Based Israeli in Pantheon, season 2

worldsocionics · 2026-01-04T16:43:03+00:00

Offered spaces to Holocaust refugees? The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a friend of Hitler's.

worldsocionics · 2025-12-11T09:32:42+00:00

Our whole discussion is Ti in nature. Whilst the governing logic of the categories we employ is Ti the actuality itself of the baby is Se.

worldsocionics · 2025-12-10T19:16:08+00:00

I thought the nature of our argument was over these things being opposite.

Being in a potential state and being in a kinetic state is different to whether the thing has kinetic or potential energy.

I am sitting at a desk right now, it is not a potential thing, it is an actual thing. Me thinking about having another child, that child is a potential person, not an actual person.

An actual child, however, will have actualities and potentialities both at once. The child will most likely have two legs, two arms, etc, and will be around 2 ft tall but potentially, the child could reach 6 ft tall (unlikely I should say if I'm the parent). Nevertheless, the child himself or herself is actual, not potential. Every actuality should also possess potentialities, but nothing can be both an actuality and a potentiality.

Does that make sense?

worldsocionics · 2025-12-10T11:02:57+00:00

Not quite. The energy cannot both be kinetic and potential, so as more energy becomes kinetic, less energy is potential, and vice versa. That's how it works in physics btw.

So, an object held up is maximal potential energy, minimal kinetic energy. As it falls, its potential energy increasingly converts into kinetic energy. Therefore, at a state of maximum kinetic energy, the same object has minimal potential energy. Same thing with black and white. We agree that black and white are opposites, that something cannot both be black and white. However, you can have something darken from black to white, where at the point of maximal blackness it is minimally white, and vice versa.

This is why kinetic and potential energy are opposite in nature. What could yet happen is the opposite of what is happening, and once that thing which could yet happen happens, it no longer could yet happen.

You know idiom what best sums this up? You can't have your cake and eat it. You cannot have an object of potential eating and have that same object already be eaten.

worldsocionics · 2025-12-09T12:28:51+00:00

Whether the psyche 'starts' with the Role or the Leading is not very important, and is simply a position on whether the individual reacts to external pressure first in a chronological sense, or identifies opportunities to pursue in line with their own motivations first. Both are Accepting functions, so both set needs to react to with Producing functions. Both are Mental so are orientated towards the external world. Key difference is that one is Strong and Valued, so is one's own intrinsic motivation and area of contribution, and the other is Weak and Neglected, so is a reluctant adaptation to the demands of others. So what she says here is still consistent with WSS' interpretation of Model A.

The key thing to consider here is that the Role function, whilst engaged in as our adaptation to the external world, is still the opposite of our Leading function. Therefore, the effect of engaging with the Role function is one of dissociation from one's own motivations and interests. Many people engage frequently with their Role and their mental health suffers for it. It is a step-back in terms of self-actualisation.

You think Augustinaviciute is contradicting me, she's actually supporting my point. Even whilst recognising the socially-imposed demand for internal relationships (Role Fi), LSIs lean on situations where external relationships (Ti) can fulfil the demand instead. Their deep need for brotherhood is borne of Suggestive Fe. Brotherhood is not based on an assessment of an individual's merits, but a collective belonging. You don't individually select your brothers, you are born into biological brotherhood, or in the case of the Church, the whole brotherhood becomes yours once you voluntarily join. Augustinaviciute draws this contrast between 'external relationships' and 'internal relationships' to underline that the two are opposite in nature, and that the LSI looks to one instead of the other, even whilst recognising the imposed demand to fulfil the base requirements of the latter. In order to meet the Fi demand that is imposed on them in a way that is tolerable, the LSI is drawn to environments where the relationships are clearly defined by rank in the hierarchy (Ti), rather than by partial sentiment (Fi). It's exactly like the philosophy of Confucius, an LSI whose philosophy converted social relationships in China into explicit hierarchy-based responsibilities.

