Dimensionality and Axial Post-Dimensionality

This post does not have examples of cases, I continue writing about thorny theoretical things that are not instructive examples. It involves the topic of dimensionality, a framework for thinking about socionics types that I resoundingly reject. This topic is only very little better than sheer nonsense. If theoretical nonsense does not interest you, feel free to ignore this post. However, the idea of dimensionality has a foothold in western socionics content from other authors, so it might be of interest to navigate.

The presence cube model

Other authors, including Jack Aaron and Ibrahim Tencer define functions as expressing different strength and value parameters. Specifically, the ego and superid blocks are considered valued, while the ego and id blocks are considered strong. This distinction also exists in Augusta's work, although in Augusta's work it seems very little emphasized; it seems to me that the emphasis on the different flavors of functions is more modern. Generally, valued functions are seen as psychologically rewarding to attend but not necessarily skillful, and strong functions are considered skillful to attend, but not necessarily rewarding. (Throughout this post, I will refer to the idea of separation of strength and value as "the presence cube", although the presence cube is a model developed by Ibrahim Tencer linked above. Other authors like Jack Aaron do not use the same terminology, but his idea similarly involves separate strength and value and I will also refer to his modeling, and other authors' that I will not name here, as the presence cube). 

Dimensional Strength, or just dimensionality was an addendum theory developed by Vladimir Ermak and Aleksandr Bukalov in the 90s. It characterizes gradations of strength within the weak and strong blocks, and also suggests that the skilled use of functions varies in generalizability; high dimensional (high strength) functions have access to more domains of reflection than lower strength functions. Almost nobody in the western community pays attention to the specifics of these domains regarding whether people have access to experience, norms, situations, and time; instead they regard dimensionality as mere gradations of strength.

It is important to recognize that dimensionality is aquadral. The creative function and ignoring function have identical dimensional strength, despite the ignoring function being out of the quadra. In the presence cube, the value dimension is called "priority" and is a simplification, but a reasonable approximate measure of which quadra blocks are emphasized in the different types within a quadra. As such, the presence cube model is a combination of quadras and aquadral dimensionality. Western Socionics in general is the idea that socionics is a theory of quadra values. The presence cube model with both quadra values and dimensional strength is thus a kind of hybrid model, that socionics is a theory of quadras but not entirely so, although Tencer, Aaron and other authors tend to regard quadras as the more important variable than dimensionality, which makes their models recognizably Western. However, the model that follows, which views socionics as entirely a theory of quadras and entirely ignores dimensionality, is more Western.

Axial Post-dimensionality model

The presence cube making use of dimensionality alongside quadra values has been heretofore the more popularized flavor of Western socionics. I wish to point out some flaws of dimensionality and the presence cube and present a different and simpler model.

What is a strong function, anyway? Socionics is a model of information metabolism, which means that it is a model of how different people differently pay attention to different sorts of information. The idea of strength and value as separate, independent parameters of functions implies more, that not only is there a hierarchical rank of some domains that are more attended and some that are less attended, in addition there is an assumption that these hierarchically ranked attentions are qualitatively different in their skillfulness and in their rewardingness. Likewise, some functions (e.g. the ignoring) are skillful but unrewarding, and hence, the theory goes, ignored and hardly ever utilized, while others (e.g. the mobilizing) are rewarding and therefore subject to frequent practice, but are inherently unskilled, and are never fully grasped as skillfully as those people who have this function as a stronger function.

The presence cube model has the following bad features:

1. It assumes that some functions are rarely used, but nonetheless skillful, which is hard to measure (i.e., in principle how do you observe someone being skillful at something that they rarely or never do?).
2. There are two parameters of function quality, value and strength. Two parameters are harder to measure, and harder to understand, than one.
3. Having additional free parameters in a model dilutes the explanatory power of that model.

In my model, there is only one parameter to measure per function, degree of attentional visibility, which I call strength. With fewer independent things to measure, it is more straightforward to measure change in function strength over time, which led me to my idea that the superid functions level up over time, and thus change their strength as people grow and work on their weaknesses.

