Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2021 0:52:55 GMT -5
Ok. Then i agree with you about the asymmetry. Fx really can't be JUST about "people".
Roshan and i were recently discussing this off site btw and i will come back to it pretty soon.
That being said, i would disagree with your constructivism/platonic realism correlations here.
I don't think it's a FT axis thing at all to begin with.
If anything, i think it's a NS one. The epistemology was part of the asymmetry argument.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2021 13:54:41 GMT -5
Right. The second question I was going to ask was, isn't Tx also necessarily a constructivist process? And I was also going to ask, is the difference between Tx and Fx that Fx lacks the 'humility of perception?' However, you seem to be implying that Fx is a response, or even action of sorts("people," "games we play") to what's been cognized/modeled/segregated/categorized about nature. So, it follows, that since what we engage in on a quotidian basis("the material world") is itself unreliable, as it's only an imprecise mimicry of the ideal form, then this nature of Fx is asymmetrical with Tx. Would this, or wouldn't it, extend to any other process or function of "responding" or "engaging" based on a learned model? Is Tx the only exception? I think it might be plausible it has to do something with xxxj and xxxp. So really, it is about Jx dom, and the reason it is about Jx dom, or Jx, is that no matter WHAT you spill on the canvas, you've got to do something! Lest there will be nothing. We can't just perceive, we must act. And as such, the Jx acts, either by endless refinement(Ji) or by workaholism(Je). (Whereas on the other hand, Pi keeps zoning out, and Pe keeps chasing butterflies.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2021 16:37:06 GMT -5
What if domains are not as essential as axes, and axes not as essential as whether a certain individual is Jx dom or Px dom? It might seem somewhat asymmetrical, but what if we'd create a taxonomy of types where xxxj vs. xxxp is the most key distinction, then the division is based on quadra, and the final, most subtle one, is extraversion? This way duals are the closest to each other and quadras become axiomatic. It would also fit shadow levels, with the twist of being unable to change the most a priori dichotomy of oneself. (jxp) The potential risk is the sabotage of domains, with which I am not too comfortable with. By making axes fundamental, we destroy domains and vice versa. Again, I am merely reformulating, elaborating, and perhaps misconstruing the ideas of vincent which were disclosed to me in private.
|
|
ahmed
Terra9Incognita
Posts: 166
Enneagram Core Fix: 9w1
|
Post by ahmed on Apr 22, 2021 17:32:16 GMT -5
What if domains are not as essential as axes, and axes not as essential as whether a certain individual is Jx dom or Px dom? It might seem somewhat asymmetrical, but what if we'd create a taxonomy of types where xxxj vs. xxxp is the most key distinction, then the division is based on quadra, and the final, most subtle one, is extraversion? This way duals are the closest to each other and quadras become axiomatic. It would also fit shadow levels, with the twist of being unable to change the most a priori dichotomy of oneself. (jxp) The potential risk is the sabotage of domains, with which I am not too comfortable with. By making axes fundamental, we destroy domains and vice versa. Again, I am merely reformulating, elaborating, and perhaps misconstruing the ideas of vincent which were disclosed to me in private. I was wondering about the domains vs Jx/Px , which one takes priority, (is an Ne lead an N type before a Pe type, or the other way around) But then, I'm not sure completely how it would translate. And if that's the case then opposing quadras are each other's duals, and "ultimately" your conflictor is going to be your dual. Which, I guess, at a certain level it becomes true, but is it an emergent property that may or may not always align (as it is the case with the intertype socion) or something that is a main building block in the stack, though? and also, I'm not sure if by making axes fundamental, how the domains are going to get necessarily destroyed since they are already axial by definition?
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Apr 22, 2021 18:52:18 GMT -5
I'm not sure what "priority", "before", "more essential" etc means in this context. What i do know is that Perceiving vs Judging are lower level categories.
J vs P is subdivided into domains (mid level categories), which are subdivided into functions (higher level categories)
Then axis and intro/extraversion aren"t categories, they are orientations (respectively orientation of domain, and orientation of functions).
So if you need a hierarchy, it's all there already. And there is no risk to destroy or to lose anything, since everything supposes or is "nested" with everything else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 7:54:22 GMT -5
I'm not sure what "priority", "before", "more essential" etc means in this context. What i do know is that Perceiving vs Judging are lower level categories.
