constant of
perception, naturally clashes with the impetus to consider different points of
view, the domain of dynamic potentials. One cannot entertain the analysis of many
points of view in great depth because consideration implies time and the demands
of environmental adaptation are immediate. Similarly, dynamic kinetics, which
emphasize focus on how traits and behaviors have changed, is of little assistance
to the understanding of static kinetics, which emphasize what has not changed.
Because each aspect domain emphasizes a different strategy, the strategies
embraced by contrary domains may interfere with each other in the pursuit of
practical matters. Particularly in situations of limited time and resource,
anxiety over questions of resource availability may lead to clashes between
contrary domains. To an extent people always face limitations of time and resource,
therefore the potential for conflict between domains is high. In the interest of
survival in an objective world, it is necessary for people to find common ground
between contrary domains. Rather than attempt to see the world from the other
side's view, a person operating under a given domain strategy will instead attempt
to understand the strategy of the domains not contrary to their own. Effective
communication between themselves and others who are focusing on an aspect
non-contrary to their own may allow them glimpses into the contrary domain's
strategy. In return for this information, the inquirer may offer their informant
insight into the strategy of the domain contrary to the informant's.
Having discussed the fundamentals of interaction between the four domains, let us
discuss the domains themselves.
The Static-Potential Domain:
This domain emphasizes persistent, longstanding ideas and attentiveness to stable
precepts and perceptions. There is no greater constant of perception than that of
one's own body, and for this reason the static-potentialist pays great attention
to the influence of the body on one's personal experience. This emphasis lends
itself to an entire worldview of somatocentrism: the static potentialist desires
an environment that will allow them to respond to their body's specific needs.
They desire protection for their body and stability of resource access. They are
not troubled by what they must do to acquire these resources, only that they have
ready access to them should they be needed. For this reason they work toward the
stability of nations: social chaos gets in the way of resource acquisition. They
distrust the judgement of individuals because they see individual choice as
motivated by somatic causes. They have condensed between themselves the political
ideologies of conservatism in service to these concerns.
The static potentialist avoids the witness of multiple interpretations of a
situation. Instead they hold true to one single interpretation which they seek to
explore in great depth. On the surface, they may seem shallow and simply defined.
However, in the view of the static potentialist simple definitions between many
elements can imply great varieties of structural complexity. Therefore there is
value in self-definition, even if it must be simple and incomplicated. Furthermore,
static potentialists perceive within the context of a character many facets: the
situations that life presents before a static traditionalist invite the
exploration of their character's many intricacies. The static potentialist seeks
new situations by which they may learn more about themselves while holding true
to their single worldview, thus allowing them a shared strategy for apprehending
their own existence. However, the static potentialist is apt to project their own
strategy onto their perception of non-static potentialist strategies, and it is
here that they meet conflict with the other lines. Their relations with dynamic
potentialism are particularly poor: they fail to apprehend that the dynamic
potentialist is not, like them, exploring a single point of view in great depth,
but is instead attempting to choose between viewpoints in search of the most
positive available perspective. The static potentialist is by their nature
ignorant of this search, because they are ill-suited to undertake it. Instead
they assume the dynamic potentialist has consciously adopted the view contrary to
their own, and chosen to explore it in comparable depth. The contrary viewpoint
is therefore trasmuted into an opposing viewpoint. If however they deduce that
the opinion chosen by their contrary is not in opposition, then they will
immediately discern the dynamic potentialist's shallow understanding of the view
they have chosen. Static potentialists may perceive this shallow understanding as
proof of dynamic potentialism's ignorance and incompentance of the means to
survive.
Static potentialist relations with static kinetists and dynamic kinetists are
cooler: either domain perceives advantages to the static potentialist view.
Kineticism, while open to dynamic potentialism's positive perspectivism (in as much
as dynamic potentialism enlightens them of it), sees equally the virtues of static
potentialist interpretive restraint. Because kineticism percieves a point of view
as implying action, the perception by a kinetist of a situation which is well
understood from an objective standpoint may reinforce their consideration of the
conservative viewpoint in all of its depth and well-founded premises. In contrast,
if the static kinetist observes current understanding to be insufficient to the
situation, they may opt for the liberal range of alternate interpretations. The
choice of intepretations is vital to the kinetist viewpoint, because it will be
the interpretation of the situation that creates the impetus for action.
The Static-Kinetic Domain:
Static Kineticism emphasizes persistences of activity. These included laws
of action and of motion, enduring forces (such as gravity), the observance of
institutional norms, and the continuity of processes; in a word, order. Over
the centuries, static kineticism has developed a vast library of solutions to
a variety of problems; indeed, of all problems man has managed to solve. If in
the context of objective memory static potentialism is the guardian of enduring
interpretations, then static kineticism is the guardian of enduring process and
response. For each situation, thinks the static kinetists, there exists an
appropriate response. Static kinetists only invoke those solutions they
understand to be proven; they avoid solutions that are poorly formed or
half-managed. One such solution is the practice of filling institutional roles
with individuals whose traits are sufficiently suited to the role's duties. This
practice has emerged from the static kinetist's natural aptitude for perceiving
the persistences of behavior that are passed on from one generation to another.
