Early Retirement Extreme Forums

Typing out in the real world is often messy and subject to great uncertainty. Though, with practice typing can become intuitive enough to operate as a background model for various social situations. I will try to share here how I went about gaining an intuition and provide various correlates I have found between levels of a type model.

What I mean by levels is that reality/experience can be grained in a certain way so that only objects in a certain size range will "appear". That is, a fine grain view of reality may reveal particular details you normally take as granted. For instance, that organisms are made of cells and computers are made of transistors. Coarsely, all the locations, regions, buildings, countries, and continents you have been through on earth can be thought of as fuzzy parts making up the biosphere as a whole. Holons all the way up and down. Social interaction being tricky as it would appear that humans and their instruments/tools all fall within a narrow band of levels that scale from about 10^0 meters to 10^7 meters (with scientific investigation ranging from 10^-35 to 10^26), yet within this range a whole lot seems to be happening (high complexity). Any type model worth its own must somehow scale the range of socialization processes while still being simple enough to share/communicate.

Ignoring type theory for a second, we can try to paint a picture of what we are modeling [out there] and then attempt to match what we see to a model [in here]. Of course, what "you" experience as [out] and [in] is malleable. Various levels of holons suggesting boundaries between [in/out] can be identified with [or instrumentalized as]. We can start with a basic ontology of what we tend to believe exists and then apply type theory in a way that can apply inside/outside our suggested limits. How about..

1. Individual Human Agents
2. Agent Clusters with small-world communication
3. Agent Clusters with large-world communication

This gets a little confusing with the advent of the internet as now an agent cluster spreading across the world can communicate in such a way that anyone in the cluster can reach anyone else directly or nearly so through middle parties (e.g. twitter, facebook). Think of 2 as being split into physically local spaces (e.g. church, grocery store, buildings, outside gatherings) and into digitally local spaces (e.g. chat rooms, message boards). 3 includes all other interaction besides 1 and 2 where for one agent to find another agent they have to go through some list (e.g. door to door, department to department) and it takes time/energy/money to do so. This may seem somewhat bizarre to modern humans but we didn't always have the ability to sort indexed directories of humans matching names to households or internet profiles. Finding someone 1000 years ago meant going from village to village and asking around, resembling some process in-between 2 and 3 where locals would tend to know who was in their tribe or village but only had myths about who lived "beyond".

Communication is important for human type theory, but if we take a broader, coarser view of our evolutionary past, it is just the tip of the iceberg. Roughly speaking, S:sensation being adopted in its current form from our reptilian and amphibian ancestors(*). Avian or bird-like ancestors honing the F:feeling complexes associated with music/chirping and deliberative mate selection. N:intuition expanding from a singular center in the universe at any given time to a network of important mammalian centers due to extended young care, hibernation, seasonal strategy, food storage/shortage, and so forth. T:thinking emerging more recently in sapiens as a learned grammar for breaking up the world into signs of signified and signifier. Generally, communication involves quite a bit of T-F bridging which may not be apparent in other life forms yet exist as remnants (e.g. as T-symbols or F-melodies).

(*) Yes, all life on earth can be considered related. Life may have arisen from multiple origin points but generally we all have similar genetics that can be traced back in lineages to build up a tree of life. In some sense, even instruments like coffee cups have an associated lineage of prior cups created by humans. The boundaries between organic and inorganic blur while taking assembly theory and statistical mechanics seriously which in turn means time is taken seriously (with intropic and entropic arrows).

My working hypothesis taking this thread forward is that functions operate around 1 (going a bit smaller than individual agents as well as a bit larger). Quadras operate around 2 (bleeding into individuals and beyond small-world interaction). And paradigms operate around 3 (emergent from small-worlds yet extensive in the larger-world).

For a functional overview see viewtopic.php?t=12360 . Perhaps here we can link up functions as the individual agent level to quadras and paradigms at the small-world and large-world levels in a way that is tangible enough to "make sense" (i.e. bridge T to S). Questions encouraged as they help the whole thread establish a small-world context!