J vs P is subdivided into domains (mid level categories), which are subdivided into functions (higher level categories)
Then axis and intro/extraversion aren"t categories, they are orientations (respectively orientation of domain, and orientation of functions).
So if you need a hierarchy, it's all there already. And there is no risk to destroy or to lose anything, since everything supposes or is "nested" with everything else.
At the lowest level of analysis, and by the rules of behavioral genetics and the central limit theorem, any trait must be on a gaussian distribution. And by Ocam's razor there are quite tight ramifications and leeways in which we can operate. That means that any line made must be made carefully, as little as possible must be axiomatic, and each line is a dichotomy and distribution, with each line being either relatively independent of other lines or bound by a "superline". We cannot have the cake and eat it too. Either we have axes OR we have domains. And if we have both we can't have extraversion. The loss is always there, and if its something symmetrical and made from little, not ever nook and cranny can be "axiomatic". Some things, most things, must be derivable from a very, very, very low amount of axioms which adhere the laws of behavioral genetics and statistics. One possibility is that quadras exist only to the extent that they are manifested socially. Another is that domains exist only in the context of quadras. Another is that extraversion exists only in the context of quadra. One of those must be true or the whole thing falls apart. If, for example, we invoke trait A to be j x p, trait B to be N x S, trait C to be T x F, and trait D to be e x i, then the closest three types are based on a switch of one of those, and axes do not exist, since the other pole is among the three most distant functions, as both a domain switch/extrav. and a rationality/extr. switch are both a switch of two and thusly if they are of equal preference, and since a rationality switch omits the domain switch and both apply as equally distant from a function, then a supposed other end of an axis is equally distant to a function as that function is distant dom to PoLR. A way to avoid this from happening is by putting an emphasis on J x P primarily and let all the other differences come second, and we can do this by "superlines" and clustering. But here again is the excluding choice of either axes or domains. You can't have both as both would necessitate plurality and perhaps the independence of those factors, and even then, if of equal magnitude, would add up to zero and so would be arbitrary. If among the first and fourth row(dom, 4th, 5th, 8th) we decide that 8th is the most distant to dom, we'd have to omit extraversion across the whole type and all types to make it so. If among the first and fourth row we decide that 5th is, we are omitting domains. If we decide that 4th is the most distant, we'd have to omit axes. Again, all for all. If two different axes are oppositional, its domains are, and vice versa. For things to oppose each other means they are the most different among all the things that can be different to each other therefore they cannot have an identity relationship that wouldn't include the rest of the universe with them. All lines and superlines must equally apply to all types and be universal. I personally vote for axes to be the least real, and manifested, for the most part, from inf seeking, which can be easily explained away as missing inf to complete the p or j puzzle. (i.e. with inf filled in one is "full"/"full picture" xxxp or xxxj) The other things making it real are residue from closed distance of aux and tertiary, though those are the same distance as 5th and 8th, and the consequence of quadras, as social constructs and the a priori to axes and not vice versa. In any case, axes are the most recent entropy manifest from social and completist tendencies, and per chaos theory, least real.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 8:07:36 GMT -5
What if domains are not as essential as axes, and axes not as essential as whether a certain individual is Jx dom or Px dom? It might seem somewhat asymmetrical, but what if we'd create a taxonomy of types where xxxj vs. xxxp is the most key distinction, then the division is based on quadra, and the final, most subtle one, is extraversion? This way duals are the closest to each other and quadras become axiomatic. It would also fit shadow levels, with the twist of being unable to change the most a priori dichotomy of oneself. (jxp) The potential risk is the sabotage of domains, with which I am not too comfortable with. By making axes fundamental, we destroy domains and vice versa. Again, I am merely reformulating, elaborating, and perhaps misconstruing the ideas of vincent which were disclosed to me in private. I was wondering about the domains vs Jx/Px , which one takes priority, (is an Ne lead an N type before a Pe type, or the other way around) But then, I'm not sure completely how it would translate. And if that's the case then opposing quadras are each other's duals, and "ultimately" your conflictor is going to be your dual. Which, I guess, at a certain level it becomes true, but is it an emergent property that may or may not always align (as it is the case with the intertype socion) or something that is a main building block in the stack, though? and also, I'm not sure if by making axes fundamental, how the domains are going to get necessarily destroyed since they are already axial by definition? Well I'd argue for Px > Nx, not sure how the extraversion dichotomy fits though. duals need not be defined by mere distance to each other, even in socionics duals aren't the most distant type configurations. Well the way axes are depicted isn't really as opposing, but as a cluster, a cluster that makes a quadra by distinguishment from the other end of the "which axis" dichotomy. And in that context, if we only have "which axis" dichotomy and extraversion dichotomy, then the same domain functions are the most distant to each other in the rationality/irrationality category.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Apr 23, 2021 8:27:16 GMT -5
