On the Evolution of Logic: An Introduction to Cognietrics

Basic Cognietrics

NFs are known as Idealists, they want to improve the state of the world; common professions include court attorney.

SFs are known as Guardians, they want to preserve precious items and ideas; common professions include school teacher.

NTs are known as Analysts, they want to see how events can be connected; common professions include computer programmer.

STs and NFs are both known as Progressives, they want to bring about change, due to a scrutiny of reality coupled with an attachment to the imagination. They tend to be restless and proactive.

SFs and NTs are both known as Classicists, they want to fulfill present standards, due to an attachment to reality coupled with a scrutiny of the imagination. They tend to be relaxed and lenient.

The Relationships

The Relationship Ratings used in Cognietrics Poker are mainly based on the Relationships described by Socionics. However, I think it is more useful to Rate the Relationships, rather than describe them, because every Relationship is a little different. Even though two people share a Jungian Cognitive Function, they may use it a little differently, which means that it would be hard to guess their behaviors well enough to describe their Relationship in real life. However, the use of Positive Functions is a good predictor of a Positive Relationship. There is more to a person than just personality, so the Relationship Rating should not be the deciding factor in the Relationship, though Relationships Rated 13 do encourage beneficial things like personal growth for both partners. Low-Rated Relationships may work better for some; they also tend to be really interesting and show that both partners can be open to different Values. Partners with opposite Values also make versatile teams due to their diversity. These Relationships are not any less likely to last because of their low Rating - my grandparents have been married for 55 years and represent the union of a Skeptic with a Negotiator! The following list contains the Relationship Rating for each Cognietrics Relationship, with the highest number indicating the most favorable Relationship:

(Hopeful, Experimental) - 13

(Experimental, Hopeful) - 12

(Referential, Responsible) - 11

(Responsible, Referential) - 10

(Hopeful, Aggressive) - 9

(Referential, Rebellious) - 8

(Depressive, Experimental) - 7

(Avoidant, Responsible) - 6

(Aggressive, Hopeful) - 5

(Experimental, Depressive) - 5

(Rebellious, Referential) - 4

(Responsible, Avoidant) - 4

(Depressive, Aggressive) - 3

(Aggressive, Depressive) - 2

(Avoidant, Rebellious) - 1

(Rebellious, Avoidant) - 0

You might enjoy a card game I invented some time ago called Cognietrics Poker.

There are 48 cards, 3 of each personality type. The deck is shuffled. Initial bets are placed. There are 2 cards dealt face-down to each person, and 1 card placed face-up in the center of the table. The total point value of each hand is determined by the relationship between the personality types on the cards in the hand, and the relationships of those personality types to the personality type on the card in the center of the table. Bets are placed again. Then, 1 card from each hand may be traded for 1 new card drawn from the deck. After, bets are placed one last time. The hands are shown. Whoever had the hand with the largest total point value wins. If multiple players have winning hands of equal total point value, then the pot is split between them.

The Reason for Jungian Typology

Heraclitus said, "if there is one thing that is immutable, it is change". Naturally our responses to such an unpredictable idea differ as they evolve to meet it. We may ask:
Should I be concerned with specific (Introverted) or general (Extraverted) change? This is important because the very concept of change implies degrees of change.
Should I respond to change (Sensing) or initiate it (iNtuiting)? This is important because we are both agents and experiencers of change.
Should I work to change things based on things that aren't changing (Thinking) or slow things that are (Feeling)? This is important because change can be positive or negative.
Should I act before (Judger) or after (Perceiver) change? This is important because changes may bring about other changes.
I believe that the exploration of the degrees of change (IE) reflects changes in things that have not functionally changed from each other, whereas the exploration of the results of change (JP) reflects changes in things that have functionally changed from each other. This distinction in categorization is what allows us to define both the observational differences that prevent vagueness and the utilitarian implications that prevent triviality, both of which comprise change, so both are quite important.
I believe that the ability to experience and respond to change (SN) reflects the recognition of change, that implies change in the universe and which alone would seem hopeless, and the ability to slow or hasten change (TF) reflects the ability for deliberateness, that implies lack of change in the universe and which alone would seem meaningless. The combination are what make change important to our species.
These ideas, the defining and motivating aspects of change handled by the preferences that are the minimum needed to organize one's mind, show that it is real and important, and collectively manifest in the immutable aspects of our existence. For this reason I think that the four Myers-Briggs dichotomies are both necessary and sufficient for categorizing psychological preference.

Function Questions

Ni/Se - what forces are acting?
Ne/Si - what can I do?
Pi - what affects me?
Pe - what can others teach me?
N - what may occur?
S - what is happening?
Ti/Fe - is this valuable?
Te/Fi - will this succeed?
Ji - am I achieving goals?
Je - can we do better?
T - does this make sense?
F - is this important?

*Introverts primarily use the introverted function and extraverts primarily use the extraverted function. Judgers introvert perception to minimize its effect on their behavior while still allowing them to check things thoroughly on the go. Perceivers introvert judgment to minimize its effect on their behavior while still allowing them to make the most of opportunities as they observe. Extraverts lead with the reaction function to build trust; introverts use the reaction function and its complement together only to overcome obstacles. It helps to think of the judging function as a selection function and the perceiving function as a recognition function, such that judgers extravert selection and introvert recognition, and perceivers extravert recognition and introvert selection, to prevent confusion. This way inventors refer to their recognition and select responsibly and discoverers refer to their selection and recognize responsibly. Recognition leads to reason or resolutions, observation or association, and induction or deduction, whereas selection is due to curiosity or seriousness, reform or administration, and knowledge or understanding.