|
|
Post by vincent on Nov 21, 2020 14:01:39 GMT -5
As you all know, different schools of "jungian cognitive typology" order functions and slots differently.
Some systems just enumerate them (from 1st to 4th, usually).
Some systems (like Beebe's) use names inspired from Jung's Heroic Journey.
Different socionics models use different "blocks" and function orders.
None of those orders is absolutely right, or intrinsically "correct".
They all have something arbitrary.
The reason for this is that type is a dynamic matrix, that can be seen (or then ordered) from different perspectives.
Not only that, but all the possible criteria we could use to order them are not that simple and univocal either. √
- "Strength" for example is still a pretty vague term.
If we are talking about "sustained strength", then primary function is certainly the strongest.
But if we are talking about "peak strength" or "volatile" strength, then tertiary and 6th become candidates for the first place, at least in some configurations.
- "Value" isn't that clear either, especially when you factor in things like counterphobia, countervaluation, and so on.
- "conscious -> unconscious" has similar issues.
- "developed -> undeveloped" is even worse.
And, of course, those are not even the only options.
Nobody does it but it would, for example, be perfectly acceptable to order functions based on how much of an issue they are in our lives.
Starting with polr then inferior, then demonstrative, etc. √
It would still "point to" and describe essentially the same underlying matrix.
Now the ordering we use is not JUST an ordering.
in a way it's actually a MAP.
If we take NiTe as an example it gives : There are two main advantages to these little maps :
The first one is that the fields of cognition (iNtuition, Thinking, Feeling and Sensing) clearly appear as "rows". And the thing is, ultimately, N is N. S is S. etc.
Those fields, in a way, are more REAL and have more ontological legitimity than "functions".
The second one is that the Shadow clearly appears (as is directly readable) as the bottom "stack".
And the thing is : shadow is a thing too. A very real one.
More than any framing into "blocks". More than any metaphorical "Heroic Journey".
There is a lot more to those maps though, and i will try to expose that in my next posts in this thread. √
tbcd.
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Nov 25, 2020 14:40:06 GMT -5
Our ordering/map also preserves and shows the main symetries of the type matrix :
Introversion/extraversion symetry :
example for an introvert type : Judging/perceiving functions symetry :
(aka "innoer axis" and "outer axis")
example for a Judger type.
the combination of the two :
example for an introverted judger type |
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Nov 25, 2020 14:46:10 GMT -5
It also respects the actual processes of the type :
Ego syntonic process ->
| Ni ->
| Te ->
| Fi | (Se)
|
|
| (Ne)
| Ti | <- Fe | <- Si
| <- Ego dystonic process
|
Same thing with slot terms :
Ego syntonic process ->
| Frame ->
| Auxiliary ->
| Agenda
| (seeking) |
|
| (ignoring)
| Demonstrative
| <- PolR
| <- Role | <- Ego dystonic process
|
tbcd
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Dec 6, 2020 10:30:17 GMT -5
patterns of value :
| Absolute | Relative
| Absolute | Relative | | Relative | Absolute
| Relative | Absolute |
With slots names : | Frame | Auxiliary
| Agenda
| Seeking | | (un)ignoring | Demonstrative
| PolR | Role |
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Dec 6, 2020 10:50:59 GMT -5
patterns of functions (for NiTe/NiFe/SiTe/SiFe) :
| Discerning | Interfacing | Deliberating | Exploring
| | Exploring | Deliberating | Interfacing | Discerning
|
patterns of functions (for NeTi/NeFi/SeTi/SeFi) :
| Exploring | Deliberating
| Interfacing | Discerning | | Discerning | Interfacing
| Deliberating | Exploring |
Generic pattern with slots names :
| Frame | Auxiliary | Agenda | Seeking | | Ignoring | Demonstrative | PolR | Role |
Notice the chiasms :
Frame/Role Auxiliary/PolR Agenda/Demonstrative
Seeking/(Un)ignoring
tbcd
(will add comments and probably adjust the colors too)
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Dec 8, 2020 19:17:29 GMT -5
I moved this thread o the Alembic section. This is still WIP but feel free to comment and reply already.
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Dec 13, 2020 11:11:11 GMT -5
The important thing here is that, despite the binary appearance of CT models, every function is actually "linked" and opposed to THREE other functions.
-the function on the other side of the N-S / F-T axis. -the other function of the same field -the other function of the same type
Ni, for example, has a line to Se (NS axis), a line to Ne (the other side of N) and a line to Si (the other discerning function).
In that sense every function could be seen as a the top of a tetrahedron.
And as a result, every type could be seen as two imbricated, stellated tetrahedrons.
With frame at the top.
And PolR at the bottom.
The Merkabah Star of NiTe would looks like this, for example.
Now our ordering/mapping is simply the "flattened", 2d version of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Dec 15, 2020 14:14:53 GMT -5
Please disregard this post.
It will be reworked and most of it will be moved to another thread about function definitions.
An interesting aspect of this structure is this :
For each function the most distant function (polr) can also be the closest (auxiliary) depending on the type.
In other words every function will always be found either synergizing with OR compensating for two other functions .
For Ni, it will be Te and Fe.
For Ne, it will be Ti and Fi.
and so on.
As a result, each function will have a tendency to OVERLAP to some extent with the two functions it synergizes with and/or compensates for.
And this is very important when it comes to function definitions.
The thing is most of the definitions "out there" will be quite heavily biased toward one of those possible overlaps.
And this is actually the underlying cause of many issues and debates within and among different models.
For example, Socionics Si is heavily biased toward Fe overlaps.
All about warmth, comfort, environmental harmony.
On the other hand, MBTI Si is biased toward Te overlaps.
All about categorizing, cataloguing, memory. Environmental order.
