Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2021 19:03:46 GMT -5
For the most part the orientation behind even solid ct theory seems to be on the lines of either "simple symmetries" or "blind leaps of faith". It borders between some fantasy fiction land of stereotypes and archetypes; and between something resembling some strangely contrived field of mathematics. Usually the process starts at the stereotypes, but gradually moves to the mathematics, and here's the fault - the lid blows open and now there is work to do for some theoretician(s) so that they clean it up, because we have to reground ourselves in reality. And what seems to be one of the most left-out parts is reuniting empirical phenomena with boundless theory.
The most imminent example of this seems to be the justification behind conscious stacks. We all have all 8 functions, and through some strange symmetries and happenstances, symmetries of those 8 functions arise our ct. How is it, then, that half of it all is left occulted and repressed and the other half bundles us up into a quadra? A potential first instinct of mine would be, that it is precisely the consequence of those quadras that this other half is being repressed. However, that then poses another question: what is the proof of quadra's? The breadcrumbs always answer with another riddle to solve, and I suppose the aim of this thread will be an attempt to somehow follow those breadcrumbs to Hansel and Gretel to eat greet them.
EDIT: fixed wording (designers => theoreticians)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2021 19:15:17 GMT -5
An outlandish "proof" of duals could be in structuring a very stubborn emphasis on the j x p dichotomy and assort them values, such that the first 8 types of highest or lowest values, doesn't really matter, are j or p(doesn't really matter either for the proof) and then the dual would be the j/p that'd add up to the middle of the [same j/p] grouping, which would provide a big enough overlap on half of the functions to balance each other out, whilst at the same time have completely inverted first three letters, which would be defining another value to balance it out. I think that quadras are also the reason that types that are seemingly only one dichotomy switch away can be so radically different at the same time. But even if we "prove" duals this way, that is still a pair of duals match justification away from a quadra, since now those 8 duals can essentially match with each other "however they want", there's still not a tunnel from that to quadras.
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 25, 2021 19:24:18 GMT -5
Okay, that's a big question and an quite important one.
Too big for me to attempted an answer past 1am.
But i'll try tomorrow.
|
|
ahmed
Terra9Incognita
Posts: 166
Enneagram Core Fix: 9w1
|
Post by ahmed on Mar 26, 2021 4:50:46 GMT -5
I have some sort of a hypothesis but not fully worked out, mainly I think it would rest upon the functions working in axial pairings. Which would rest back on the definitions of J & P + i/e and why they have to be opposing processes to flow (Ji requiring Pe & Je requiring Pi) But imma need to organize my brain better (and more time) to type something comprehensible  |
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 26, 2021 12:55:12 GMT -5
The short and dirty answer to this is : there is no proof and no need for one.
Here is the long version :
The first thing here is that, strictly speaking, we don't have 8 functions.
Functions are not axiomatic in the system, they are by-product of its actual building blocks.
(this, btw, should be true for any true functional taxonomy, functions should emerge from it "last", so to speak, else it's not really a typology but a catalogue).
In this case, the actual building blocks are
Judging vs Perceiving dichotomy
N-S and T-F polarities
and i vs e orientations Functions are derived from it.
The stacks, on the other hand, are actually axiomatic.
Typology is functionalist model, and as such it's not an attempt to measure the strength of traits, it's an attempt to discern tendencies and patterns of behavior.
Which, at the simplest level, can always be described in binary terms of « sustained » vs « avoided ». « expressed » vs « repressed ».
The simplest possible functional model would have two stacks already, and two types.
A+/B- A-/B+
What is commonly called "conscious stack" in typology is simply the "sustained" (+) stack, and the unconscious stack is simply the "repressed" (-) stack.
We could certainly find better names for this, but the structural polarity will always be there.
So in typology case, we will have a stack defined by frame (most sustained function) and one stack defined by polr (most repressed function).
NeTi is Ne+/Fi-
The rest of the stack is derived from the premises of the system.
First we will add the "axis partner" of each poles on their respective sides.
