A new subtype system

[Petter]

My view is that functions (in Model A, Model B etc.) are clearly blocked, so if we accentuate the leading function then we must also accentuate the creative function. For example, strategizing involves both Ni and Te, and mathematical thought involves both Ti and Ne.

D = Dominant. This subtype is very focused on his/her strong (3D or 4D) functions. I like Viktor Gulenko's descriptions: 'D-personality is obsessed with a difficult goal, which is constantly “itching” in his brain, haunting him. Drawn by strong desire, he tries to reach his goal once, twice. He cannot. But his hand does not descend. On the contrary, he desires it even more greatly. In him is that which is sometimes called the “fighting spirit”, occasionally “playing hardball”. '

N = Normalizing. This subtype is moderately focused on his strong functions. "he primarily concedes the sphere of ambition to Dominant, not even trying to compete with him (or with anyone in general). He prefers to be second. " ... "other types, of course, also adhere to norms in the region of the role function, but this is more noticeable in Normalizing"

--------

It is obvious that some subtypes are more extroverted and others are more introverted. This trait affects how much a subtype uses his secondary functions in Model D.

E = Extroverted. He is more extroverted than the Classic subtype.

C = Classic

I = Introverted. He is more introverted than the Classic subtype.

--------

This is not enough, though. We cannot explain why LIIs like Terence Tao and Paul Allen are so different. Both are Dominant and Classic subtypes, but Terence Tao is more "philosophical" due to a better balance between Ni and Ti.

M = Mental

V = Vital. This subtype can more easily access the Vital functions.

--------

Hence, we have 12 subtypes. Here are some examples: Paul Allen is LII-dcm, Terence Tao is LII-dcv, Seth Lloyd is LII-dev, David Keirsey Jr is LII-ncm and Tina Fey is LII-nev.

[Petter]

Here are two good examples of the Creative subtype in DCNH, and ILI-dev in my subtype system:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ3b...gnw5vryrSEVLPr

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oWLIVNI6VA

[Bertrand]

first guy seems more like ILE to me

[Ave]

Yeah, the first guy is way to energetic and enthusiastic in the way he speaks to be ILI.

[Petter]

first guy seems more like ILE to me

Yeah, the first guy is way to energetic and enthusiastic in the way he speaks to be ILI.

Okay... but this is what the extroverted subtype of ILI looks like (according to me). Tania Sachdev and Robin van Kampen are good examples of ILI-dem (also extroverted ... D in DCNH), the chess-playing subtype.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSMBj4t1SwQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5UujzIgluE&t=184s

If the Accepting/Producing and Mental/Vital functions actually mean something, then there should be very few ILE theoretical physicists. NiTe / TiNe is different from NeTi / TeNi.

Here are two ILEs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I0rX7t1J0Q

[Petter]

http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...Victor_Gulenko

"Let us assume that the mental ring is in the excited state, i.e. it is actively processing information. What occurs to the vital ring in this case? It is logical to assume that at the same moment it is in the inhibited state. Within the vital ring are located the blocks in opposition to which act the blocks of the mental ring. Consequently, if the direction of information traffic in the mental ring runs clockwise, then the direction flow in the vital ring will run counterclockwise. This fact will be reflected in the proposed model."

He partially agrees with me. ILI: NiTe / TiNe ... Ti is an Accepting function in ILI.

[Rebelondeck]

This approach proposes another look-up table of finite elements/conditions, which is similar in structure if not in definition to other Socionics theories. As much as Socionics talks about models, it hasn't progressed beyond observational classification systems. Rather than trying to better rearrange the inventory, academics need to come up with actual models of information processing systems. The equivalent of atomic theory has yet to be discovered so Socionics is still blindly mixing chemicals in order to come up with the perfect formula for producing gold.

a.k.a. I/O

[Petter]

This approach proposes another look-up table of finite elements/conditions, which is similar in structure if not in definition to other Socionics theories. As much as Socionics talks about models, it hasn't progressed beyond observational classification systems. Rather than trying to better rearrange the inventory, academics need to come up with actual models of information processing systems. The equivalent of atomic theory has yet to be discovered so Socionics is still blindly mixing chemicals in order to come up with the perfect formula for producing gold.

a.k.a. I/O

I think an observational classification system is the only realistic method. This is personality psychology after all. What exactly is the alternative method?