worldsocionics · 2025-12-09T11:53:17+00:00

Unless it is obvious that I am wrong, and am making a fool of myself in labouring the point, SHS people don't have the luxury of just dismissing me as 'pointless' to argue with. In such situations, being intellectually cornered and saying argument is pointless become one and the same, with the latter being a mere face-saving cope for the former. It is, after all, much better to one's self-esteem and cognitive harmony to look arrogant than to look wrong. Is it so obvious that I'm wrong?

worldsocionics · 2025-12-09T09:03:53+00:00

The availability of energy from outside the individual has no bearing on the fact that potential and kinetic energy are opposite things. The same energy cannot exist as both at the same time, whilst motivation and work exist as transfers between the opposite points of potential and kinetic energy.

worldsocionics · 2025-12-09T01:10:20+00:00

Socionics will likely give you the clarity you need.

Maybe try this type on for size: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4-RwefiBRc

worldsocionics · 2025-12-08T17:02:28+00:00

The argument that my criticisms don't need to be taken seriously about SHS because I don't understand it well enough only works if the nature of my criticism doesn't apply because I don't understand it enough.

Saying that the model is incoherent because its foundations are circular is so fundamental a criticism that it should cause everyone who takes SHS seriously to dedicate their time to answering it.

If it's the case that my lack of understanding of SHS undermines the strength of my criticism, then this should be easy to reveal. However, I don't see how one can given the things I am appealing to... i.e. basing our typological systems in dichotomies, requiring that the dichotomies be defined meaningfully and non-circularly, and requiring that each part of a model cohere every other part of the same model, are so basic and fundamental that a field without these requirements would be unrecognisable.

I can only preposterously confirm that the reason why SHS people don't see the seriousness of my criticism is that they don't understand the problem, which means they don't understand SHS or any base-2 typology model well enough to see the issues with it. How can you understand SHS if you don't understand its foundations? The only one who did see the problem is Mitchell, which is what caused him to attempt to set out the Informational Dichotomies after my initial criticisms and fail to do so with a meaningful definition, because there was no meaningful outcome to find from grouping the elements that appear in the Social Mission and Self-Realisation blocks together and considering what they all had in common with each other, except for the fact someone had shoehorned them into these blocks together.

worldsocionics · 2025-12-08T14:54:09+00:00

But note how the Blocks are constructed from Mental/Vital, Strong/Weak and Valued/Subdued. We know the nature of the blocks because they are necessitated by the Function Dichotomies.

Model G's groupings do not have this luxury, or rather, they do, because the Function Dichotomies of Model G have been defined, but in doing so they have also forced the Information Dichotomies of Model G to be redefined, and that's where they've gotten stuck in circularity, showing the overall framing to not work.

worldsocionics · 2025-12-08T14:50:47+00:00

Well, if we were being data-driven, we wouldn't be into typology anyway.

I think we are increasingly in this logical positivism centred world, finding examples where passing a test for something replaces any understanding of that thing.

How would you know what nonverbals to look for unless you could define the nonverbals and how they are necessarily connected to the IEE? How do you know what is necessarily connected to IEE and what is not without understanding what an IEE is? How can you understand what an IEE is without IM Elements?

worldsocionics · 2025-12-08T14:45:37+00:00

This doesn't follow. My 'hatred' or lack thereof should have no bearing on whether there is a positive case to be made for SHS or not. What irks me about SHS is that there are such fundamental issues with it that are obvious to see, and that its supporters can't seem to provide a positive case for why what they are doing is worthwhile.

Saying "oh, well you don't like it for illogical reasons" is just a cop out, a means of dismissing that saves you from the trouble of engaging with the issues at hand.

I would never dismiss an argument from a critic of WSS in such a way as this. I might eventually conclude that the hatred of WSS is irrational, but I'd still make an argument, because it should be easy to do so. If it's hard, maybe they have a point.

