Your benefactor can be seen as a "better version of you" -- someone who does something similar to what you do, but more effortlessly, and can go beyond your limitations. A big part of self-development consists of learning how to use the demonstrative function in conjunction with the suggestive function, or we may say in terms of Model A2, using the progressive demonstrative function (p8). Someone who does not do this can conversely seem myopic or naive.
Some examples come from the theory of integral types.
The computer programming community is essentially an ILI in its approach. Formal methods and principles are considered but generally take a back seat to pragmatism. The most extreme examples are in the Linux-based "hacker" community, which evolved into the open source community, and is notorious for its toxically critical culture and neglect of the subjective experience of using software (user experience aka UX, an Si domain -- more likely with Fe), as opposed to how it gets things done.
However, this approach has led to a crisis: software now, and in particular the most widespread software like operating systems and the internet, have become such a complicated mess that major companies are being hacked on a regular basis. The way out of this situation is to make systems that implement formal verification and strict systems of access control from the ground up. The internet largely grew organically and without a clear view of what the system would or should look like later on. It's debatable whether or not this situation can be resolved, but an LSI approach is what is called for.
Another crisis is in the mathematics community. The world produces a large amount of formalistic mathematics, consisting of jargon like "for every complete valued extension k′ of k, the higher coherent cohomology of X×k_k′ vanishes." (real example taken from arxiv.org) Often mathematicians themselves are unable to assign intuitive meaning to these terms. While this may not be seen as a problem from inside the math community, it poses serious problems for anyone who seeks to apply math to reality, like physicists. We need to go back and find some kind of holistic, unifying meaning for math -- in short, use +Ni, the Ni of the IEI. (Debatably "meaning" here also includes Ne, in the sense of intuition as used by physicists.)
Wednesday, November 15, 2017
Some ideas of Jung
I must confess, I have never read completely through Jung's Psychological Types, or even the chapter that is about the type definitions. I find the writing to be often convoluted and not very much related to socionics as it stands today. Perhaps the best part is the description of extroversion and introversion:
"The relation between subject and object, considered biologically, is always a relation of adaptation, since every relation between subject and object presupposes mutually modifying effects from either side. These modifications constitute the adaptation. The typical attitudes to the object, therefore, are adaptation processes. Nature knows two fundamentally different ways of adaptation, which determine the further existence of the living organism the one is by increased fertility, accompanied by a relatively small degree of defensive power and individual conservation; the other is by individual equipment of manifold means of self-protection, coupled with a relatively insignificant fertility. This biological contrast seems not merely to be the analogue, but also the general foundation of our two psychological modes of adaptation, At this point a mere general indication must suffice; on the one hand, I need only point to the peculiarity of the extravert, which constantly urges him to spend and propagate himself in every way, and, on the other, to the tendency of the introvert to defend himself against external claims, to conserve himself from any expenditure of energy directly related to the object, thus consolidating for himself the most secure and impregnable position."
That is, maintaining vs. propagating the self. This fits completely with socionics extro/introversion, and in particular Si and Se.
However, Jung later published a much shorter pamphlet on his personality types called "A Psychological Theory of Types" (1931). The full text does not seem to be online anywhere except on Google Books. In it, Jung describes some concepts that are very important for socionics. He realizes the importance of the "compass" of personality, which has Intuition, Feeling, Sensing, and Thinking at its four corners, each function across from its opposite. In socionics this forms what we would call a supervision ring or benefit ring, since each of the leading functions of the types in the ring must correspond to these four categories.
"The four functions are somewhat like the four points of the compass; they are just as arbitrary and just as indispensable.
Nothing prevents our shifting the cardinal points as many degrees as we like in one direction or the other, or giving them different names.
It is merely a question of convention and intelligibility.
But one thing I must confess: I would not for anything dispense with this compass on my psychological voyages of discovery. This is not merely for the obvious, all-too-human reason that everyone is in love with his own ideas. I value the type theory for the objective reason that it provides a system of comparison and orientation which makes possible something that has long been lacking, a critical psychology."
Instead of "critical psychology" we may say: a mathematical, structural theory of the self.
This compass is the crux behind socionics and indeed reality itself. Although it may seem attractive, any attempt to found socionics purely based on dichotomies (and in ignorance of the relationship group) seems to me doomed to fail. That is because it does not acknowledge the geometric transition between discrete traits that is given by the continuous rotation of the square.
----
Jung says regarding psychiatry: "Its concepts are lacking, facts are not; on the contrary, we are surrounded—almost buried—by facts."
