Socionics terminology

[Joy]

The community on this forum uses the word "function" to describe both Ne, Ti, Se, Fe, etc. and Creative, Role, PoLR, Hidden Agenda, etc. It would seem that there's been some sort of confusion somewhere along the way and we're using some of the terminology in Socionics incorrectly. The same term should not be used to refer to two entirely different things within the same theory. It just doesn't work.

Ne, Ti, etc. are also called Information Elements, facets of reality, aspects of reality, etc. What would each of the functions of Model A be called if not "function"? I know that Jimmy refers to them as blocks here, and that he refers to Ne, Ti, etc. as functions, but where did he get those terms from? Which are Jungian terms, which are MBTT terms, and which are Socionics terms? The names of each of the "blocks" as he calls them are misleading and confusing, and they don't all match what we use to refer to them here on the forum. Most importantly though, it doesn't make sense for there to be 2 areas, 4 blocks, and then 8 more blocks because it means that the same term is being used to refer to two things with different definitions within the same theory once again.

I haven't read every piece of information written by Socionists, but it seems likely that what's happened here is that people began referring to the Information Elements as functions because when you're talking about a specific type, take ENTp for example, Ne is the first function... that doesn't necessarily mean that Ne is a function in and of itself though.

I know that most of the confusion about terminology is most likely the result of the theory having been written in a different language and then translated into this one by different people, and also from there being similar theories that use some of the same terminology in reference to different things.

Is there a true authority on Socionics that's written anything about correct Socionics terminology in English?

[Gilly]

When you say "Role Function," you're addressing a concept that is based on the idea that one of the actual "functions" fits under that label in any given case. The name "Role Function" is given under the assumption that, for all functional purposes, on of the actual functions can be assigned to this label.

For example, think about baseball. The third baseman is always "the third baseman," no matter who he actually is. Now, the idea of someone playing a position near third base is not an actual "man," but we assign the role that name regardless, acknowledging that, for all intents and purposes, the concept of a third baseman is referring to a concrete person.

It's ok. Weak Ti happens

[Blaze]

It's ok. Weak Ti happens

lol

[Jarno]

I may be corrected but in my view a function is an psychic activity that retrieves information about an aspect of reality.

So you have the function that acts like a tool.

Then there is the information element that is the object handled by the tool.


It's indeed a bit confusion if you use the same Ni Se etc for both things.

[Joy]

I may be corrected but in my view a function is an psychic activity that retrieves information about an aspect of reality.

So you have the function that acts like a tool.

Then there is the information element that is the object handled by the tool.


It's indeed a bit confusion if you use the same Ni Se etc for both things.

Yes, that's how I understand it, too (though I would say that it's more about processing that information than retrieving it, but I believe we're talking about the same concept), and that's why I think so many people misunderstand the actual meaning of the word "function" and think that it refers to Ne, Si, Te, etc. in and of themselves. It makes much more sense for Se, Fe, etc. to be called Information Elements (or aspects of reality) in and of themselves. It doesn't become a function until it's applied to a specific type and therefore assigned a position on model A.

Information Elements can be functions though... just like a person can be a third baseman... a person isn't a third baseman in and of him/herself though. They're only called the third baseman when they're playing third base. The same person could also play second or first base, or not play baseball at all. (However, the idea of someone playing a position near third base is not called "third baseman". )

However... just because that's how I understand the terminology and how it's usage makes the most sense to me doesn't mean that I'm correct. Who defines the terminology used in Socionics? I've never read anything that states that what I'm saying is indeed the "officially" correct way to define the terminology. I don't know of any single actual authority on Socionics besides Augusta, and she's never written about Socionics in English.

[discojoe]

She's just saying we should discriminate between " ...." and "Base Function, Creative Function, Role Function" etc, by always describing " " etc as "Information Elements" and keeping the term "function" on "Base, Creative, Role..."

It's ok. Weak Ti happens

This test gets a thumbs down from me. It picked up on a few of the types thatI have considered, but still isn't all that accurate. No better, if not worse, than the standard multiple choice tests.

[Not A Communist Shill]

A baseman is called a baseman regardless of what base he isn't on (even if he isn't on one). A function can also be called a function regardless of which position it is in, or even as an entity detached from Model A. Calling a function a 'Role function' or whatever simply allows you to convey what you are talking about in a way other people can easily understand.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Animal]

I actually spent some time talking with Joy about exactly what a "function" is.

Jung definitely uses the term "function" in reference to thinking, feeling, sensing and intuition. For me, these respresent cognitive/behavioral processes in and of themselves, and are not to be confused with the information being processed. Introversion and extraversion he terms "attitudes."

What Joy has been saying:
- Ni, Se, Fe, etc. refer to the "information elements" and have no functional activity in and of themselves, and are synonymous with "internal statics of fields", "external dynamics of objects", etc.
- Role, Creative, PoLR, etc. are "functions" in and of themselves, and determine what happens to the above information
- Fe behaves differently in an ENTj than an INFp

What I've been saying:
- the information presented to our mind and senses can be divided into the different "information elements" and refers to "internal statics of fields", "external dynamics of objects", etc.
- a "function" is a process of metabolizing the above information elements, and refers to Si, Fe, Te, etc.
- Role, Creative, PoLR, etc. refers to places within the model of the psyche, that determine how we react to the above process
- Fe behaves always the same way but an ENTj will react differently, as well as put a different priority to, that process than an INFp

[Exodus]

Put simply, types come from the intersection of functions & elements. Though vice versa works too.