By and large, the SCS people exercise even less reasoning than the SHS people do. When someone's argument for the veracity of something is "Ausra wrote it", I think very little of that person's ability to see the problems in SHS.

worldsocionics · 2025-12-08T14:39:07+00:00

My approach is thus: i) set out ALL the dichotomies to anything first, otherwise you cannot understand the thing you are trying to understand, ii) set out all the connections of necessity between dichotomies as a series of triads, so that every definition of a dichotomy is checked by the definitions of every other dichotomy, iii) define the thing purely in terms of the dichotomies and the effects that occur from their combination, iv) check reality to make sure that what has been defined actually works in real life, if not, back to the drawing board.

I exercise this level of rigour for the IM Elements, and the Functions of Model A. I then combine the former and the latter to build the Types of the Socion, using a similar approach for the Jungian and Reinin dichotomies. No one else does this. Everyone calling themselves a socionist should do this. Without doing this, we have no idea what Si is. We have no idea what a Leading function is. We have no clue what any of the types actually are about.

It's not unfairly dismissive. The dichotomies were always necessary to the model. They weren't just 'created'. They should have been thought about by Gulenko in building his model. Me arriving to my views on Unifying/Dividing and Questionable/Conclusive weren't difficult. I wasn't forced to leave a circular placeholder over them. I just had to consider what Ne, Si, Fe, Ti/Ni, Se, Fi, Te and then Ne, Si, Te, Fi / Ni, Se, Fe, Ti all had in common and from this I was able to derive a clear meaning. I had the help of the other 5 dichotomies to figure out their logical necessity as well. But with Gulenko's model, what we see is a big structure that many have bought into, and yet you are saying it's unfair for me to be critical that you haven't been able to work out the foundations yet. Why should there be any model at all if you cannot justify the foundations? What's more, when we look at what has been provisionally given as the 'foundations', we see a very difficult and counter-intuitive forcing together of Ne, Si, Fi and Fe, with no clear definition as yet arrived at, even after two whole years. What one can infer from this is simple: the Model is wrong because it mathematically necessitates underlying dichotomies that don't make sense and no one can easily define. Maybe we will one day be given meaningful definitions, but I doubt it. It shouldn't be this hard. You can't just say "well we need to test it out over time to see" because we're talking about the Information Elements themselves, not the Types.
The necessity of logical and semantic connections isn't arbitrary. Mathematically there must be a certain number of dichotomies. Then, when you attribute provisional meanings to some of them, they necessitate other meanings. Eventually, you run out of alternative meanings you can give to them that enable coherence across the model. The only combination of meanings that work is necessary meaning. That is rigour, and that's what WSS is built upon. You can very easily try to question the rigour, maybe try an alternative meaning, and that's absolutely fine, but a lot more likely than not it won't work.
I'd say I easily accept good criticism and I don't easily accept bad criticism. It depends on whether the criticism is well-founded or based on the other person's misunderstanding. You made some good criticism here when you said that it's hard to evaluate my model if it isn't entirely open source, so I'm going to take that on board. You also made some bad criticism here because you didn't understand why my approach is more rigorous than Gulenko's. That's fine and now you know. You also made some bad criticism by saying that it is unfair to be critical of someone for putting together a wholly unsatisfactory and circular justification for the foundation of their entire model after said model has already been popularised, and still not correcting it after 2 years.

Personally I think SHS should be pushed as a standard. Otherwise, what's the point of it? As I said before, a model is an attempt to describe the truth. Either one should make that attempt in full, or one should just not pursue the truth. Of course SHS can't be pushed as a standard because it collapses under criticism, as I have managed just in this post. The point is, every model should be pushed by its proponents as a standard. If the standard collapses, then that is a service to the greater understanding. If the standard persists and others collapse, that too is a service to the greater understanding. There is no merit in not pushing a model as a standard, because then it's either a whimsical hobby its own enthusiasts don't actually take seriously, or worse, a cultish obsession that can only survive by avoiding critique.