Before genetics, hereditary traits were described as factors of lineage. Thus
static kineticism has worked hard to preserve the most effective hereditary
traits while attempting to surpress the appearance of ineffective traits. This
emphasis is reflected in the dynastic practices of inbreeding and of arranged
marriage: by marrying positive traits to each other, a better set of traits can
be created. However static kineticism does not disparage individuals for being
unable to fulfill a given role; rather, they will attempt to match their person
to the role most suited to their unique talents. Static kinetists view the
assumption of a role by someone who is unsuited to it as an expression of vanity;
they will criticize them for their inefficiency. Similarly, they perceive the
capacity of society to produce as relative to the pool of available genetic
traits. The more diverse the traits, the more varieties of social function may be
entertained. Trait interoperability is equally important: traits that are
understood are more desirable to static kinetists than are poorly understood
traits, because only through understanding can one ascribe to a set of traits
a role that is conducive to social functioning.
The import static kineticism places on social efficiency brings it into conflict
with dynamic kineticism, which argues that one must make one's own way in the world
under the conditions one is given. Such a view emphasizes the fight for survival
over any considerations of how best to conduct a process. If relations between
the potentialist domains can be described as a cold war of much bluster
but little action, then kinetist relations are certainly hotter. Faced with an
ever evolving, ever changing enemy, static kinetists has found necessity to
fragment themselves into a seemingly irreconciliable mess of splinters whose
traces can be discerned in the institutional norms of every nation. They
constantly strive to defend these institutions from what they see as the tyranny
of unpredicatability: chaos that knows no method save its own endurance. Like
static potentialism they perceive the methods of their contrary as either
unchanging and destined by polar opposition, or else poorly conceived and
undeveloped. Static kineticism observes that action is influenced by
persistences of influence; they regard ignorance or disregard for these influences
with disdain.
The Dynamic Kinetic Domain:
Dynamic kineticism is change. When dynamic kinetists witness an event, they
observe what the event has done to change the behavior of the objects involved.
They are aware of how change takes place, and can set themselves toward the
fulfillment of meaningful changes in the conduction of process. They perceive
these changes as the means by which to make a more suitable existence for
themselves and others. The dynamic kinetist does not bow before their environs:
they reach out and attempt to manipulate the flow of the energies around them.
By performing the right manipulations, they believe, anything is possible.
Dynamic kineticism has little patience for reluctance to change in the face of
difficult circumstances; they perceive such as a sign of timidity or obtusivity.
The dynamic kinetist believes meaningful change to be in the capacity of anyone,
if only they will choose to undertake it. They believe in choosing the action
which offers the most positive potential outcome, rejecting any pretenses of
loyalty to any dogma. Similarly, they believe that action, not heredity, defines
character and person. One must choose the most appropriate course of action and
accept its consequences, says the dynamic kinetist. This is not to say that
a dynamic kinetist dimly resigns themselves to the fate of their own making,
however; indeed, the dynamic kinetist will argue that fate is an illusion with
no material substance. The flow of time is a matter completely of choices and
their consequences. If one truly desires to make amends for erroneous judgements,
then there is ample opportunity for such that is limited only by one's energy and
personal will. However, the dynamic kinetist believes it of necessity not to
compound an already untenable situation with further error. Instead, the dynamic
kinetist chooses to carefully research how change happens and futher, how to create
the changes most needed. This information they glean from the constantly evolving
world about them. When a behavior is observed by the objective psyche as
unrecognizable or divergent from the norm, dynamic kineticism will be capable of a
sensible explanation. The static kinetist may show a level of skepticism for this
explanation, however, and with good reason: they have only scarcely accepted
dynamic kineticism's last explanation, which in turn created the grounds for yet
a new problem, and a new source of perceived instability. For if a problem is not
recognized, does it exist? The static kinetist may say no, and it is here that
the two sides of kineticism come to blows. The dynamic kinetist considers the
ignorance of a problem sheer folly: problems, the dynamic kinetist believes, must
be recognized for what they are and adapted to as quickly as possible. Because
the dynamic kinetist believes in the adaptation to an environmental situation as
opposed to the mastery of it, they are adept at bringing together different
interests in the pursuit of common responses to environmental conditions. One
historical approach to the problem of macro adaptation strategies is the concept
of nation. Dynamic kineticism views the justification for a nation's contingency
as its suitability for environmental adaptation and response. To the degree that
a nation does not meet environmental demands, says the dynamic kinetist, the
relationship between the peoples who constitute the nation must be changed -- even
at the nation's expense. In service to the dissolution of circumstantially
unjustified political states, dynamic kineticism has implemented the strategy of
nationalism. History shows that static kineticism, which by its nature attempts
to understand all of the intricacies and subtleties of the adaptation strategies
it has accepted, responds to the institutional threats nationalism poses with
all of the force it can muster, ruthlessly prosecuting nationalist insurgents
to the point of injustice. In modern times the static kinetic elements within
industrialized nations have composited the ultimate institutional response to
neonationalism: the military-industrial complex. The union of military strategy
with high technology has created a sustained system of relationship between the
soldier and the officer capable of wielding unprecedented power against even the
smallest nationalistic organizations. For a time these systems proved capable
of suppressing even the slightest glimmers of resistance to the established state.
