Michael, correction. I didn't come up with Involved/Detached myself. It was, alongside External/Internal (which is denotative/connotative), already talked about by Ausra Augustinaviciute. I'm just one of the few socionists who pay attention to and write about these dichotomies because I see the value in them. Attractive/Repulsive and Questionable/Conclusive are the only two information dichotomies I can claim to have come up with myself, after a hint from Ibrahim Tencer.
Inshallah youngsters will be in AP Psych learning about the function orange and the roll orange in fifteen years. We've talked about this already, but I'm still struck by what a perfect textbook case of NTP-NFJ differences this whole discussion has been. The deductive symmetry of the NTP mode is useful and interesting, but if the NTP's dichotomy is going to rise above the realm of pure abstraction, it needs to actually say something about the world. This of course is the problem with Socionics generally, (which I think Jack has mentioned in the conversation he and I had) where it's a lot of deductive slicing, but the explanatory power is still lacking, i.e., it's not clear how it really hooks into the world. You, Jung, and Girard, on the other hand, all do this thing where you repeatedly show how your concept makes sense of a load of data, really proving out the concept's hooks into reality. In Motes & Beams this was clearest in the section on the quadras. Anyways, none of that is news to you, but I just want to emphasize that we ought not get lost in the weeds of pure abstraction when the whole point of abstraction is to be able to talk about more, not less, reality.
This is the exact problem we ran into when developing the BCM model. There isn't exactly a problem here. The functions are 3 dimensional in nature (2^3 = 8) But there are 7 options for these 3 dimensions. 7c3 = 35 Also, 35 just happens to be the number of possible dichotomies, 8c4 = 70, (35 dichotomies)
DxC Sphere = Synthetic X Analytical Dichotomy HxV Sphere = Contextual X Universal Dichotomy I guess with these four traits we can describe each types with the intensity of these tratis. NT's for example are very detached, while SF's are very envolved. ST's are very denotative, while NF's are more conototative. Combine this with the temperaments, so the NTP are very detached and universal, and NTJ are very detached and contextual.
Hey Michael! Read through your book and loved your interpretation of Jungian theory and MBTI. Although, forgive me for (potentially) causing some controversy here: I'm generally of the stance that MBTI, or Jung and Socionics are not convertable. (As in, just knowing your type in one does not mean you know your type in another.) The main problems I have here is that 1. Socionics also integrates Kepinski's theory of information metabolism and 2. the function definitions are clearly not exactly the same, as I see it, although I never saw or held any problem with you using Socionics' wisdom in your book. I'd just like to ask for your stance on it. What is your belief/opinion on that? including your interpretation/model and how it would "fit in" - as in, would your model be "correlatable?" Massive respect already!
You related perception to extraversion and judgement to introversion if I understood. Why so? You have both introverted and extroverted perceiving and judging functions. And yes sensing doesn't have anything to do with feeling nor does thinking with intuition or have it any other combination. Sure thinking and feeling express ways of decision making (judgement) in the same way that sensing and intuition express ways of percieving but that's it. They are seperate dicodamies that work differently. We can only talk about how they corelate and what they create within one type.
It's from Jung's definition of extr.+intr. To explain it very crudely (and therefore wrong), imagine: perception takes data in, judging processes that data. Outer-stuff, inner-stuff. Irrational, rational. Also hooks into Jung's Libido-theory, blablabla. Just read Michael's book. He explains it in some depth in the very first chapter.