The first time Gaussian distribution was brought up on this board, as far as I'm aware and according to the search engine, was to me, here. As you can see there was no explanation of it and now it is being put forth as the 'law' which cognitive type must obey. I would like to know @ash , whether when you first brought it up to me, you expected me to understand it. If you did, why? If you didn't, why didn't you think you had to explain it? If you didn't think about this, why not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 8:45:02 GMT -5
A gaussian distribution is a distribution to which all distributions approach after an addition of enough independent variables: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution www.sumproduct.com/thought/simulation-stimulation) I see it as salient, as the most replicated findings find that traits are genetic and manifested from an addition of many small-effect independent alleles, which by the nature of the central limit theorem, force the distribution of phenotypes, even of personality, on a spectrum with most people aggregating around the mean. My argument is that if ct is something it must be manifested by some synergy of these spectra, and their count must be low, such that they are as domain-general(as opposed to specific) as possible. (i.e. broad)
|
|
ahmed
Terra9Incognita
Posts: 166
Enneagram Core Fix: 9w1
|
Post by ahmed on Apr 23, 2021 9:10:44 GMT -5
I was wondering about the domains vs Jx/Px , which one takes priority, (is an Ne lead an N type before a Pe type, or the other way around) But then, I'm not sure completely how it would translate. And if that's the case then opposing quadras are each other's duals, and "ultimately" your conflictor is going to be your dual. Which, I guess, at a certain level it becomes true, but is it an emergent property that may or may not always align (as it is the case with the intertype socion) or something that is a main building block in the stack, though? and also, I'm not sure if by making axes fundamental, how the domains are going to get necessarily destroyed since they are already axial by definition? Well I'd argue for Px > Nx, not sure how the extraversion dichotomy fits though. Welp, i/e dichotomy was the one i was mainly wondering about. 👀 the i/e dichotomy is an orientation towards a set of given information by the j/p pole which then leads to the hierarchy. The whole ct is that though, J/P is an axial cluster/building block, and the 2 Je/Ji - Pe/Pi axes are built upon that premise. but this and this So as an example I guess, a dip to the role is quicker and easier than accessing the ignoring, but is distance = strength/weakness here? If anything with those two, I think that the "closeness" with the ignoring is what makes it harder to access at "will". (something intuitively is not fitting. which actually reminds me, i didn't finish some of the bits in my thread )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 9:22:09 GMT -5
The first time Gaussian distribution was brought up on this board, as far as I'm aware and according to the search engine, was to me, here. As you can see there was no explanation of it and now it is being put forth as the 'law' which cognitive type must obey. I would like to know @ash , whether when you first brought it up to me, you expected me to understand it. If you did, why? If you didn't, why didn't you think you had to explain it? If you didn't think about this, why not? Initially I had felt like ct and behavioral genetics should be kept separate, as the paradigms of psychology as they are today are quite dismal and biased, most exemplified by Sapolsky... But in spite of all that, I do not think psychology is entirely wrong and that ct can't be conflictory with behavioral genetics. The problem is that as opposed to seeing the differences in human neurology as trade-off dichotomies/spectra/Gaussians, which they for the strong majority of cases are, they are misconstrued by an "ill vs. healthy" dichotomy, because of the "we sane people bias", which is a trend I've observed in studies of human biases and behaviors, where unity of agreement, halo bias for close relations, and familiarity trump uncomfortable, competent "arrogant" individuals. There is a strong call for homogeneity and that seems to push the ideal health of an individual to the most common denominator if anything. But I do think that in spite of ill formulations, and ill formulations of mechanisms and consequences, and ill measurements and so on and so on, behavioral genetics seems neutral enough to be plausible and the psychological paradigm is observing true things. It's like a mythological era that sees a fire and proclaims it to be the devil of nine thorns or w.e. and starts making up some grandiose story behind it and mystify it and seeing it as this great deadly evil. And even though all the quality descriptors are wrong, all the consequences are wrong, all the mechanisms are wrong, and it's all quite ridiculous, the recognition of it being a unique thing separate from other things and clustering in this and that humidity and related to this or that thing can be correct. I think the situation is similar in today's psychology paradigm.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Apr 23, 2021 14:45:18 GMT -5
The first time Gaussian distribution was brought up on this board, as far as I'm aware and according to the search engine, was to me, here. As you can see there was no explanation of it and now it is being put forth as the 'law' which cognitive type must obey. I would like to know @ash , whether when you first brought it up to me, you expected me to understand it.