[Ave]

@Petter, if I may gave you feedback, this is the type of theory that (I personally, at least) find too convoluted. It's a bit like Model G in that regard. The reason I don't like it is because it is hard to visualize in my head as model. It's hard to "carry around in my mind's eye" and thus use it in real life scenarios, if that makes sense.

You are aiming for accuracy with your model and I appreciate that, since the role of science is first of all to discover how things work, and not what people like, but I think your idea might have more popluar acceptance if it was modeled in a way that was easier to visualize. It's a model, and like any model it can be accepted or rejected according to circumstance.

Also, unrelated, and I don't mean to piss you off, but you don't seem ILI to me, but LII. ILIs don't create new categories, that's what alphas do. ILIs criticize models invented by the alphas, in order to make those models more useful to society. Your approach here is very alpha NT, whereas gamma NTs rely more on visualization of real events to create like a moving model in their mind, if I'm making sense. My criticism of your model above is a gamma criticism towards an alpha model, imo. Anyways, I don't know you and I could be wrong, ofc, but that is my impression based on limited (but unambiguous) data.

[Rebelondeck]

I think an observational classification system is the only realistic method. This is personality psychology after all. What exactly is the alternative method?

Propose information processing structures than can actually precipitate the behaviours that are observed. Such structures have been around for a long time in the artificial intelligence world; they just need to be adapted to Socionics and I doubt that they would need to be very complicated. If there were such structures, I think the need for sub-types would evaporate. I agree that under current models (and I use that term loosely) precise sub-typing would certainly help, simply because more and better subdivisions of observed behaviour will likely create improved accuracy and broader applicability. However, one is adding more branches to the tree and at what point does this become too unwieldy.

a.k.a. I/O

[Petter]

@Petter, if I may gave you feedback, this is the type of theory that (I personally, at least) find too convoluted. It's a but like Model G in that regard. The reason I don't like it is because it is hard to visualize in my head as model. It's hard to "carry around in my mind's eye" and thus use it in real life scenarios, if that makes sense.

You are aiming for accuracy with your model and I appreciate that, since the role of science is first of all to discover how things work, and not what people like, but I think your idea might have more popluar acceptance if it was modeled in a way that was easier to visualize. It's a model, and like any model it can be accepted or rejected according to circumstance.

Also, unrelated, and I don't mean to piss you off, but you don't seem ILI to me, but LII. ILIs don't create new categories, that's what alphas do. ILIs criticize models invented by the alphas, in order to make those models more useful to society. Your approach here is very alpha NT, whereas gamma NTs rely more on visualization of real events to create like a moving model in their mind, if I'm making sense. My criticism of your model above is a gamma criticism towards an alpha model, imo. Anyways, I don't know you and I could be wrong, ofc, but that is my impression based on limited (but unambiguous) data.

Yes, I am aiming for accuracy... I think a 2 subtypes model and DCNH are inaccurate. For example, the Dominant subtype (see description above) is not always more extroverted. Chess player Maxime Vachier-Lagrave is very introverted and he has a peak Elo rating of 2819... the sixth-highest rated player of all time. The N (and H) subtypes would not be interested in such an intense competition.

I have been typed LII before :-) ILI creates new categories from time to time, but not as often as LII. There are lots of ILI mathematicians, and they certainly create new categories. Robbert Dijkgraaf, Roger Penrose, Cédric Villani... are ILI.

[Bertrand]

chess is an introverted sport so an extroverted adaptation in the form of dominance would manifest as introverted behavior (in some sense [1]). in someone who was already introverted this would look like mega introversion. it sounds to me like you just don't understand the nature of DCNH. you are correct N and H are less interested in competitive, but D within the meaning of DCNH and the context of chess, entails no real contradiction when it manifests in "introverted" behavior, because its just an adaptive layer reflective of environment


[1] by this I mean obviously D entails both Te Fe and Se. you can say the "introverted" behavior is in some sense a consequence of Fe mimicry/customs (even displays of introversion can be intimidating in a "cerebral" sport) and business logic involving effective ways of being a good chess player. Se is competitive, i.e.: the will to win, but its not necessarily about being physically aggressive in a primitive sense