However the mentality of the dynamic kinetist has proved capable of successful
adaptation, as is its specialty, and through its resourcefulness has developed the
strategy of assymetric warfare, whose versatility static kineticism has yet to
match. For all of its amassed strength and vitrol, its finely-honed skills and
peerless processes, static kineticism finds itself unable to drive its stake into
the heart of the dynamic kinetic vampire; for dynamic kineticism views the world
not as the substance of what is done, but as the consequence of what now
transpires. So long as dynamic kineticism can arrange the unisons of influence
required for the sustainance of its existence, it will continue to revive its
depleted numbers and resurrect its wills in its ever bloody battle against
environmentally unjustified institutionalism. In the face of this immortal
resistance, it is of little wonder that static kinetists have sought increasing
levels of control over the media; for what better way to portray ideals of heroism
and romance in their own image, a tradition of resistance to those volatile forces
that do not accept defeat, but instead return to haunt their vanquishers again and
again.
The Dynamic Potential Domain:
Dynamic potentialism is witness to new interpretations of event and situation.
Says the dynamic potentialist, "When change is evident, we must perceive the world
accordingly". Dynamic potentialism is open to many different viewpoints in its
eternal quest to view the world in as positive a light as possible in the face
of overpowering and sometimes negative circumstances. Negative perceptions are
unilaterally discarded; the dynamic potentialist will not hesistate to use the
word "evil" as regards negativity of perspective. They hold similar contempt for
perceptions they believe outdated or false. Dynamic potentialism believes
perceptions imply power: depending on how a situation is perceived, one may or
may not influence their condition. Dynamic potentialists believe each point of
view has merits suited to specific situations: the more points of view available,
the more likely a positive, progressive perspective may be discovered. For this
reason dynamic potentialism is very cohesive, moreso than any other domain.
Non-negative points of view are held by people, and for this reason the people
who hold these views must be defended if at all possible. Dynamic potentialists
naturally hold more sympathy for each other than for adherents to other domains;
therefore they refuse to allow themselves to be divided on the basis of objective
considerations. Objective division, history has taught them, implies unmitigated
capacity for self-destruction. Beyond this extreme self-coherency, little can be
said of dynamic potentialism as regards historical constancy. Every new
interpretation of anything has necessarily been posed by the dynamic potentialist.
However, dynamic potentialists are keen to the consequences of event and when an
interpretation is no longer tenable to their knowledge they will assume it
obsolete and pay it little further attention, if any. This invites the criticism
of static potentialism, which maintains that dynamic potentialism never fully
understood the discarded idea in the first place. Further, the other domains are
often alarmed at dynamic potentialism's willingness to discard ideas they had
only scarcely adopted. This unease over dynamic potentialism's constantly
evolving state often drives the kinetic domains to seek compensation in static
potentialism's constancy. It is through its drive to woo kineticism -- and
the inevitable frustration it faces -- that dynamic potentialism finds its own
limited constancy, and for this purpose it has condensed between itself the
political forces of progressive liberalism. By pressing for the adoption of their
interpretations, dynamic potentialists seek to influence the choices of static
kinetists and dynamic kinetists toward greater objective positivity. History
demonstrates that when a new interpretation of reality succeeds as an
accepted basis for social action, conservative forces concede their resistance
to it as a matter of practicality. This event itself reframes the objective
situation and spurs liberalism forward into its next stage of perceptive evolution.
This concludes our discussion of the four aspects of the psyche. We next consider
the substance of psychic content itself and the influence of the four aspects on its
manifestation.
NOTE: I'm thinking of dropping the political connotations... what do you think?
EDIT 5/1: left the political connotations in; began the static potentialist/conservative description. I'm mostly confident in this.... Freud was a conservative: he believed the psyche was controlled by individualized psychic traumas, which reflected struggles between social expectations and somatic drives. This seems mostly counter to Jung's view, which could be thought of as dynamic potentialist/liberal. It seems to be a matter of spiritual emphasis in the liberal contrasted with somatic (body) emphasis in the conservative, and a desire within either to find compensation for their respectively lopsided focus.
Edit 5/7: continued the discussion of static potentialism/ideosyncratic conservatism.... ...Somewhat befuddled as to how paleoconservatives view liberals and conservatives... I need more hard facts, particular testimony from paleoconservatives. I'm pretty square about reform's view of either, thanks to many hours of discussion between my mother and other dynamic kinetists close to me. (thanks UDP)
EDIT 5/9: mostly finished with the psyche structure discussion. (I do need to complete the static kinetic and dynamic kinetic sections still yet...) Next I will discuss what exactly these divergent strategies have to do with model A. Here's a hint: information must be "accepted" from somewhere, don't you think? And where exactly does the information we "produce" go? These questions will be the topic of our next discussion, which I believe I will set within a thread seperate from this one, as this one is large enough already, and a topic of considerable depth in its own right.
Reply With Quote
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