"The relation between subject and object, considered biologically, is always a relation of adaptation, since every relation between subject and object presupposes mutually modifying effects from either side. These modifications constitute the adaptation. The typical attitudes to the object, therefore, are adaptation processes. Nature knows two fundamentally different ways of adaptation, which determine the further existence of the living organism the one is by increased fertility, accompanied by a relatively small degree of defensive power and individual conservation; the other is by individual equipment of manifold means of self-protection, coupled with a relatively insignificant fertility. This biological contrast seems not merely to be the analogue, but also the general foundation of our two psychological modes of adaptation, At this point a mere general indication must suffice; on the one hand, I need only point to the peculiarity of the extravert, which constantly urges him to spend and propagate himself in every way, and, on the other, to the tendency of the introvert to defend himself against external claims, to conserve himself from any expenditure of energy directly related to the object, thus consolidating for himself the most secure and impregnable position."
That is, maintaining vs. propagating the self. This fits completely with socionics extro/introversion, and in particular Si and Se.
However, Jung later published a much shorter pamphlet on his personality types called "A Psychological Theory of Types" (1931). The full text does not seem to be online anywhere except on Google Books. In it, Jung describes some concepts that are very important for socionics. He realizes the importance of the "compass" of personality, which has Intuition, Feeling, Sensing, and Thinking at its four corners, each function across from its opposite. In socionics this forms what we would call a supervision ring or benefit ring, since each of the leading functions of the types in the ring must correspond to these four categories.
"The four functions are somewhat like the four points of the compass; they are just as arbitrary and just as indispensable.
Nothing prevents our shifting the cardinal points as many degrees as we like in one direction or the other, or giving them different names.
It is merely a question of convention and intelligibility.
But one thing I must confess: I would not for anything dispense with this compass on my psychological voyages of discovery. This is not merely for the obvious, all-too-human reason that everyone is in love with his own ideas. I value the type theory for the objective reason that it provides a system of comparison and orientation which makes possible something that has long been lacking, a critical psychology."
Instead of "critical psychology" we may say: a mathematical, structural theory of the self.
This compass is the crux behind socionics and indeed reality itself. Although it may seem attractive, any attempt to found socionics purely based on dichotomies (and in ignorance of the relationship group) seems to me doomed to fail. That is because it does not acknowledge the geometric transition between discrete traits that is given by the continuous rotation of the square.
----
Jung says regarding psychiatry: "Its concepts are lacking, facts are not; on the contrary, we are surrounded—almost buried—by facts."
This is exactly the situation we still find ourselves in with socionics. While of course it would be desirable to have a way to mechanistically ("empirically") verify the facts of socionics, this is not within the realm of possibility at the moment. What we need now is conceptual clarity and rigorous definitions.
Jung also offers some prescient definitions:
"Just as extraverted sensation strives to reach the highest pitch of actuality, because only thus can the appearance of a complete life be created, so intuition tries to encompass the greatest possibilities, since only through the awareness of possibilities is intuition fully satisfied."
"Sensation establishes what is actually present....intuition points to possibilities as to whence it came and whither it is going in a given situation."
This is in fact exactly how I see sensing and intuition in socionics - actuality vs. possibility, or presence vs. absence. It's something that perhaps got lost in the formulation of socionics.
However, Jung defines thinking as "meaning" and feeling as "value" which is far less clear.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
Quantum Socionics
Around six years ago, I embarked on a project to discover the true essence of the information elements. It seemed to me that their descriptions were either, on the one hand, a collection of disjointed concepts ("essence, potential, possibility, talent, etc") or overly vague and abstract, unconnected to the practical experience of the elements ("internal statics of objects"). My reasoning was that, if for example Se essentially conflicts with Si, then the two must each have some essential quality that is responsible for this — the collection of traits otherwise seems like some kind of fluke or coincidence.
Although I have made considerable progress towards this goal, and I still expect to find a true system of definitions, it seems to me now that the original goal has to be modified slightly. Socionics has certain aspects, both formal and conceptual, that relate to quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics you cannot assign all properties of a system (such as momentum and position) simultaneously: once you measure one aspect, your choice of what to measure makes the other properties somehow ill-defined or nebulous. This may also be the case in socionics, for example: from the point of view of Te, Ti is about simplifying, ignoring, or reducing information. But from an Fe point of view Ti is more about clarity and organization. These incompatible points of view are what result in quadra values, and compatibility and conflict.
This suggests that information elements must be defined at some level by their interactions. Normally definitions assume some pre-existing framework, and use language to specify some class or individual within that framework. This is the Ti approach. But in a more fundamental theory this may not be possible: if the IM elements are themselves prior to any information, how can they be specified? This is a paradox, and its resolution requires incorporating the dynamic Fe perspective as well.