If you did, why? If you didn't, why didn't you think you had to explain it? If you didn't think about this, why not?Initially I had felt like ct and behavioral genetics should be kept separate, as the paradigms of psychology as they are today are quite dismal and biased, most exemplified by Sapolsky... But in spite of all that, I do not think psychology is entirely wrong and that ct can't be conflictory with behavioral genetics. The problem is that as opposed to seeing the differences in human neurology as trade-off dichotomies/spectra/Gaussians, which they for the strong majority of cases are, they are misconstrued by an "ill vs. healthy" dichotomy, because of the "we sane people bias", which is a trend I've observed in studies of human biases and behaviors, where unity of agreement, halo bias for close relations, and familiarity trump uncomfortable, competent "arrogant" individuals. There is a strong call for homogeneity and that seems to push the ideal health of an individual to the most common denominator if anything. But I do think that in spite of ill formulations, and ill formulations of mechanisms and consequences, and ill measurements and so on and so on, behavioral genetics seems neutral enough to be plausible and the psychological paradigm is observing true things. It's like a mythological era that sees a fire and proclaims it to be the devil of nine thorns or w.e. and starts making up some grandiose story behind it and mystify it and seeing it as this great deadly evil. And even though all the quality descriptors are wrong, all the consequences are wrong, all the mechanisms are wrong, and it's all quite ridiculous, the recognition of it being a unique thing separate from other things and clustering in this and that humidity and related to this or that thing can be correct. I think the situation is similar in today's psychology paradigm. This explains why you are trying to correlate our ct system with behavioral genetics/neurology etc.
But that's not what Roshan asked you. You didn't answer her questions yet.
Those are questions about your expectations and intents toward her. That (your avoidance here) IS Fi polr @ash . And that's also what leads you to explain jargon with even more jargon here :
A gaussian distribution is a distribution to which all distributions approach after an addition of enough independent variables: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution www.sumproduct.com/thought/simulation-stimulation) I see it as salient, as the most replicated findings find that traits are genetic and manifested from an addition of many small-effect independent alleles, which by the nature of the central limit theorem, force the distribution of phenotypes, even of personality, on a spectrum with most people aggregating around the mean. My argument is that if ct is something it must be manifested by some synergy of these spectra, and their count must be low, such that they are as domain-general(as opposed to specific) as possible. (i.e. broad)
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Apr 23, 2021 14:57:07 GMT -5
You didn't answer her questions yet.
Those are questions about your expectations and intents toward her. That (your avoidance here) IS Fi polr @ash .
Well, I don't really understand what the expectations and intents toward me are here, but yeah, I really originally just wanted to know whether I (and by extension others) was assumed to understand Gaussian distributions.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Apr 23, 2021 16:00:04 GMT -5
At the lowest level of analysis, and by the rules of behavioral genetics and the central limit theorem, any trait must be on a gaussian distribution. And by Ocam's razor there are quite tight ramifications and leeways in which we can operate. That means that any line made must be made carefully, as little as possible must be axiomatic, and each line is a dichotomy and distribution, with each line being either relatively independent of other lines or bound by a "superline". We cannot have the cake and eat it too. Either we have axes OR we have domains. And if we have both we can't have extraversion. The loss is always there, and if its something symmetrical and made from little, not ever nook and cranny can be "axiomatic". Some things, most things, must be derivable from a very, very, very low amount of axioms which adhere the laws of behavioral genetics and statistics. One possibility is that quadras exist only to the extent that they are manifested socially. Another is that domains exist only in the context of quadras. Another is that extraversion exists only in the context of quadra. One of those must be true or the whole thing falls apart.