(because functions of the same axis work together)
NeTi becomes Ne+Si+/Fi-Te-
Then we will add the "orientation opposite" of each poles on the other side of the stack.
(because functions of different orientations does not work together)
NeTi becomes Ne+Si+Fe+/Fi-Te-Ni-
Then we will complete the missing axis.
NeTi becomes Ne+Si+Fe+Ti+/Fi-Te-Ni-Se-
We didn't even order anything yet. We didn't measure anything yet.
And we don't need to.
We can already do the same thing with any couple of Frame+Polr-
Quadras will be there, defined as types who share the same configuration of + and -
So, as long as cognition can be modeled in a functionalist way and as long as we accept the premises that "i vs e" and "NS vs FT" are meaningful dichotomies, then we will have stacks and quadras.
tbcd soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 26, 2021 13:04:33 GMT -5
An outlandish "proof" of duals could be in structuring a very stubborn emphasis on the j x p dichotomy and assort them values, such that the first 8 types of highest or lowest values, doesn't really matter, are j or p(doesn't really matter either for the proof) and then the dual would be the j/p that'd add up to the middle of the [same j/p] grouping, which would provide a big enough overlap on half of the functions to balance each other out, whilst at the same time have completely inverted first three letters, which would be defining another value to balance it out. I think that quadras are also the reason that types that are seemingly only one dichotomy switch away can be so radically different at the same time. But even if we "prove" duals this way, that is still a pair of duals match justification away from a quadra, since now those 8 duals can essentially match with each other "however they want", there's still not a tunnel from that to quadras.
Right, quadras can't be derived from J vs P and i vs e alone. At best, you will get groups of pairs from this, but not quadras. The missing component is the domains of cognition and their axis. |
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 26, 2021 13:09:47 GMT -5
why they have to be opposing processes to flow (Ji requiring Pe & Je requiring Pi)
This is the thing that actually needs proof.
Empirical ones, i mean.
Because of it, there is two possible polr, and only two, for every frame. (and that's how we end up with 4 quadras for 16 types, no less, no more).
If we could find, say, a Se polr Ne dom, the whole thing would fall apart.
Types that we now hold for impossible would have to be considered.
Stacks wouldn't be derivable for frame and polr poles anymore.
The reason for this is that those combinations are probably not even viable.
Ne dom with Ni polr : Ne would be both frame and agenda...
Ne dom with Si polr : the main axis would be broken
Ne dom with Se polr : the main axis would be unhinged and Ni would be 6th. Basically broken Nx.
Ne dom with Je polr :the main process would be defeated in advance
I'm not even sure how those « types » would looks like, but i suspect that, if they exists, they would be highly pathological, way beyond « unhealthy », and wouldn't fit any quadra anyway.
And i'm pretty sure we never found a typee that would qualify for any of those options.
Which strongly suggest that this basic structure has a biological organic basis.
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 26, 2021 14:53:43 GMT -5
So, as i see it, the question isn't really "what's the proof of quadra ?".
It's "what does quadra means ?"
And the answer to that is just "a group of types who share the same sustained axis, and the same repressed axis".
According to a frame/polr polarity.
Ultimately, quadra is just one way to group our 16 types into subsets.
One among others.
Just like clubs.
Just like supervision rings.
Just like ExxP/IxxP/ExxJ,/IxxJ
etc.
Nothing more but nothing less too.
All those groupings are valid in some way, in that sense that they are not arbitrary, and emerge from the system, its polarities and its rules.
But none of them, including quadra, is fundamental either.
None of them is real.
They are all partial perspectives pointing toward the reality.
Which is also a dynamic one.
So "Conscious vs unconscious" is only one possible way to stack the functions.
We could as well stack them based on absolute vs relative value.
Or based on strength.
or based on blocks
Everytime we would get different groupings, different quadras. Or different halves, in some cases.
As i said here one of the main reasons why we use conscious vs unconscious stacking is that it preserves the domains of cognition (N,F,S,T) as vertical ROWS in map format.