[Bertrand]

im not saying D introverted base types are all mega introverted, im saying D is an adaptation to the environment, so a D introvert in a introverted sport would be doubly introverted. does this mean they can't act extroverted? what does it even mean to "act" extroverted? part of gulenko's system is people are judged across multiple levels, usually what people mean when they say act extroverted they mean act socially extroverted. all types can act socially extroverted, it just depends on context. a D introvert in a social role, for example IEI who is a musician, is going to seem extroverted in a lot of ways, because the adaptation to the environment entails social extroversion. D is a "bright" representative of type, and D follows from type being well suited to task, i.e.: dominance is a consequence of competence. the bottom line is "introversion" is not necessarily social "introversion" and that seems to be an underlying assumption in petters system, that there is some kind of problem with DCNH because D should be "socially" more extroverted when there exist non socially extroverted D introverts. but gulenko provides for exactly that. in essence its a baseless criticism of gulenko to say he doesn't account for socially introverted D types

[Petter]

Propose information processing structures than can actually precipitate the behaviours that are observed. Such structures have been around for a long time in the artificial intelligence world; they just need to be adapted to Socionics and I doubt that they would need to be very complicated. If there were such structures, I think the need for sub-types would evaporate. I agree that under current models (and I use that term loosely) precise sub-typing would certainly help, simply because more and better subdivisions of observed behaviour will likely create improved accuracy and broader applicability. However, one is adding more branches to the tree and at what point does this become too unwieldy.

a.k.a. I/O

But those structures must also be observed, don't they? I don't see the difference. Are you referring to neuroscience or neurobiology? And what do you mean by 'precipitate' in this context?

[Petter]

chess is an introverted sport so an extroverted adaptation in the form of dominance would manifest as introverted behavior (in some sense [1]). in someone who was already introverted this would look like mega introversion. it sounds to me like you just don't understand the nature of DCNH. you are correct N and H are less interested in competitive, but D within the meaning of DCNH and the context of chess, entails no real contradiction when it manifests in "introverted" behavior, because its just an adaptive layer reflective of environment

Everyone will of course look introverted while playing chess. But if you watch interviews etc. with Maxime Vachier-Lagrave you will see that he is very introverted and it is independent of chess.

business logic involving effective ways of being a good chess player.

Yes, strategic thinking involves Ni+ and Te-.

Se is competitive, i.e.: the will to win, but its not necessarily about being physically aggressive in a primitive sense

Being competitive is related to the Dominant subtype, but it is not related to the Se function (in my view). Is LSI more competitive than ILI? It doesn't add up.

Btw, I don't see SLE as physically aggressive. Instead, they are very observant and alert. Se tracks an object's movement through space (in my view).

[Bertrand]

define competitive, obviously everyone exhibits the will to survive, which is a form of competition. at some point the degree of competitiveness, beyond survival, is individual and, even then, there exist suicidal and sacrificial unto death individuals. Se as it pertains to D is that aspect of being willing to contest openly in order to see one's will become a reality. the dimensions of the underlying base Se are not really important, nor is Se/Si valuing, since a Se accent in a Si individual will manifest in a certain competitive drive beyond the norm for that type

[Petter]

Like Bertrand said, if you think DCNH is inaccurate for the reasons you think, you do not understand DCNH. I don't think what Bertrand's saying is true (re: "mega introversion"), but here is what I think is the truer way to view DCNH:

I was taught each DCNH class accentuates two functions(1). I was told personally that primary accentuation of each function modifies the outward, overall class expression - for example, a "D2" does not come off as Dominant but "H" (laid back? reflective? introverted? whatever H's style is).

1. (accentuates which function)
D = Base (D1), Demonstrative (D2). D1 has the Dominant personality (expression; the way they come off), D2 comes off as N-like/Introverted(2)
C = Creative (C1), Seeking (C2) - C2 is H-like
N = Role (N1), Mobilizing (N2) - N2 is D-like
H = PoLR (H1), Ignoring (H2) - H2 is C-like
(note: I'm unsure which Class is "like"/seems(2) like which; the above full extrapolation is my own that I've not [yet] hounded down, based on the idea of division by functions told to me by someone I regard as smart and knowledgeable)

2. "Introverted": I don't mean quiet/soft-spoken i.e. very much so anti-Dominant, but INWARD directed, focused, oriented (libido - Jungian term). TLDR: My definitions - D is "achieving", C is "exploring", N is "clarifying", H is "understanding" [in a grand, universal sense; the larger picture, totality of life/existence/everything etc]. So with these definitions, you can see how it's possible for someone to be "introverted" (inward-oriented) but still be interested in making their mark on the world ("D").