Here is a working visualization of what I am talking about. The first image being elaborated upon in 101 where the boundaries between activities are dynamically drawn by agents. Networks can take on many forms, though a general measure of how "far" one node is from another can be constructed to indicate whether a net is "small" or "large". Nets where all nodes are accessible make the "world" seem small, and nets where most nodes are inaccessible make the "world" seem large.

Quadras
I originally learned of these from Eric Strauss and https://www.sociotype.com/socionics/quadras/ . Though, I am not sure I like the (alpha, beta, gamma, delta) labels as they have unintended connotations. Thus, I will go ahead and take the liberty of simplifying the labels to (A, B, C, D). Each quadra has four types in it that share a conscious front stack and a sub-conscious back stack. Each quadra has no preference for any given paradigm since S, F, N, and T are all on equal footing.

A: Si, Ne, Ti, Fe (types: intp, entp, isfj, esfj)
B: Se, Ni, Ti, Fe (types: istp, estp, infj, enfj)
C: Se, Ni, Te, Fi (types: intj, entj, isfp, esfp)
D: Si, Ne, Te, Fi (types: istj, estj, infp, enfp)

Aligning with the time-space attributes of each function we can generate a low-level description of each quadra:

A internally creating possibilities by tracking externals in the past.
B internally creates F-possibilities and matches N-futures while tracking external T-trails with S-potential.
C internally matching futures while controlling externals with present potential.
D internally matches F-futures and creates N-possibilities while tracking external S-trails with T-potential.

Quadratic Characteristics

A
constructive
storytelling
cooperative debating
historical analysis
everyone picks their own narrative
people are detached from their opinions
democratic

B
participatory
competitive sports
games for everyone
physical activities bring people together
words about actions matter
philosophy is embodied
from wilderness to city
theocratic

C
explorative
speculation
deep dives
time will tell
solo activities retain individuality
identity is malleable
instruments have influence over society
oligarchic

D
comparative
rituals
time has already told us
mental activities pull people apart
actions speak louder than words
sacred places should be preserved
narratives pick humans
from city to wilderness
anarchic

A few notes before building a skeleton for all the paradigms:

1. What is being grown here can be thought of as a super-tautology where the particular tautologies being extrapolated from near the roots of the "theory" are S: sensory-heavy activities, F: feeling-heavy activities, N: intuition-heavy activities, and T: thinking-heavy activities. Each being circular, yet due to the presumed universal symmetry underlying our reality.. the circularity can generate more detailed circles.. that is, the super-symmetry recursively generates symmetries that take variable time to explain and thus lead to a large-world of interpretation/understanding. Of course, this is a controlled hallucination, though that is one way to describe "consciousness".

2. As the functions of individual agents cohere together they form small-world interaction networks that partially dissolve the individual types while resolving the quadras. Similarly as we extrapolate up to the paradigms, the quadras cohere together to form large-world interaction networks that partially dissolve the quadras while resolving the paradigms.

3. Extrapolating the paradigms to the civilization level would dissolve the paradigms. This makes it exceedingly difficult to explain what civilization is to parts of itself (i.e. in small or large networks).

4. As individual agents mature by increasing functional depth, they will tend to be attracted to other agents that can cohere at more functionally diffuse levels (i.e. K5 civilization > K4 paradigm > K3 quadra > K2 dominate activity cluster aka hobbies).

5. An important dimension of analysis that is presumed to be kept independent or tangent to type is emotional state. Type is determined by depth and depth is determined by state, but type is ignorant of state. In other words, every type in any context can be happy or sad. There are no superior survival strategies and every type is necessary to build a civilization.