In fact, information (literally "putting into form") itself is only made possible through an interacting complex of entities. Where there is no distinction between here and there, self and other, there is no transfer (nor anything to transfer) and therefore no information. Geometry and information are two sides of the same coin.
Although I have made considerable progress towards this goal, and I still expect to find a true system of definitions, it seems to me now that the original goal has to be modified slightly. Socionics has certain aspects, both formal and conceptual, that relate to quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics you cannot assign all properties of a system (such as momentum and position) simultaneously: once you measure one aspect, your choice of what to measure makes the other properties somehow ill-defined or nebulous. This may also be the case in socionics, for example: from the point of view of Te, Ti is about simplifying, ignoring, or reducing information. But from an Fe point of view Ti is more about clarity and organization. These incompatible points of view are what result in quadra values, and compatibility and conflict.
This suggests that information elements must be defined at some level by their interactions. Normally definitions assume some pre-existing framework, and use language to specify some class or individual within that framework. This is the Ti approach. But in a more fundamental theory this may not be possible: if the IM elements are themselves prior to any information, how can they be specified? This is a paradox, and its resolution requires incorporating the dynamic Fe perspective as well.
In fact, information (literally "putting into form") itself is only made possible through an interacting complex of entities. Where there is no distinction between here and there, self and other, there is no transfer (nor anything to transfer) and therefore no information. Geometry and information are two sides of the same coin.
Monday, December 19, 2016
Satisficing
Some words used to describe Te occasionally are efficiency or optimization. However, these do not exactly capture what Te is about in the sense of trying to manage resources and use them effectively. There is, however, a neologism that captures it much better: satisficing.
The idea of optimization — to find the absolute best method of doing something — contains an element of Ti in it as well, in the sense that you have a fixed goal or framework and need to work within that. Using Te means having a much more holistic attitude, and realizing that perhaps a particular problem is not even worth the use of resources in the first place. Wikipedia gives the example:
A Te ego type is much more likely to go the pragmatic route of using the first needle that can do the job, as opposed to optimizing according to the needle-length quantity, while a Ti type (most typically an LSI, the type who cares most about detailed, well-defined standards) may take needle-length as being the thing to optimize. When you have multiple variables there is generally not a unique way to mathematically optimize them together — thus requiring a more situational approach.
There is a quote often attributed to Bill Gates (LIE): "I choose a lazy person to do a hard job, because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it." The quote seems not to be by him (which makes sense, as it is really more of an Si-with-Te statement) but it does capture the Te attitude towards resources.
The idea of optimization — to find the absolute best method of doing something — contains an element of Ti in it as well, in the sense that you have a fixed goal or framework and need to work within that. Using Te means having a much more holistic attitude, and realizing that perhaps a particular problem is not even worth the use of resources in the first place. Wikipedia gives the example:
A task is to sew a patch onto a pair of jeans. The best needle to do the threading is a 4 inch long needle with a 3 millimeter eye. This needle is hidden in a haystack along with 1000 other needles varying in size from 1 inch to 6 inches. Satisficing claims that the first needle that can sew on the patch is the one that should be used. Spending time searching for that one specific needle in the haystack is a waste of energy and resources.
There is a quote often attributed to Bill Gates (LIE): "I choose a lazy person to do a hard job, because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it." The quote seems not to be by him (which makes sense, as it is really more of an Si-with-Te statement) but it does capture the Te attitude towards resources.
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Colbie Caillat
Most people in the public sphere seem to be of Se valuing types (in particular Beta and/or extroverted). This presents a problem: if we use celebrities as examples for people to learn from, then there is a deficit of certain types, which leads to a lopsided understanding. More of a conscious effort needs to be made to address these less common types. Today I will present a very clear example.
Colbie Caillat is a singer-songwriter in the "folk pop" genre, which generally means an acoustic guitar paired with one or two singing voices. Already this shows a preference for soft, pleasant, and naturalistic sounds (Si), as opposed to the predominant "Top 40" pop sound, which tends to be harsh and impactful (in both sound quality and themes, like violence, drugs, and sex), electronic, and good for dancing or pumping up the energy level (Se).