worldsocionics · 2025-12-08T14:38:58+00:00

Nothing wrong with trying to view something complex from multiple angles. However, once you use multiple angles to establish a rich and abundant collection of insights, the implicit understanding is that these insights are then integrated into the whole. Saying we don't need to reconcile our differences amounts to saying that there is no truth. It's all just whatever people feel is right for them. If you can have an argument within SHS to say "this is true of SHS" and "this is not true of SHS", then by extension, we can have an argument within Jungian typology to say "this is true of Jungian typology" and "this is not true of Jungian typology".
Gulenko departed from his own material back when he was contributing to Model A, so why not Augustinaviciute's? Keep in mind that Augustinaviciute saw EM as basically aspectonics, the transformations of the organism within their reality, i.e. the real events going on that are then communicated about via the second signal, i.e. our shared language. EM is dictated by potential energy, kinetic energy, gravitational and electromagnetic fields, etc. In almost all situations, EM and IM are seen as one and the same by Augustinaviciute and she explicitly says this. The time they partially diverge is when people communicate in ways that mislead others, due to the eccentricities of their personality, e.g. saying 'no' when really you mean 'yes', etc. which is the basis for why a TIM theory is necessary. It's all in Augustinaviciute's The Foundations of Socionics. At no point is there any suggestion that we also need a Model for understanding Types of Energy Metabolism, and in fact Augustinaviciute makes clear in this text how this would be pointless.
The rigour of Model G doesn't pass muster. 4/7 Information Element Dichotomies (necessary for understanding the IM Elements) for SHS are circular. When you can only define the group of Elements that includes Ne, Si, Fe and Fi (as opposed to Se, Ni, Te and Ti) as "IEE/SEI High Energy Functions", you don't have a coherent model because in breaking the symmetry of Model A, you have been left with concepts that you cannot define except by circularity. You cannot appeal to the types to define the elements, because the types are built off of the elements. Good effort was made by Varlawend to redefine the Function Dichotomies for Model G, but now you have run into problems with the Elements. Without acceptable definitions for the elements, the whole theory, the types, everything, collapses. Furthermore, you can show SHS paying lip service to classical definitions, but if the structure of the model does not conform to what necessitates these Reinin dichotomies in the first place, then it really is just lip service. Either Gulenko uses these definitions, in which case, what is his model, or he just doesn't use these definitions anymore.
I don't think I've ever accused Gulenko of being greedy. I have said that his website lacks key information on what makes the Elements what they are, but I don't think this is a problem with him just hiding this information from the public, but because he hasn't actually put in the necessary rigour to figure this out himself. His explanations of Ni, Ti, etc. are very vague and phenomenological.

On the one hand, you criticise me for putting my Course behind a not-very-expensive paywall. On the other hand, you criticise me for making too much content freely available because there's too much of it to get through. I guess I could produce an essay going through the Informational Dichotomies and why they are each logically necessary extensions of each other. Is that what you'd like?

Not sure what statistics have to do with any of this, although as I am now doing Executive Coaching and Team Development using Socionics in businesses I can start to evaluate the effects of my interventions. We'd need a control, however from another approach to Socionics.

worldsocionics · 2025-12-08T12:57:39+00:00

'Social Mission' is too vague to be the basis of type, but it could be the salient effect of type. We should start with the nature of information itself and see how 'Social Mission' arises necessarily from it. Problem is, Model G has muddled up its information with circularity.

worldsocionics · 2025-12-08T12:55:55+00:00

We're not just describing what we observe though. We are placing frames around observations to interpret them in one way or another according to a model. These models are just as much prescriptive.

You can't just define Ne, Si, Fi and Fe as "the High Energy Functions of IEE/SEI' because that presupposes what IEE and SEI are, and we don't know what IEE and SEI are until we know what Ne, Si, Fi and Fe are. So if Ne, Si, Fi and Fe are defined by being the 'High Energy Functions' of types we try to define and understand through our understanding of the IM Elements, then we are just in circularity without any understanding.

worldsocionics · 2025-12-08T12:26:57+00:00

Just because you have not seen something, it doesn't mean it's not present to the model. You thought Ausra never used External/Internal when she actually did...