6. Genotypically, human ancestry is moderately predictive, though phenotypically (i.e. type) is not very predictable from ancestry. Meaning that within a family or small group of 2-20 humans that are 1-2 relations from each other may be genetically similar but their types are nearly random. So, types can more or less be assumed to distribute in a regular pattern across any ancestral [or otherwise randomly selected across globe] group of 20+ humans.

7. Roughly, the distribution of types arranged by temperaments is about (NT:15%, NF:15%, SP:35%, SJ:35%).

Paradigms
Each of the four paradigms come in two flavors with associated shadows (7th and 8th functions). Each paradigm can be written as an expression of [conscious perception and judgement] - [subconscious perception and judgement]. These expressions can be equated to -infinity, -N, 0, N, infinity that hints upon universal equations that match up to various quantifications (negative, zero, and positive sum games/realities). Though, that is likely a topic to explore later. For now we can go ahead and list the paradigms with some basic descriptors.

NT-SF
abstract
intellectual
rational/logical
rigorous

FiSe shadow: logical T construction of abstract N truths (NTP's in quadra A)
FeSi shadow: rational T discovery of abstract N goals (NTJ's in quadra C)

SF-NT
concrete
aesthetical
ethical
experiential

TiNe shadow: ethical F discovery of experiential S impacts (SFP's in quadra C)
TeNi shadow: ethical F construction of experiential S trails (SFJ's in quadra A)

ST-NF
concrete
computational
practical
experimental

FiNe shadow: practical T participation in experimental S impacts (STP's in quadra B)
FeNi shadow: practical T comparison of experimental S trails (STJ's in quadra D)

NF-ST
abstract
spiritual
moral
vast

TiSe shadow: moral F comparison of abstract N truths (NFP's in quadra D)
TeSi shadow: moral F participation in abstract N goals (NFJ's in quadra B)

I hypothesize that a given political entity (e.g. a state, nation, or civilization) is generally attracted towards equalized functional usage at the individual and paradigmatic levels (i.e. social micro and macro convergence), yet the quadratic level is subject to asymmetries within an entity or between entities that share borders and isolate laws. For instance, very broadly, the east aligning more with quadra A functioning where Ne-Fe context is created based upon Si-Ti tracking of the past (older ideological grid-locking), and the west aligning more with quadra C functioning where Se-Te controls context based upon Ni-Fi projections of the future (newer colonial and capitalistic expansionism).

Though, this should be taken with a grain of salt as generally any individual functional behavior and any paradigmatic pursuits are possible anywhere. Institutional and geopolitical incentivization may be interjected here to suggest possible distortions at the messo level across spacetime (i.e. differences in small-world networks distributed over fields of paradigmatic homogenization).

How the international relations beyond all this in the modern world further distort is quite complex as far as I am aware.

Weaving together some bits starting from time being fundamental.. time passes and space emerges in which to draw a graph with casual structure. Nodes of the initial graph can be categorized into internal and external. Internal nodes matching to identities and external nodes matching to instruments. Identity-Instrument combinations matching to NF-ST bridges where intuitions and feelings are black and partially opaque boxes you own, while simultaneously thoughts and sensations are partially opaque and black boxes you do not own. As such, the self is a clear container that can look within itself (internally) and from without itself (externally).

From here, functions or casual arrows can be drawn between NFST so that going outwards from the center of the universal space is extroverted and going inwards from the universal space to a center is introverted. As such, intuitive functions/arrows/causes reach deeper into the self towards the current center than does feeling, and sensory functions/arrows/causes reach further out of the self towards the most peripheral horizons than does thought. Both intuition and sensation cannot be peered at by a self, though thoughts and feelings can be partially peered through as a self.

An external pushing out (Se and Te) is accompanied by an internal pushing in (Ni and Fi) that rotate on two axes (Se-Ni and Te-Fi). Each of which oscillates between an external potential and an internal predictor, or in other words, SeNiTeFi aka quadra C is epistemology first, ontology second. Summed up as the intersection of statistical mechanics and assembly theory that start and end with things without a bag of things to start or end with.