Although she did intend to pursue a singing career, her actual ascent to pop-stardom happened somewhat by chance: a friend posted her music to MySpace, where she developed a grassroots following, and got signed later because of this. In fact, it doesn't seem like she is the kind of person who naturally seeks fame or is even comfortable with it: she says about her experience of failure on American Idol: "I was shy. I was nervous. I didn't look the greatest. I wasn't ready for it yet. I was glad, when I auditioned, that they said no." She also describes the physical difficulties in touring and playing music according to a strenuous schedule, as famous artists usually do. This attention to physical qualities is ever-present in Caillat's thinking, which indicates most likely an Si leading or Si ego type. She also worked as a masseuse earlier in her life, a very Si-heavy occupation, and has visual art interests like photography and painting.
While Caillat is friendly and open emotionally she does not express a very wide range of emotions or seem to be prone to emotional excitement. But she emphasizes her relationships with (and maintains a strong connection to) her immediate family and friends and her local community. In fact, her father produces some of her music — she praises his skills, but with her fame clearly she could have chosen somebody else for the job. Her music also tends very much to the "sappy", "sweet" side rather than the emotionally charged or uplifting, which is typical of folk pop. (I don't advocate using an artist's creative work as a sole method of typing, but depending on how much creative control they have, we can see some strong correlations.)
So, overall SLI is most likely. LSE is worth considering also but it would have to be one of the two. Overall there seems to be much more emphasis on Si than Te, although her use of Fe might indicate greater strength than Fe Vulnerable. Caillat made a song about the use of Photoshop that betrays a very common Se vs. Si conflict that may be described as "naturalism vs. control." One area where this conflict arises is in physical appearance.
Some videos
She says she doesn't come up with ideas for songs "in the grocery store" for example, but has to be at home on her guitar, suggesting weaker Ne and stronger Si.
Lots of Si themes both in her music and lyrics, as well as Fi.
Quotes
[when asked for advice for new artists] "Learn your craft, whatever it is."
"I'm super mellow"
"Music's supposed to make you feel good and smile"
"Family comes first."
Although she did intend to pursue a singing career, her actual ascent to pop-stardom happened somewhat by chance: a friend posted her music to MySpace, where she developed a grassroots following, and got signed later because of this. In fact, it doesn't seem like she is the kind of person who naturally seeks fame or is even comfortable with it: she says about her experience of failure on American Idol: "I was shy. I was nervous. I didn't look the greatest. I wasn't ready for it yet. I was glad, when I auditioned, that they said no." She also describes the physical difficulties in touring and playing music according to a strenuous schedule, as famous artists usually do. This attention to physical qualities is ever-present in Caillat's thinking, which indicates most likely an Si leading or Si ego type. She also worked as a masseuse earlier in her life, a very Si-heavy occupation, and has visual art interests like photography and painting.
While Caillat is friendly and open emotionally she does not express a very wide range of emotions or seem to be prone to emotional excitement. But she emphasizes her relationships with (and maintains a strong connection to) her immediate family and friends and her local community. In fact, her father produces some of her music — she praises his skills, but with her fame clearly she could have chosen somebody else for the job. Her music also tends very much to the "sappy", "sweet" side rather than the emotionally charged or uplifting, which is typical of folk pop. (I don't advocate using an artist's creative work as a sole method of typing, but depending on how much creative control they have, we can see some strong correlations.)
So, overall SLI is most likely. LSE is worth considering also but it would have to be one of the two. Overall there seems to be much more emphasis on Si than Te, although her use of Fe might indicate greater strength than Fe Vulnerable. Caillat made a song about the use of Photoshop that betrays a very common Se vs. Si conflict that may be described as "naturalism vs. control." One area where this conflict arises is in physical appearance.
"I'm against the ways of the world where people feel like they always need to make things look too perfect."
This is a typical (though not universal) approach of Se ego types, which is easy to see in other pop stars like Taylor Swift (SEE), Justin Bieber (ESI), Sia (LSI), Rihanna (LSI or ESI). Si ego types overall prefer a natural, earthy, sensual appearance, while Se ego types tend more towards the constructed, impactful, glamorous, or sexualized. The media turned this message into a soundbite: "Colbie Caillat hates Photoshop" (and then, upon attempts to clarify the nuances of the message, another soundbite: "singer Colbie Caillat actually likes Photoshop!"). More generally, Se seeks to take control of things and make them the way you want them to be, while Si seeks to allow things be the way they naturally are. Se types are also more naturally accepting of the fact that you need to "play the game" and compete for whatever territory is there, even if the way of getting there seems less than savory.
 |
| "Too perfect"? |
She says she doesn't come up with ideas for songs "in the grocery store" for example, but has to be at home on her guitar, suggesting weaker Ne and stronger Si.
"Bubbly"
Lots of Si themes both in her music and lyrics, as well as Fi.