Anyway my point is if you're defining DCNH strictly by what Gulenko said years ago, that does not fully comprehend the system. "DCNH" has been further developed and explored by others since it was first introduced by Gulenko, you seem to be unaware of this. You might be asking: Gulenko made DCNH, he defined it narrowly, he did not talk about function accentuation and such, why is this theory essentially hijacking what credibility Gulenko has by hijacking the DCNH name? That is because: As far as I know (which may be wrong), these deeper development theories of DCNH came/come from SHS, which is Gulenko's school of socionics.

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

That said, if you're proposing an entirely new subtyping system, like how there are Accepting/Producing functions, Inert/Contact, etc, and/or proposing identifiers for why some functions are accentuated (which is what real DCNH does - see (1), I have no comment as I can't judge if legit or not with my big ol' whopping sample size of Just Myself (this is why I'm unsure [still] of which classes are "like" which - because I don't know anyone i.e. can't interview people to see which they identify with more etc).

But do you have any descriptions of these subtypes? Is there any evidence that this is a better subtype system than Gulenko's original one.

"D2 comes off as N-like/Introverted" ... So if you accentuate LSE's Se, he/she will come off as (more) introverted? Hmm... That doesn't make any sense.

[Rebelondeck]

But those structures must also be observed, don't they? I don't see the difference. Are you referring to neuroscience or neurobiology? And what do you mean by 'precipitate' in this context?

Structure can be determined from behaviour; this is how atomic and string theories were developed in physics. I'm not referring to neuroscience; one does not need to know how a computer or PDA works to be an expert in apps. We do need to drill into the operating system a little. By precipitate, I mean 'cause' but not always directly because a lot of behaviour results from secondary effects. Both Socionics and MBTI have only recorded and classified observations; they haven't proposed any plausible structures that show how these observations can be produced. All they've done is move the observational data into various classifications like the refinement that you're proposing.....

a.k.a. I/O

[Petter]

I find it better because it makes the system more accurate (predictive). As for your LSE example: Where we seem to disagree is what controls/determines the overall expression. In my view, this is the Class (D, C, N, H) and sub-class (D1 vs D2, etc), NOT just which function is accentuated. If it were a matter of Function, then for example there could be no N[1]/Introverted Ne Dom type as their accentuated function would be Se (Role). That seems like a ridiculous notion to me. Instead of Intro/Extrovertedness being set by Function, it is set by class (which means sub-class, e.g. D1 vs D2 etc); this is what allows for a 'bossy' D1 Introvert, otherwise there'd be no such thing as Extroverted "D" Introverts.

Regardless, if you're wanting me to show you DCNH is an adequate system so you don't need to make your own, I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree. I feel like I've hit a wall since the details of it aren't already fleshed out and I'm not in a position to research/expand it via studies myself - so I've given up. With this post I've basically given you all the blueprints [of my understanding] of DCNH anyway, expand it if you want or drop it - I don't care.

This is contradictory. Intro/Extrovertedness cannot be "set by class", since D2 ILE would be an introvert. All ILE subtypes are extroverts. This is/was Gulenko's view:

"First dichotomy: contact / distance.

The first pole indicates the predominance of the need for contact, and the second the need to maintain distance. Into the contact category will fall clearly expressed extroverts as well as extroverted introverts. Distant will be clearly expressed introverts, but also introverted extroverts – those extroverts who avoid intensive contact. The scale of vertness is thus split into four gradations."

Extraversion is either directly related to 'e' in Te, Se, Fe and Ne (i.e. the function itself is extroverted) ... or it is indirectly related to 'e', like my Model D where Accepting Te, Se, Fe and Ne cause extraversion. I think we see NiFe (second ego) in more introverted ILEs etc.

[Petter]

define competitive, obviously everyone exhibits the will to survive, which is a form of competition. at some point the degree of competitiveness, beyond survival, is individual and, even then, there exist suicidal and sacrificial unto death individuals. Se as it pertains to D is that aspect of being willing to contest openly in order to see one's will become a reality. the dimensions of the underlying base Se are not really important, nor is Se/Si valuing, since a Se accent in a Si individual will manifest in a certain competitive drive beyond the norm for that type

Yes, that corresponds to Gulenko's DCNH system. But I think socionists are partially wrong about Se and DCNH... and they are completely wrong about valued functions.