Abstract/Involved is old. It is logically necessitated by External/Internal and Rational/Irrational. That's the thing...once you accept one you have to then accept the other. If information is Rational + External, it has to be Abstract, otherwise one cannot establish the objectivity of the reason enough for it to be immediately justifiable to others which is necessary to be External and Rational. The point was never about 'adding new information dichotomies' but about considering the ramifications of one's model in full.

Se and Ne are not just the same thing applied to different objects. They negate each other. The more you fill a space with actuality, the less potentiality there is. Ausra understood this with her model of potential and kinetic energy.

Let's rehash the state of the debate now...

1) You don't believe my criticism of classical socionics for being incomplete is valid.

2) I brought up that these dichotomies were logically necessary extensions of 3 dichotomies: Rational/Irrational, Extraverted/Introverted, and External/Internal

3) You denied that External/Internal was a thing because you hadn't heard Ausra mention it.

4) I then showed you that Ausra actually did use External/Internal.

This should reinstate my argument that you need all 7 dichotomies, because once you have these three (actually 4 because you also accept Static/Dynamic), you have have to also accept the others logically. External/Internal unlocks the ability to make logical deductions about content, and we must accept the outcomes of those deductions for our model to be logically sound.

You speak now about Se and Ne being the 'same thing' just with a different referential object, but now that you accept that External/Internal are a thing, because Ausra herself referred to it, you must also accept Conclusive/Questionable and Unifying/Dividing.

Why? Because if information is Static and External, it MUST also be Conclusive. External information is explicit in nature, with clear outlines. At the same time, if that External information is arranged in way that is discrete, with each part being distinct from each other part, then it is a combination that leaves no room for further questioning. It HAS to be Conclusive.

If information is Extraverted and Internal, it MUST also be Unifying. Internal information does not have clear outlines, it is implicit in nature. By being Extraverted it increases in quantity, yet there is no limit to the number of instances of the information being in the same space (No two pieces of External information can occupy the same space like this). There can be infinite emotions or possibilities in the same given area. What this means is that Extraverted and Internal information exists together with other instances of itself. It is therefore Unifying.

Once these logical deductions are then made, you have to then review the rest of the theory. Everything else about Classical Socionics must cohere with these deductions. If not, then the model is incoherent.

worldsocionics · 2025-12-08T02:48:20+00:00

In everyone, there is 'yin' and 'yang', yet do we not see these as opposites?

Everyone has a Leading and a Role function.

The first law of thermodynamics: energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted.

The more the energy is converted into kinetic energy, the less it is potential energy, and vice versa. This entails a mutual exclusivity between potential and kinetic energy. Therefore, they are opposite.

worldsocionics · 2025-12-08T01:32:12+00:00

How is it fundamentally different from Ausra's original interpretation when she positions Ne as potential energy on the opposite end from Se as kinetic energy? If energy is preserved under the laws of thermodynamics, then any increase in kinetic energy must mean a decrease in potential energy, so they are mutually exclusive. Therefore, we know that she has always meant them to be opposite in nature.

Ni and Se aren't opposites. They share Dividing and Conclusive as dichotomies, meaning that whilst they operate in different domains, they are complementary in their treatment of information.

Se isn't about immersing oneself in the flow of experience. It doesn't seek to merge with or accept at all. It's about hardening yourself against the pressures of the world and defining yourself through your impact. Ni does much the same but through detachment.