In this model, the mobilizing function is a strong function, and the ignoring function is a weak function and blind spot, equivalently weak or weaker than the vulnerable function. The fact that dimensionality describes the mobilizing function as weaker than the ignoring function is the most glaring issue with the concept. I can not understand what property the ignoring function has that makes it stronger or more skillful than the mobilizing function in any respect whatsoever, as dimensionality predicts. It is very hard for me to understand why the ignoring function which is rarely or never used could be considered strong in any way. The classical view that the mobilizing function is weak, makes more sense, and the classical notion of the mobilizing function as "stubborn" or misguided can be seen sometimes, usually in young people that have not developed much confidence and not developed their superid functions very well. But usually, people have a lot of confidence in their mobilizing functions, and emphasize this function a lot, and make it externally visible -- and by using it frequently and leveling it up early on in their lives, they usually become skillful at it pretty quickly.

I came up with the following simple math to translate between my axial view of model A, and the parameter of function strength output:
strength = axis*balance

In other words, each of the four function axes (e.g. Ti and Te) has a overall strength level and an imbalance towards one end. The logic axis of the LSE is very strong, as it is the dominant axis, but extremely weighted towards Te, in other words extremely imbalanced. The logic axis of the EII, by contrast, is much weaker overall, and more balanced.

As an example of this model for proof of concept, with sort of ad hoc made up numbers:

LSE

Str(Te) = Str(logic) * balance(logic) ≈ 0.99*0.99 ≈ 0.99

Str(Si) = Str(sensorics) * balance(sensorics) ≈ 0.9*0.7 ≈ 0.63

Str(Ne) = Str(intuition) * balance(intuition) ≈ 0.7*0.97 ≈ 0.7

Str(Fi) = Str(ethics) * balance(ethics) ≈ 0.5*0.45 ≈ 0.23

Str(Fe) = Str(ethics) * (1-balance(ethics)) ≈ 0.5*0.55 ≈ 0.28

Str(Se) = Str(sensorics) * (1-balance(sensorics)) ≈ 0.9*0.3 ≈ 0.27

Str(Ti) = Str(logic) * (1-balance(logic)) ≈ 0.99*0.01 ≈ 0.01

Str(Ni) = Str(intuition) * (1-balance(intuition)) ≈ 0.7*0.03 ≈ 0.01

This pretty well matches the function visibility weights that we normally see in people. Note that these parameters, axis strength and axis balance, are 8 parameters, same number as if we treated each function as having independent strength (and fewer parameters than the presence cube in which each function has an independent strength and value, so 16 parameters to measure). 

The "developmental parameters" which change over time can be attributed to the balance of the suggestive functions axis, and possibly the axis strengths for the weaker axes will become better developed as people work on their weaknesses and improve them. Most of the parameters will likely be more stationary. Importantly, axial post-dimensionality allows for modeling these developmental changes as nonstationary measurements over time without introducing more parameters. We can simply model the development of people improving their weak points as increases in axis strength over time, while leaving the axis balance stationary. 

The post-dimensionality axial model is better than the presence cube model.

1. Axial post-dimensionality has fewer parameters to measure than the presence cube.
2. It explains why equivalently valued functions in the presence cube have different strengths.
3. It explains the property of the role and demonstrative function as being "half valued" -- which the presence cube also models, but with different numerical outputs. (specifically, the presence cube considers the demonstrative 4D+2P as much stronger than the role 2D+2P, which I think is dubious, and the ignoring 3D+1P as equal or roughly equal to the role 2D+2P. Tencer suggested to me a modification, where P (valuedness) is weighted more highly than D (dimensional strength, which allows for the role to be stronger than the ignoring; however, unless the coefficient for dimensionality is zero or very close to zero, the strength of the ignoring is estimated too highly for me)
4. It more clearly describes what parameters are changing than the presence cube when developmental changes occur as people improve upon their weaknesses.

Dimensional strength is a bad theory and should be discarded. The presence cube which incorporates dimensionality is a bad model and should be discarded.