No, what can fall apart here isn't CT, but your attempt to translate it into a trait based system that could be correlated with and corroborated by measure-based studies.
You (really) have to remember and keep in mind that CT is a functionalist model.
As such CT doesn't have traits at all.
It has functions at the highest level, and lower level concepts and components behind those functions.
None of those things are meant to be traits.
And none of those things are supposed to be directly measurable.
What you're trying to do here is to turn CT components into traits
eg : turning the i/e orientations into a extraversion +/- dimension.
or turning the j/p dichotomy into a perceiving +/- dimension.
I understand why it's tempting. And i'm not saying it has no merit at all.
But it would be VERY surprising if this kind of direct translation was possible in such a straightforward way.
That is what i was implying when i say that i don't know what "before" or "closer" means in this context.
In a functional system, you don't "flatten" things on the same plane to measure how close they are from each other.
And in this specific case, 5th, 8th and 4th are not "closer" or "farther" from the dominant function.
They are in a different functional relationship with it.
In other words : they are working with dom in different ways and doing different jobs.
So each of those functions can be closer or farther from dom in different contexts and different perspectives, in an intrinsically dynamic way.
So the question isn't "do axes/domains/orientations exists ?"
Functionally, they all most definitely do exists.
The question is "do they exists as traits ?".
which really should be "is it safe and sound to try to translate them as traits ?".
In other words : ct won't have to "sacrifice" any of itself. But yes you might indeed have to renounce to some of your potential traits to go anywhere with your attempt.
Maybe you'll have to sacrifice them all actually.
I'll try to help you with that but really, you should keep in mind what you're actually trying to do here.
It's really pretty close to an attempt to square a circle.
tbcd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 16:31:49 GMT -5
Initially I had felt like ct and behavioral genetics should be kept separate, as the paradigms of psychology as they are today are quite dismal and biased, most exemplified by Sapolsky... But in spite of all that, I do not think psychology is entirely wrong and that ct can't be conflictory with behavioral genetics. The problem is that as opposed to seeing the differences in human neurology as trade-off dichotomies/spectra/Gaussians, which they for the strong majority of cases are, they are misconstrued by an "ill vs. healthy" dichotomy, because of the "we sane people bias", which is a trend I've observed in studies of human biases and behaviors, where unity of agreement, halo bias for close relations, and familiarity trump uncomfortable, competent "arrogant" individuals. There is a strong call for homogeneity and that seems to push the ideal health of an individual to the most common denominator if anything. But I do think that in spite of ill formulations, and ill formulations of mechanisms and consequences, and ill measurements and so on and so on, behavioral genetics seems neutral enough to be plausible and the psychological paradigm is observing true things. It's like a mythological era that sees a fire and proclaims it to be the devil of nine thorns or w.e. and starts making up some grandiose story behind it and mystify it and seeing it as this great deadly evil. And even though all the quality descriptors are wrong, all the consequences are wrong, all the mechanisms are wrong, and it's all quite ridiculous, the recognition of it being a unique thing separate from other things and clustering in this and that humidity and related to this or that thing can be correct. I think the situation is similar in today's psychology paradigm. This explains why you are trying to correlate our ct system with behavioral genetics/neurology etc.
But that's not what Roshan asked you. You didn't answer her questions yet.
Those are questions about your expectations and intents toward her. That (your avoidance here) IS Fi polr @ash . And that's also what leads you to explain jargon with even more jargon here :
A gaussian distribution is a distribution to which all distributions approach after an addition of enough independent variables: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution www.sumproduct.com/thought/simulation-stimulation) I see it as salient, as the most replicated findings find that traits are genetic and manifested from an addition of many small-effect independent alleles, which by the nature of the central limit theorem, force the distribution of phenotypes, even of personality, on a spectrum with most people aggregating around the mean. My argument is that if ct is something it must be manifested by some synergy of these spectra, and their count must be low, such that they are as domain-general(as opposed to specific) as possible. (i.e. broad)
Scientific terminology is not universally jargon. lol
|
|