[Bertrand]

which socionics are wrong about what and how? if its not gulenko, i agree in general they could do some things better, but since he's the high watermark as I see it, unless you lay out your own alternative system its hard to see where your criticisms legitimately begin and aren't just misunderstandings. in essence you need to construct a bottom up model in order to demonstrate whatever it is you're positing is better than gulenko and not just nit picking some one-off semantic bits of his without genuine consequence. otherwise we could could endlessly circle whatever basic premise you disagree with and its consequences without ever actually articulating it, because there's always room to demonstrate an error in the conclusion if the premise is different but undisclosed

[Petter]

Structure can be determined from behaviour; this is how atomic and string theories were developed in physics.

But you have to observe those behaviors, right? Isn't Model A a structure?

[Petter]

which socionics are wrong about what and how? if its not gulenko, i agree in general they could do some things better, but since he's the high watermark as I see it, unless you lay out your own alternative system its hard to see where your criticisms legitimately begin and aren't just misunderstandings. in essence you need to construct a bottom up model in order to demonstrate whatever it is you're positing is better than gulenko and not just nit picking some one-off semantic bits of his without genuine consequence. otherwise we could could endlessly circle whatever basic premise you disagree with and its consequences without ever actually articulating it, because there's always room to demonstrate an error in the conclusion if the premise is different but undisclosed

Let's focus on valued functions, which is an essential part of Socionics.

http://wikisocion.net/en/index.php?t...ed_and_Subdued

"Valued functions are essentially what make up the foundation of our socionic type (Ego functions 1 and 2), and the processes that complement that foundation (Super-id functions 5 and 6). Every person actively seeks to process information based on these functions, and warmly create a sense of connection to others who value similar functions. The more valued functions in common means the closer the general compatibility between two types. These functions are what make up the quadra values of the types.

Subdued functions are the remaining four functions that oppose our preferences; as a result we try to limit the use of these functions. The mental-subdued (weak) functions are found in the Super-ego block (functions 3 and 4), and the vital-subdued (strong) functions are in the Id block (functions 7 and 8). Since these functions are what we suppress as much as we can, in situations where we must use them they tend to produce dissatisfaction and distress in ourselves. Subdued functions are sometimes called non-valued although some socionists prefer not to use this name."

I agree with socionists that ILI and SEE are compatible. But is that because ILI seeks to process information based on Se+ and Fi- (weak, Vital)? Does ILI try to limit the use of Si+ and Fe-? No!!! This is false. Instead, SEE's indirect and childlike Si+ and Fe- are attractive (and non-threatening) to ILI. ILI's Se+ and Fi- are Vital/unconscious (or semi-conscious) and they will remain unconscious, and mostly non-verbal.

[Bertrand]

yeah that's not a problem in model G

[Rebelondeck]

But you have to observe those behaviors, right? Isn't Model A a structure?

I look upon function as a mechanism for the transformation of one information set into another; input stimulates output through processing which in turn affects input. A data set may be structured but doesn't have function; Socionics has described these information sets well but hasn't really addressed processing structure. System block diagrams need to be developed to show how data flows to produce the behaviour sets that have been observed. With only casual study, I've been able to produce and post crude functional processes; someone needs to study this aspect in depth. Socionics is half-way to something special.......

a.k.a. I/O

[Adam Strange]

I look upon function as a mechanism for the transformation of one information set into another; input stimulates output through processing which in turn affects input. A data set may be structured but doesn't have function; Socionics has described these information sets well but hasn't really addressed processing structure. System block diagrams need to be developed to show how data flows to produce the behaviour sets that have been observed. With only casual study, I've been able to produce and post crude functional processes; someone needs to study this aspect in depth. Socionics is half-way to something special.......

a.k.a. I/O

@Rebelondeck, finding someone with an interest in Socionics and a knowledge of control theory is going to be difficult. You might have to do the study yourself.

I actually know a very little about control theory (and Socionics), and I'm mildly interested in a theory which combines the two, but I'm about the worst person in the world to ask to construct a rational theory of any sort about any thing.