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 26, 2021 14:59:32 GMT -5
One consequence of this is that intertype relationships are also more real than quadras. (and aren't derived from them).
What happens between people of different types follow the same basic rules that what happens within people.
N and S feeds and opposes each other in axis (which is the basis for duality)
i and e opposes and complete each other (which is the basis of contrary and miror relationship)
and so on.
Even if there was no discernible quadras, those relationships would still happen in the same way because information would still flow between people in the same way it flows within them.
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 26, 2021 15:31:36 GMT -5
And even then, those intertype relationships are just a perspective on the underlying reality.
All of it is dynamic, and depends a lot on the configuration, the health level, the development level, etc.
For example dual in shadow turns into super-ego. And most people are moving on a spectrul between one and the other.
So you will constantly see the same "alternating see-saws of oriented domains" that Roshan described here happening between people in the same way that they happen within them.
Which also means that people are never just IN one quadra, but moving somewhere in spectrum between quadra poles.
|
|
ahmed
Terra9Incognita
Posts: 166
Enneagram Core Fix: 9w1
|
Post by ahmed on Mar 26, 2021 16:23:31 GMT -5
why they have to be opposing processes to flow (Ji requiring Pe & Je requiring Pi)
This is the thing that actually needs proof.
Empirical ones, i mean.
Because of it, there is two possible polr, and only two, for every frame. (and that's how we end up with 4 quadras for 16 types, no less, no more).
If we could find, say, a Se polr Ne dom, the whole thing would fall apart.
Types that we now hold for impossible would have to be considered.
Stacks wouldn't be derivable for frame and polr poles anymore.
The reason for this is that those combinations are probably not even viable.
why empirical?  shouldn't it follow from the definitions? it'd probably be akin to extreme cases of solipsism and/or hypomania depending on the frame function (which would be closer to what Jung was looking for originally, maybe?) since there is no "push & pull" between anything. Just stagnating immobility, no processing. (and oh, minor nitpicky question, but i think it matters still 👀) Why a stack with the polr if the polr is avoided due to main flow's "magnetism"? it isn't a power in itself, but a lack of one? 👀 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2021 17:16:04 GMT -5
Functions can be defined by three dichotomies. However, since a P domain isn't necessarily exclusively clustering or opposed to either of the J or vice versa, the third dichotomy cannot be compared between two functions of a different "rationality" pole(jxp). Therefore the absolutely different functions can only be expressed with the rationality and extraversion dichotomy. But that's still two dichotomies, and it'll symmetrically stay two dichotomies, no matter how you mix up the bag and pave a way from a blank slate there. Furthermore, at least in this case, one of those dichotomies is dropped moving to the other axis(extraversion). Furthermore, from this standpoint, auxiliary is repressed. Pe Pi Ji Je Je Ji Pi Pe burden of proof burden of proof burden of proof it'd mean what it means, but providing the prior burdens of proof are lifted, this one lifts with them. EDIT: vincent |
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 27, 2021 15:25:23 GMT -5
why empirical? shouldn't it follow from the definitions?
Sorry, i wasn't clear.
It does indeed follow from the definitions that Je and Pi, Pe and Ji are opposite and most distant from each other.
And it does follow from this that for any Je type, the polr will be Pi and so on.
And since there is only two Pi functions, there is two possible polr for every dominant function.
My point was that this rule is the one that can and should be confronted with empirical facts.
It might not be demonstrable, but it's actually verifiable and falsifiable.
An empirical proof that some type can have some other polr would be enough to cast doubt, and maybe falsify the whole edifice.
Because if we don't factor in the polr, and only use the dominant polarity, we are not describing one type, but two possible ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 27, 2021 15:26:31 GMT -5
burden of proof burden of proof burden of proof it'd mean what it means, but providing the prior burdens of proof are lifted, this one lifts with them. EDIT: vincent
That's a lot of burden ! I'll get back to this soon.
Tbcd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Mar 27, 2021 16:29:52 GMT -5
|
|
shouldn't it follow from the definitions?