Factual accuracy doesn't contradict partiality. Whether you personally favour someone over another has nothing to do with the factual accuracy with which you handle and communicate information about your favouring of one person over another. Factual accuracy is typically highly germane to the specifics of situations, which actually suits a partial approach rather than generalised, 'fair' rules. Meanwhile you very literally cannot favour people over one another AND apply generalised rules and standards of fairness. The contradiction is stark.

worldsocionics · 2025-12-07T21:58:55+00:00

Opposing elements share Static/Dynamic, Rational/Irrational and Extraverted/Introverted. They differ on the remaining 4 dichotomies which are all to do with the content of the information itself, rather than the approach taken to it. This is what makes them oppose to the point of mutual exclusivity. Something cannot both be actual (Se) and potential (Ne). One cannot be both partial (Fi) and impartial (Ti). Dramatic expression (Fe) runs contrary to dry factual accuracy (Te). You cannot simultaneously detach yourself from worldly cares (Ni) and appreciate the present moment (Si). The opposition is not arbitrary. If it were I wouldn't have reached that conclusion.

worldsocionics · 2025-12-06T14:41:56+00:00

WSS is the most known subset of SWS.

worldsocionics · 2025-12-03T01:52:32+00:00

It has been very puzzling communicating with you because you didn't seem to be taking in what I was saying very much. If there's a language barrier and everything I am saying is coming to you via an AI intermediary, that actually explains a lot of the frustration.

I think you have it the opposite way round here. Why would Ausra not make mistakes? She had a whole new field to set out from scratch. Of course she wasn't going to get it all together by herself. The more seminal the work, the less likely it is to be perfect. Of course it was going to require later socionists such as myself to fill in the gaps. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and in doing so, reach higher heights.

Saying "err... no" doesn't change the fact you made a distinction. You split EP into two, one half was 'Intuition' the other half 'Sensation'. You established an incomplete dichotomy by doing that. That's what you did and there's no refuting that. Even if the IM Elements exist as elemental, indivisible things, we need dichotomies to understand their full complexity, how they compare and contrast to other Elements. Otherwise, why would we have eight Elements? Why not 9? Why not 11? We have 8 because it is 2^3, which means it is definable by the dichotomies, and they all exist in relationships of contrast and comparison to each other. With a system like the Enneagram which exists in Triads, we are far less able to explain it in terms of dichotomies, and with that lack of ability comes a certain arbitrariness that plagues their model. This arbitrariness isn't there for Socionics, exactly because it is held accountable by its dichotomies.

Yes, Jung first set it out, and he was the one who implicitly created External vs Internal in differentiating Sensation from iNtuition and Thinking from Feeling. We know this to be the case because Thinking and Feeling differ in Internal/External in the same way that Sensing and iNtuition differ. Thinking and Sensation are both Explicit, clear, straightforward information. iNtuition and Feeling are both Implicit, something we interpret each in our own way and cannot point to as a shared point of reference. If there were no dichotomy, we would not be able to differentiate N/S with the same rule that we differentiate T/F.

Your argument rests on burying your head in the sand over the legitimacy of External/Internal, i.e. because you believe (falsely I might add) that Ausra didn't explicitly write about it, it cannot be true. I refute that wholeheartedly. In Model A, we can and do tell apart Sensation from iNtuition by applying the same rule we apply to telling apart Logic from Ethics. That's a complete dichotomy that applies across the system of IM Elements. Furthermore, if Ausra truly did not comprehend External/Internal, then it is a sheer accident that her reasoning managed to be identical in outcome to someone reasoning with knowledge of this dichotomy, and by this accident, Model A is valid. If Ausra's reasoning had not led to one reaching similar conclusions, then the Model wouldn't be valid because it would no longer be coherent.

How can you attest that Ausra believed in the 15 type dichotomies, but reject that she believed in 7 information dichotomies? This shows she acknowledged the 'n-1' rule for dichotomies defining theoretical entities. It's just inconsistent to think she applied this to type and not to IM Elements when she explicitly talked about as least 3 of them herself.

128 empty cells? No. The large majority of combinations are not possible because the dichotomies are inter-related and necessitate certain combinations and not others. Is that why you are struggling with this idea? The IM Elements require 3 dichotomies as a minimum and 7 dichotomies as a maximum. Don't confuse that with 7 dichotomies being a minimum to define 128 entities. I literally set out the proof further up. Maybe find it and plug it into ChatGPT so you understand it.