However, I have noticed that when I work with the very different LII's, their Ti and my Te combine to solve problems.

Do you have anything written that I can read concerning your theory of information processing which describes the system, preferably with examples?

Pictures are nice, too. I like pictures.

[The Reality Denialist]

I think that whenever you encounter pure quantum guy then that person is quite likely an ILI. Then there are other areas where it can be applied and you might see more ILE's.

It is true that physics seems to be bit dynamic. It is usually quite result oriented. Compare it to math or something. Those disciplines are very different to me.

[Bertrand]

pure quantum behavior in argument is really annoying because they home in on the .0001% possibility [1] things could be otherwise and nitpick language as if its absolutely wrong for not accounting for this, seemingly without realizing this "master key" to winning every argument also makes all discourse impossible since we can never lock everything down entirely. its sort of the anti principle of charity since they attempt to continually put words in another persons mouth in order to break their argument, without seeing the way in which they're missing the point and holding things up for what amounts to a personal reason. these are people that desperately need to involve themselves in disciplines with tangible means of verification and objectives, since they can easily argue in circles forever in any domain where there is nothing decisive to put a stop to it. they just sort of leap from branch to branch in criticizing others, without truly developing a scheme of their own from the ground up (they develop micro-schemes, which are like 1% of a theory, mainly to use as a tool for more criticism), yet hold themselves out as if they have all the answers, while never actually providing any. at best they're a continual reminder that people exist in a world where meaning is entirely fluid and amorphous, but they mistake seeing the world through that subjective lens as the world actually being that way. at best we can say, sometimes we need to understand the world that way, because people exist who see it that way, and will endlessly make a nuisance of themselves if we don't account for it somehow. there is a nugget of truth to it, but it is only a tiny slice of the overall picture, not the last word on everything. when they say gamma is like water that seeps into every crack its very much the SEE/ILI dichotomy, one on the sensory level the other the intellectual



[1] its not because theyve considered every possibility, its because they locked in, in their mind, whatever the worst possible interpretation could be, and hold everything to that standard, without realizing that incorporated in the Ni Ti feedback loop are weaknesses of what amounts to the word choice in that moment. they sort of want to reverse engineer an entirely objective language to escape from this, i.e.: theyre big into making everything mathematical (or pseudo mathematical) for this reason, because one can always "find the flaw" in how one says something. in other words, they're not often critiquing the idea itself but how the idea is presented because of how it allows for the job to not get done--that they produce this result by intentionally frustrating the job does not seem to occur to them. its like the flipside to Se creating the problem it then "solves" for them, donald trump style antics, wherein he generates the very problem he would like gratitude and a payoff for subsequently "solving." in many ways they're trying to "solve" the problem of communication itself, which is to say, recreating Fe. its no wonder ESE is their conflictor, because people tend to get what ESE means usually even if the language is imprecise or whatever. ILI looks at these people like aliens, when its them who are alienated

in this way they "control" Ne, not by exercising it, but by cutting it out at the onset. people don't like to think they're "wrong" so they tend to get lead around by ILI. the main trick is just to admit one could be wrong and move on, ILI usually won't offer a genuine alternative theory and you win by default anyway, for the exact reason ILI was spinning their wheels to begin with. which is to say you can criticize all day but if you offer nothing that could do what the old theory does and better, no one is going to bother. making little "clip on" additions to theories is all well and good but that such a thing can be done validates the underlying system and is not cause to reject it. most the time, like we see here, the clip on is taken to be the basis for a claim as to why the original system should be rejected, but the replacement never actually arrives. its basically a confidence game or scam until the thing materializes

[falsehope]

I think the flow of information in the socionics IE would be similar to the ones in neural networks. And it doesnt look like logical gates but it's simply stacked. In case of human brain I would see it well connected, with some connections being from everywhere to everywhere, with more in certain parts. I like the model A stack because it resembles the diagram I would see in such solution. Like two columns each representing process which are interwinded. Maybe the order of processing of the information in each person is the same with just different areas being conscious. Or maybe this order is different for each type.
Regarding input, logic and memory diagram I would see this as spider with 8 legs attached to his head. So the 8 legs would be different IE which gather information to the head where there is main processing, and it stores and retrieves information from the ass. That would be only one dimension of bigger diagram, of course 8 IE can do much more and not only gather information, but also process it. More on less, depending on the type and ordering of the IE.