Quotes
[when asked for advice for new artists] "Learn your craft, whatever it is."
"I'm super mellow"
"Music's supposed to make you feel good and smile"
"Family comes first."
Two basic misconceptions
Today I want to talk about some misconceptions that people have with socionics. Certain misconceptions about socionics tend to come up again and again (along with confusions with MBTI and Jungian typology).
The first is that, if something is type-related, then it necessarily applies to all people of a type (or quadra, or other category). As described previously, there are different manifestations of each socionic category. While many characteristics are typical, very few are universal. It's important to become familiar with many of the major manifestations for typing purposes. For example, one SEI may have a "goofy" or silly demeanor while another one may be more chill and laidback. If I use one of these as evidence of someone being SEI, it doesn't necessarily negate the other one — it's simply a different manifestation.
The second misconception is that type-related traits can't be positive or negative. I see where this one is coming from. In systems like Myers-Briggs you essentially have certain types that are better than other ones. In socionics this is not supposed to happen: every type has its place in the world. But again, this does not mean that every manifestation of IM is neutral. All of the types can display poor behavior — but they tend to do so in very different ways. Again, failing to recognize this prevents you from accessing a lot of useful information, since people's foibles are almost invariably "colored" by their sociotype, and therefore can be used as evidence of it.
The first is that, if something is type-related, then it necessarily applies to all people of a type (or quadra, or other category). As described previously, there are different manifestations of each socionic category. While many characteristics are typical, very few are universal. It's important to become familiar with many of the major manifestations for typing purposes. For example, one SEI may have a "goofy" or silly demeanor while another one may be more chill and laidback. If I use one of these as evidence of someone being SEI, it doesn't necessarily negate the other one — it's simply a different manifestation.
The second misconception is that type-related traits can't be positive or negative. I see where this one is coming from. In systems like Myers-Briggs you essentially have certain types that are better than other ones. In socionics this is not supposed to happen: every type has its place in the world. But again, this does not mean that every manifestation of IM is neutral. All of the types can display poor behavior — but they tend to do so in very different ways. Again, failing to recognize this prevents you from accessing a lot of useful information, since people's foibles are almost invariably "colored" by their sociotype, and therefore can be used as evidence of it.
Thursday, September 15, 2016
Two Kinds of Betas
Betas are known for their "activism", or having a general drive to shape greater society or community for the good in some way. This comes from valuing Ti, Ni, and Se all together: Ti results in having certain principles that one expects the world to work in accordance with, Ni means having a broad vision and tendency to exclude opposing worldviews or see them as harmful, and Se means fighting to establish these principles and overcoming the opposing worldviews. Fe then means trying to express the message of one's values to the world and have them recognized as being important (with the goal of them eventually being adopted, as others realize the value in what you are saying). Hence, activism. However, like many examples in socionics, this is only one possible manifestation that can result from the underlying category (Beta values). We can call this manifestation the "conscientious" or "cause-oriented" Beta.
Another manifestation is what I call the "cynical Beta", who for whatever reason is skeptical or jaded about the prospect of changing society, and focuses more on their own life. They may see themselves as somewhat of a rogue agent or a rebel, and in fact find the idea of activism to be laughable. (I suspect some Betas mistype themselves for this reason.) In more pathological cases, this can devolve into a kind of hedonistic life of self-indulgence, like Jim Morrison (likely IEI). Nietzsche (also Beta NF) advocates a form of cynicism, but paradoxically turns it into an ideal of its own, where you have the most complete and authentic self-expression (Fe) of your personal values (Ti) by asserting your will (Se) over life—while at the same time maintaining a strongly individualistic stance on life. (This is the basis of existentialism which, if not Beta, is a very typically Ni philosophy.)
In any case, this cynicism often comes from a Beta trying to change larger society, and ultimately realizing that they could not quite effect the change that they initially wanted to. This realization can also be dealt with healthily, without hedonism, resulting in a more mature, balanced, and down-to-earth worldview. (WSS had an interview in which an IEI described this process very clearly in the context of becoming a parent. Unfortunately, this interview is not public.)
The cynical worldview need not come after the conscientious one—some Betas go the other way. Some seem like they simply don't care too much about activism, whether because they haven't seriously considered the possibility, or because the concerns of their own lives seem more important. "Cynical" probably isn't the right word for this, "individualistic" is maybe better but still not quite right. SLEs seem the least likely to push for causes, having suggestive Ni. Even when they do try to influence society it's in more of a chaotic way that need not have any coherent vision behind it. The dichotomy here is just the scale of the impact that they want to have—SLEs are usually roguish even in positions of power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)