On Vectors of Social Progress by Dovgan

[Blaze]

If the above is true what it does mean is that some of the traits that get commonly ascribed to N-S, j/p, Si-Se, Ti-Te differences may actually be mis-attributed. That orientations such as "details/bigger picture", "specifics/generalities", "bottom-up/top-down" actually do not result from workings of any isolated function or pair of functions but instead come from holistic operation of several elements in conjunction with each other.


yes! i like this better also....the interaction of elements is what socionics tries to describe. in so doing, the components of IM are artificially broken down, which leads to a loss of understanding of the larger picture.

Sounds like perception of the reader depends on whether one is a process or a result type. I was translating the numerous instances where he was calling my result cognition "simplistic" and "primitive" and thinking to myself "well screw you too" but overall though what he is saying is that they are just have different directions.

i spose it's easy to be defensive no matter whether you are left or right. i hate to think of myself as bureaucratic though, especially since what i usually do in situations, especially work situations, is take new, energized, chaotic situations or long abandoned underdog programs, get the materials organized, and inspire the people with a new vision. so it feels to me that i am always working with chaos and with a high level of energy that has to be harnessed in a positive direction. perhaps that is how it goes naturally, ILE is on the receiving end of the coiled spiral of energy. conversely, i'm not drawn to dead situations that need enlivening. that would be the purview of IEE.


ILEs in my experience definitely lean towards process. When I was doing my undergrad research there was an ILE grad student working next to my bench, whose dissertation topic was working out the mechanism of a particular chemical reaction. He set up a series of carefully crafted experiments that over the course of 4 years led him to work out about 70-80% of the mechanism, which allowed for development of more efficient catalysts (which got patented later on). Besides his work he had many other interests and hobbies, but nevertheless he was always more interested in getting immersed in the process itself and working out things sequentially. He had trouble finishing things up though and when his project was coming to an end he got depressed over it.

true. ILE is like a dog with a bone when the bone is something really good with a lot of potential. bringing it home is hard though; i've always thought here is where Si helps. my best Si help at work, in terms of production, came from an SLI. my best Si help at work in terms of process, comes from an SEI.

For me, how I get to the end doesn't seem as interesting as the end point itself - and I want the result nao! not 4 years later

yeah really. analysis paralysis, screw that let's get to the point! draw a straight line and giddyap!

Not sure. I haven't attempted to retrace all the loops and I doubt that benefit and supervision are the only relations involved in the transfers.

they are the ones highlighted though. and actually the descriptions of relations of benefit are the best i've seen so far. this totally is a mysterious relation. i've seen benefit partners at work completely overlook each others flaws that others can see clearly. i've also seen many benefit partnerships at work and these relations are unbreakable and iron clad. the article answers the question on why this is. socionics describes the transfer of information and energy through other relations via intertype relations. the stronges transfer channels, for work anyway, seem to be through the rings of supervision and benefit.


Dogvan notes somewhere in the article (must be in parts I haven't translated) that this should not be confused with rationality/irrationality or extraversion/introversion.

good that he addresses it. but right definitely sounds rational and left definitely sounds irrational. process-result is a different animal. process has certain requirements in order to operate, result has other requirements. the article focuses on the requirements, which similar and related to rationality preferences.

i was hoping this group would be willing to discuss the endcaps of the rings though. what is the theoretical explanation for the transfer of information from delta to alpha and from alpha to delta. if the information and energy streams are linear and not cyclical then how does energy get transferred between the periferal quadras.

[mu4]

I wrote about this before based on just information analysis, good to see there is some Russian explanation as well. These are like simply general thoughts on it.

Right and Left have information moving in opposing directions, within a quadra/socion they form a equilibrium and creates stability. Instability involves environmental circumstances(new knowledge, innovation, disaster, etc) that push quadra progression either down the Right or Left side of the socion. This allows social organism to be able to deal with environmental pressures from either information direction.

My other idea is that often quadra shift may not be thru only quadra progression but thru the internal conflict/or loss of power between opposing quadras along the aristocratic/democratic dichotomy.

Take Japan and Germany, which I think are heavily Beta societies pre-WWII, the loss of power by the Beta leaders during WWII resulted in the opposing quadra, the Deltas to take charge.

Conversely, something like China which was a Beta society during it's revolution transitioned to a more familiar state, that of a Gamma based Confucian society as it industrialized and opened itself to trade and diplomacy.

Anyways, both Left and Right side of the information ring provides for a diversity of information and mechanisms to cope with the environment, most often in stable societies, both do their part with and against each other to provide stability.

[silke]

the sequel is up: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ng-and-Renewal

[krieger]

i don't think the progression ever goes backwards. that is a misinterpretation of what Process/Result is about.

it's more like:
Process: avant-garde "lunging" into progress; going out on a limb (clearest in Positive/Process/Static)
Result: working on a stable fundament; making sure all bases are covered before advancing (clearest in Negative/Result/Static)

basically Result stays relatively close to the quadra to the left in the sequence, whereas Process rushes everything into the next one.

[Reuben]

Thanks siuntal for the brilliantly well-chosen article and translation.

After reading the second article, my initial understanding was confirmed:

1) It is pointless to tag right or left to particular types without first specifying context
2) Within the quadra context it is understood that the movement from alpha to delta is rightward, while the movement from delta to alpha is leftward -> this implies that alpha and beta quadras have in general, the most 'left' ideologies/behaviours when dominating the society. This is further confirmed when the author paraphrases v.v. gulenko's observation that societies tend to oscillate between beta and gamma values because beta to gamma represents growth and order while gamma to beta represents chaotic rebellion for the sake of refreshing society's perception and methods (e.g. economic principles, political instruments, social trends).
3) Within other contexts e.g. the intellectual/moral/social ones, there is a good mix of 'left' vs 'right' from every quadra, hence my first point. This can be understood when you read part 2 of the forum.
4) To grow or develop anything, be it a new skill, a friendship, or an entire civilization, it is essential to apply 'right' movement ASAP, and allows for 'left' forces to expand the vectors of growth vertically. This is not new, in fact Yeat's conceived this a long time back... and even back then it wasn't new: http://www.yeatsvision.com/Geometry.html

I admit Yeat's Double Gyre concept is a bit different as it is not 1 spiral, but 2. Hence it is 2 vectors of growth within 2 vectors of growth.

[Gilly]

[Blaze]

i don't think the progression ever goes backwards. that is a misinterpretation of what Process/Result is about.

it's more like:
Process: avant-garde "lunging" into progress; going out on a limb (clearest in Positive/Process/Static)
Result: working on a stable fundament; making sure all bases are covered before advancing (clearest in Negative/Result/Static)

basically Result stays relatively close to the quadra to the left in the sequence, whereas Process rushes everything into the next one.

tantalizing....:-) what do you mean about the progression not goingbackwards? you mean from left to right?

result stays close the the quadra to the left, example?