[Bertrand]

well science, assuming its done right, is tied to measurement, so its an example of an activity where the norms governing participation within that domain keep ILI honest. science excludes what is real but improbable only when its not truly scientific, but rather scientismic and postivistic. this is why for someone like singu to be into science is progressive in his mouth, from a certain point of view

the same can be said of religion: religion is only bad when the faulty caricature of the religion takes the wheel, which is something like fundamentalism. scientism is just "fundamentalist" science, in the same way tribal cults aren't in keeping with the true spirit of world religions but are parasitic on its prestige. people criticize religion as being corrupt but they're really just criticizing the faults people bring to it.. in this sense ILI can criticize religion for being something short of perfect because it allows itself to be infiltrated in this way, but it doesn't make religion false, it makes it subject to human imperfection, which is precisely the true religious message. the primary criticism of religion is that it is inhernetly susceptible to capture by bad guys in this way whereas science is not, but I think that is demonstrably false. when people say the aspects of science that do "go wrong" are just an element of religious thinking infiltrating science, they have defined religion as flawed and rejected a part of humanity, rather than seeing what is flawed is not confined to religion but distinct to it. in essence they collapse everything that is wrong with the world under the heading of "religion" but to even make that claim entails at least one religious step. in that sense they lack self awareness and so have no real bulwark against "religion" cropping in, despite thinking they've settled it once and for all. their posiiton is inherently religious because it is a species of "if your eye offends pluck it out" without realizing that principle itself needs to be developed for humanity to truly progress. one cannot simply cut parts of themselves off. its as primitive as circumcision and these are exactly the people that would find that but not this barbarous. which is a kind of infantile approach to the issue

in the same way science is not trying to exclude any "truth" when it is done right, it simply lacks the methods for incorporating everything that is. people take it a step further and say such things have no present or future right to exist, and that is, once again where the followers hubristically over extend a good thing, this is where people like singu start to miss the mark. true scientific thinkers are well aware that science has not set the dimensions for all time as to what is, rather that our understanding of those dimensions will progress in tandem with scientific achievement. in other words, the "good guys" of science and religion agree, and its a false spirit of "divide and conquer" that permeates the science v religion debates of today

[Rebelondeck]

........Do you have anything written that I can read concerning your theory of information processing which describes the system, preferably with examples?......

Sorry, only bits and pieces of my notes were saved from the shredder and I no longer have the energy or desire to produce something that likely would be ignored; and, it's typical of LIIs to not want to attract expectations upon themselves........

a.k.a. I/O

[Petter]

Is Bill Gates LII or ILI? I used to think he was LII, but I have changed my mind. He is probably the same type and subtype as Mark Zuckerberg; ILI-dcv (or C in DCNH).

"Bill showed early signs of competitiveness when he coordinated family athletic games at their summer house on Puget Sound. He also relished in playing board games (Risk was his favorite) and excelled at Monopoly."

"And if Microsoft hadn’t worked out for him when he started the company back in 1975, Mr Gates said he ‘would probably be a researcher on AI.’ "

'Gates was known for browbeating and yelling at employees and execs, and Allen said that at one point working with him was like "being in hell" '

“I was quite fanatical about work. I worked weekends, I didn’t really believe in vacations. I had to be a little careful not to try and apply my standards to how hard they worked,” he said in an interview on BBC 4 radio’s “Desert Island Discs.” That fanaticism led to him tracking the comings and goings of employees, so he could monitor just how much midnight oil they were burning. “You know, I knew everyone’s license plates so I could look out in the parking lot and see, when did people come in, when were they leaving,” he said. “Eventually I had to loosen up, as the company got to a reasonable size.”

Gates: "If people say things that are wrong, others shouldn't just sit there silently. They should speak. ... If I think something's a waste of time or inappropriate, I don't wait to point it out. I say it right away."

Gates: "Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."

Stewart Aisop: "Gates believes everything can be ... reduced to essentials and rearranged into a logical sequence that will achieve a particular goal."

Des Dearlove: "Gates [is] a fierce competitor. In everything he does, he [is] driven to win."

[Bertrand]

LIE

[Petter]

LIE

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/10/4-wa...tter-boss.html

'Bill Gates, for example, is a self-proclaimed introvert. "I think introverts can do quite well," says Gates. "If you're clever you can learn to get the benefits of being an introvert."