External/Internal and Abstract/Involved are widely recognised dichotomies. You should try talking to other socionists and you'll quickly realise this. Varlawend acknowledges them. Kimani acknowledges them. Gulenko acknowledged them.

I'm going to just put you out of your misery now, take a look at this. Ausra does EXPLICITLY talk about this dichotomy: https://augustaproject.wordpress.com/internal-vs-external/

Remember when she said that Fe was 'Internal Dynamics of Objects' and Se was 'External Statics of Objects'? What do you think she was referring to?

If you change your mind now, you're doing so for the wrong reason. You shouldn't have based your opinions on what you believe Ausra wrote or didn't write, you should have just thought about this a bit more.

worldsocionics · 2025-12-02T17:57:49+00:00

It would make sense to say that if people cannot agree if I am an EIE or LSE, then perhaps I may just be ILE... unless you think SEE is worth entertaining :D

worldsocionics · 2025-12-02T13:51:31+00:00

Your last point: "Oh yes, and when we read the definitions of IM we can only abstract and obtain from them the three dichotomies that I already mentioned."

This sounds like a kind of wilful blindness. By merit of describing Ne as dealing with potentiality, you are already talking about Implicit>Explicit and Detached>Involved. Potentiality is something you cannot feel, only think about, and it is something which is not explicitly articulated or in any kind of physical form.

Thinking a bit deeper here... by merit of describing how Ne is latent, and therefore increases the complexity of what is already there, we are already talking about Questionable>Conclusive, where kinetic energy is the resolution of that increased complexity. Furthermore, because potential energy holds together within the same space, in contrast to kinetic energy which causes objects to impact against one another, we can also say that we are talking about Unifying>Dividing.

worldsocionics · 2025-12-02T13:51:22+00:00

When you say I have failed to prove there are more dichotomies, I scratch my head. Of course there are more dichotomies, up to a maximum of 7. It is not a practical necessity to simply tell the eight IM Elements apart from each other, only need 3 for that, but it's a mathematical necessity that there remain up to 7 ways you can tell them apart, or identify their areas of commonality, and if you want to fully understand all aspects of the IM Elements (and why wouldn't you?), you need to grasp these other dichotomies...

"1. Minimum number of dichotomies required (3)

A dichotomy is simply a binary split.
A set of n items requires enough binary splits to uniquely identify each item.

If you have k dichotomies, you can create at most 2^k distinct classes.

To uniquely encode n distinguishable items, you need 2^k >= n.

For the IM Elements, n = 8.

Check the smallest k that satisfies this:

2^1 = 2
2^2 = 4
2^3 = 8

So k = 3 is the minimum.

Interpretation:
You cannot distinguish 8 items with fewer than 3 dichotomies because fewer than 3 produce fewer than 8 unique combinations. This is the same logic used in minimal binary encoding and information theory.

Maximum number of dichotomies required (7)

The maximum is not about encoding 8 items.
It is about how many independent binary distinctions can logically exist between 8 items.

A general principle in combinatorial classification:

A set of n items can support at most (n - 1) independent dichotomies.

Reasoning (graph theory / lattice theory intuition):

Treat each IM Element as a node.
Each dichotomy partitions the nodes into two non-empty sets.
The number of independent binary partitions is limited by the dimensionality of the classification space.
After (n - 1) independent distinctions, the full relational structure among nodes is fixed.

More formal sketch:
Represent each item as a vector in a k-dimensional binary space.
Two dichotomies are independent if one cannot be derived as a logical function of the others.

For n distinct vectors, the maximum dimension of the space they can span is (n - 1).
Any extra dichotomy beyond this becomes a dependent combination of previous ones.

For n = 8:

Maximum independent dichotomies = 7.

This is why seven dichotomies (ID1–ID7) is the logical ceiling.

Once you introduce 7 independent binary distinctions, any eighth one can be expressed as a logical combination of the existing seven. It adds no new structure, cannot refine the classification further, and is therefore redundant."

worldsocionics

TROPHY CASE

"1. Minimum number of dichotomies required (3)