By symmetry, an external pulling in (Si and Ti) is accompanied by an internal pulling out (Ne and Fe) that rotate on two axes (Si-Ne and Ti-Fe). Each of which oscillates between an external tracker and an internal creator, or in other words, SiNeTiFe aka quadra A is ontology first, epistemology second. Summed up as the intersection of sets and selectors where elements can be tracked in space, typed, and sorted into categories.

Quadra B and D exist somewhere in-between pure pushing and pulling. B favoring S potential, N prediction, T tracking, and F creation. D favoring S tracking, N creation, T potential, and F prediction.

Typing of agents (either of self or other) then breaking down during both unconsciousness (deep sleep) and actuation (flow). Deep sleep opening up a space without causality and flow opening up a space with causal coherence. In the former, time turns on and off (asleep or awake), and in the latter, time appears non-linear. Agent typing being a prioritization or stacking of functions derived from the transitions in linear-time between various activity actuators. From a third-person, observational stand-point of an other.. the pushing and pulling between these transitions may be tracked by the system being created to suggest a future potential for prediction. Some tolerance for true randomness and/or true determination in a collective agency setting necessary. At the micro-level, all functions are implemented out of time, and at the macro-level, all functions are implemented to the end of time. In the messy messo, functions appear slightly differently across individual agents, small-world nets, and large-world nets to suggest bridging possibilities/potentials. The low-messo being densely correlated and sparsely causal, and the high-messo being sparsely correlated and densely causal.

Subconsciousness or shadow material/logs then emerging as decoherence between graphs that are potentiated and tracked leading to an en[lightening] experience of internal prediction and creation that apparently results from the external discrepancy. The system making no ultimate determination about whether the inside caused the outside or vice versa. The center point of reality determines and/or randomizes the peripheral structure of reality, while the peripheral structure of reality determines and/or randomizes the deep internal point of reality. Black boxes in either direction.

time -> (consciousness - subconsciousness) × unconsciousness -> internal × external space -> determinate +/- randomized [in/ex-]graphical movements in conscious spacetime (or in spacetime while conscious)

Here is an attempt at a deeper quadra interpretation when crossed with enneagram. The eyes matching up to enneagram 5 (i.e. analyst) or E5 and suggesting four simplified small world topologies. The visual aid being set at 5 agents with internal NF agency/communion and external ST agency/communion. The center of the social pentagon opening up opaque T communication and outside the pentagon opening up concrete S activity. These are just idealized versions whereas the real world is messy with variable agents aggregating into mixtures of A, B, C, and D. Individuals may be typed completely differently than what a quadratic context might suggest from a third-person point of view (leading to shadow predictions and projections). The networked patterns can emerge concurrently at various spacial and temporal scales with an acceleration occurring when approaching dense populous centers both physically and digitally.

From the bird's eye view of a planet with networked cities, agents act in a fluid way sometimes with chaotic currents that extend out into the wilderness zones that connect us to the broader ecosystems.



Brief overview of ennegram on my journal:
viewtopic.php?p=246028&hilit=enneagram#p246028

Control in an activity with non-living objects is typically easier due to the static causal graph overlaying the activity, but control in communication with living subjects being much more challenging due to the dynamic causal graphs stemming from distributed self-reference (in-folding of ST into NF). Thus, the insides of other humans can be assumed to have NF cores of free choice that can be matched but not controlled (directly anyways).

The relational intersection of (A: democratic, B: theocratic, C: oligarchic, D: anarchic) comes from the "Motes and Beams" book by Michael Pierce, only he used "monarchic" as opposed to oligarchic which I liked better.

Paradigms involving large worlds of many chained and clustered events or contexts that build up from A, B, C, and D building blocks to form fractal patterns which are busy near city centers.

EDIT: I switched the 3rd and 4th columns by mistake on the chart. Fixed now so that the achiever is object-oriented and the individualist is subject-oriented.