However, the Microsoft founder says he has managed to balance his work style by hiring extroverts and tapping into both of their skills.

"You better hire some extroverts... and tap into both sets of skills in order to have a company that thrives," says Gates.'

[Bertrand]

1) thats probably social intro/extroversion

2) if people can type themselves why are we even here, lets just take people's word for it

3) are you really trying to create a new system without understanding 1 and 2

[Petter]

1) thats probably social intro/extroversion

2) if people can type themselves why are we even here, lets just take people's word for it

3) are you really trying to create a new system without understanding 1 and 2

There is no such thing as "social intro/extroversion". This is BS:

http://socionist.blogspot.com/2008/0...traverted.html

There are scales of introvertedness and extrovertedness, though. Some introverts are more self-conscious.

----

I think Bill Gates knows if he is an introvert or an extrovert by now :-) He probably knows his MBTI type as well.

[Bertrand]

so you're an idiot, okay

good luck with the system

"the system of preserving bill gates as an introvert as its foundation"

how does bill gates even know what intro/extroversion is, except as a social phenomenon

intro/extroversion in common parlance is precisely that, a layperson's understanding. socionics lept lightyears ahead when it severed social introversion from cognitive introversion and now you want to go back and flatten out the distinction as if it doesn't exist. bill gates exhibits viewing the world through extensivity in his thinking combined with creative perception of time, its what made him so rich. he only thinks he's introverted because he's imbibed the bias of his environment precisely because he's Te base, which is to say, Te views introversion as whatever the environment says it is, in this case the social environment. its precisely this way of looking at things that causes it to retain its status as folk knowledge and not real knowledge, because its essentially ungrounded except as a shared depthless bias. a kind of cliche that gets repeated a lot without any real meaning signifying nothing. again, if this is the threshold for typing we might as well not bother rejiggering anything since people already know exactly what they are. in a certain sense its true, but trying to devise a common language on the basis of what everyone already takes themselves to be is ptolemaic, because you end up redefining everything anyway, by adding subtypes to everything to bring it into alignment, when you could just as easily make the system work without throwing a million strands of duct tape over it. its a kind of shoestring typology that says "you think you're x--okay, you're x, but you're actually x+y where y is the modification I make to put you into good standing" its like why not just do away with that and call them y. if x is entirely arbitrary it adds nothing except needless complication. are we going to build in every other typological cliche? is this how we end up with ENTJ-Te D E8 (insert tritype here)-A... more words don't make it more accurate, if none of the words mean anything to begin with--its just a laundry list reflecting their own distorted perception. in the end they're just going to misunderstand the significance of y too and self apply z... in any case you can't actually make a system out of this because at no point is it actually derived from systemic thinking, precisely for the reasons I laid out. its actually just a trait "system" dressed up as something its not ("here's a list of labels describing qualities I think I exhibit--by the way I don't really know what any of the labels actually mean I've just heard them bandied about so I think they apply to me"). these typologies end up listing everything about them in a fruitless attempt to pin something down that can't be achieved by boxing it in on the back end by what amounts to a vast collection of stereotypes. people pick and choose willy nilly because there's nothing but a smorgasboard of equally meaningless options, like having 100 kinds of toothpaste to choose from but not knowing a damn thing about how toothpaste works. At that point it becomes about brand loyalty and perception. "I'm an ENTJ because I aspire to be one"--this is what Jung meant when he said snatching wish fulfillment was made possible by mass thinking. this is where jungian typology goes to die. in this vein, better more honest attempts have been made--its called the big 5. in other words, good luck with your system that isn't a system and will never be a system. what are you, the new domr? this "system" is figuratively an attempt to make the tail wag the dog. embedded in it is the logic of making the sale, not making sense

[Petter]

so you're an idiot, okay

good luck with the system

"the system of preserving bill gates as an introvert as its foundation"

... and you think Model G is accurate ... I rest my case ... nobody understands that model, not even VG... LOL

[Bertrand]

new domr confirmed, welcome, dipshit

[Petter]

Te views introversion as whatever the environment says it is, in this case the social environment.

This is actually TeSi (or SiTe) vs. TeNi (or NiTe). "whatever the environment says" corresponds to TeSi.