In a similar way, Socionics Ni is biased toward Te overlaps.
All about goals, objectives, visions as projects.
MBTI Ni is biased toward Fe overlaps.
More woo woo, more collective unconscious.
In other cases, both models will share the same biases, and over-emphasize some aspects of the function over others.
tbcd.
|
|
anthony
Terra9Incognita
Posts: 1,537
Enneagram Core Fix: 9w1
|
Post by anthony on Jan 6, 2021 14:45:32 GMT -5
The important thing here is that, despite the binary appearance of CT models, every function is actually "linked" and opposed to THREE other functions.
-the function on the other side of the N-S / F-T axis. -the other function of the same field -the other function of the same type
Ni, for example, has a line to Se (NS axis), a line to Ne (the other side of N) and a line to Si (the other discerning function).
In that sense every function could be seen as a the top of a tetrahedron.
And as a result, every type could be seen as two imbricated, stellated tetrahedrons.
With frame at the top.
And PolR at the bottom.
The Merkabah Star of NiTe would looks like this, for example.
Now our ordering/mapping is simply the "flattened", 2d version of this.
In the Merkabah Star, for every triangle, with one function at each vertex, the way to 'escape' that function is to use a function at one of the other 2 vertexes. NiTe can 'escape' Te by using Ti or Fi, thus leading them (along the map) to a new triangle with one other function(so if NiTe 'escaped' Te and went to Ti, they then have access to Fe) correct? |
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Jan 6, 2021 15:09:03 GMT -5
Well, it's 3D.
It can't really be reduced to surfaces.
What matters here are the lines.
Te has one to Fi, Ti and Fe.
in NiTe's case, the move to Fe is less likely (regardless of the vertex it comes from) because it's polr. At the bottom of the Star.
Basically lateral and upwards moves are more likely/easiest than downward ones: Flow goes back to frame, and avoids polr.
|
|
ahmed
Terra9Incognita
Posts: 166
Enneagram Core Fix: 9w1
|
Post by ahmed on Jan 9, 2021 19:27:29 GMT -5
Does the backstack possess its information only "non-axiomatically"?
through the valued functions?
The front stack has each function working with its complimentary opposite to process, there is also the extroverted pairs & introverted pairs alternating. But the backstack doesn't seem to have that going on.
It isn't only the case with the polr & demonstrative - with the demonstrative working in tandem with aux. & the HA - but it's also the case with role & ignoring.
Information by the role doesn't seem to be ones brought to it through the ignoring either, only by a dip from the base function.
I guess hypothetically if the backstack operates by the axis, how would that translate without "breaking equilibrium?" >->
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Jan 10, 2021 10:26:40 GMT -5
Does the backstack possess its information only "non-axiomatically"? through the valued functions? The front stack has each function working with its complimentary opposite to process, there is also the extroverted pairs & introverted pairs alternating. But the backstack doesn't seem to have that going on. It isn't only the case with the polr & demonstrative - with the demonstrative working in tandem with aux. & the HA - but it's also the case with role & ignoring. Information by the role doesn't seem to be ones brought to it through the ignoring either, only by a dip from the base function. I guess hypothetically if the backstack operates by the axis, how would that translate without "breaking equilibrium?" >->
What do you mean by "possess it's information only 'non-axiomatically'" ?
I'm not sure i understand what you're asking. 
The "backstack" (Eric Strauss's expression i think) is really a shadow stack. How it manifests and how information "flows" within it depends largely of health level.
At healthy levels, it will mostly be used in an integrated way to supplement the main processes of the main stack.
At average levels, role is usually the most used shadow function, but you will also see patterns of excessive use of the other ones.
Over-ignorance of ignoring. Over-demonstration of demonstrative. Over-avoidance of polr. The lower the health level, the most obvious and frequent this will be.
Still it will happen mostly in relationship with whatever the main stack is doing (or failing to do).
It's only in "full shadow mode", at the lowest health level, that you will really see the shadow stack working as an actual stack, with ignoring working like a frame, demonstrative serving it as an auxiliary and polr turning into some kind of counterphobic agenda.
|
|
ahmed
Terra9Incognita
Posts: 166
Enneagram Core Fix: 9w1
|
Post by ahmed on Jan 12, 2021 15:02:47 GMT -5
I'm not sure i understand what you're asking.
The "backstack" (Eric Strauss's expression i think) is really a shadow stack. How it manifests and how information "flows" within it depends largely of health level.
At healthy levels, it will mostly be used in an integrated way to supplement the main processes of the main stack.
At average levels, role is usually the most used shadow function, but you will also see patterns of excessive use of the other ones.
Over-ignorance of ignoring. Over-demonstration of demonstrative. Over-avoidance of polr. The lower the health level, the most obvious and frequent this will be.
Still it will happen mostly in relationship with whatever the main stack is doing (or failing to do).
It's only in "full shadow mode", at the lowest health level, that you will really see the shadow stack working as an actual stack, with ignoring working like a frame, demonstrative serving it as an auxiliary and polr turning into some kind of counterphobic agenda.
![]() i tried to do a little drawing that explains it *i hope  * (the perceiving functions for INTJ)  The J functions should also be connected the same way (Te-Fi axis /Te-Ti/Fi-Fe etc but no line forming the Ti-Fe axis) just a hypothesis, but I'm not sure- if it is true - how it'd work in a full shadow mode |
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Jan 12, 2021 17:25:49 GMT -5
i think i see what you mean now.
And this will require a quite technical reply.
I'll get back to you soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Feb 1, 2021 12:28:17 GMT -5
just a hypothesis, but I'm not sure- if it is true - how it'd work in a full shadow mode
That's the thing.
In full shadow mode, the axis line from Ne to Si would definitely be there.
And so would the axis line between Ti and Fe.
|
|
* 