[tcaudilllg]

For me, these respresent cognitive/behavioral processes in and of themselves, and are not to be confused with the information being processed.

The processes themselves are what we discuss in exertion theory: we can exert the processes of our own accord, simply setting forward patterns of energy. When you apprehend these processes, you are using information elements. One is information, the other is energy.

Ni, Se, Fe, etc. refer to the "information elements" and have no functional activity in and of themselves, and are synonymous with "internal statics of fields", "external dynamics of objects", etc.

See Rick's site. Augusta sets them firmly apart: there are aspects that exist indepedently of perception, and the elements of perception that perceive them. The functions prefer one element or the other, with the dominant function basically lording it over the other functions by setting their elements in positions weaker than its own.

[Rick]

What I have begun using is the most conservative possible set of terms, taken from Augusta's works:

1. a Function is a position of Model A
2. an IM Element, or Element of information metabolism, processes a certain information aspect
3. an Information Aspect is a "piece" or "facet" of reality

I agree that this terminology is somewhat clumsy. Here's what Jung used:

1. Function
2. Function
3. (didn't have them)

Maybe Jung didn't see any worth in trying to separate 1 and 2. Maybe he was right.

It does make sense to call No. 2 a "function," since it is a mental module that performs a certain "function." If it were up to me, I might prefer something like this:

1. Position (of Model A), or the number of a function
2. Function
3. Information aspect

Some Russian socionists mix up terms for No. 2 and No. 3 because they use the same symbols. For example, a book came out called "The Semantics of the Information Aspects." "IM elements" would have been more correct.

[Joy]

What I have begun using is the most conservative possible set of terms, taken from Augusta's works:

1. a Function is a position of Model A
2. an IM Element, or Element of information metabolism, processes a certain information aspect
3. an Information Aspect is a "piece" or "facet" of reality

I agree that this terminology is somewhat clumsy. Here's what Jung used:

1. Function
2. Function
3. (didn't have them)

Maybe Jung didn't see any worth in trying to separate 1 and 2. Maybe he was right.

It does make sense to call No. 2 a "function," since it is a mental module that performs a certain "function." If it were up to me, I might prefer something like this:

1. Position (of Model A), or the number of a function
2. Function
3. Information aspect

Some Russian socionists mix up terms for No. 2 and No. 3 because they use the same symbols. For example, a book came out called "The Semantics of the Information Aspects." "IM elements" would have been more correct.

Isn't 2 just the combination of 1 and 3?

Where did the "Element of information metabolism, processes a certain information aspect" definition of Information Element come from? I'd like to read up on that a little.

Anyways, here's where I'm at...

1. Function
2. *TBA*
3. Aspect of Reality

As far as 2, I don't really see it as having an actual definition right now. It's the usage of 3 within 1... it could be called function, aspect of reality, information element, etc. I want to understand the definition of Information Element better though. I thought it was synonymous with 3.

[Rick]

What I have begun using is the most conservative possible set of terms, taken from Augusta's works:

1. a Function is a position of Model A
2. an IM Element, or Element of information metabolism, processes a certain information aspect
3. an Information Aspect is a "piece" or "facet" of reality

I agree that this terminology is somewhat clumsy. Here's what Jung used:

1. Function
2. Function
3. (didn't have them)

Maybe Jung didn't see any worth in trying to separate 1 and 2. Maybe he was right.

It does make sense to call No. 2 a "function," since it is a mental module that performs a certain "function." If it were up to me, I might prefer something like this:

1. Position (of Model A), or the number of a function
2. Function
3. Information aspect

Some Russian socionists mix up terms for No. 2 and No. 3 because they use the same symbols. For example, a book came out called "The Semantics of the Information Aspects." "IM elements" would have been more correct.

Isn't 2 just the combination of 1 and 3?

Where did the "Element of information metabolism, processes a certain information aspect" definition of Information Element come from? I'd like to read up on that a little.

Anyways, here's where I'm at...

1. Function
2. *TBA*
3. Aspect of Reality

As far as 2, I don't really see it as having an actual definition right now. It's the usage of 3 within 1... it could be called function, aspect of reality, information element, etc. I want to understand the definition of Information Element better though. I thought it was synonymous with 3.

Aha, I have actually contributed to the confusion. I used to call No. 3 "Information element," but I changed to "Information aspect" because I stopped seeing a reason to depart from the Russian term.

Here is where we are building up coherent descriptions:

http://wikisocion.org/~wikisoci/en/i...?title=Model_A
http://wikisocion.org/~wikisoci/en/i...le=IM_elements
http://wikisocion.org/~wikisoci/en/i...mation_aspects

[Joy]

thanks, I'll check it out

[Jarno]

It does make sense to call No. 2 a "function," since it is a mental module that performs a certain "function." If it were up to me, I might prefer something like this:

1. Position (of Model A), or the number of a function
2. Function
3. Information aspect

Yes, that is the best way to describe it.

Although "position" could be replaced by "role"? position makes it sound more like a chart, while model A shows the role that a function plays.

[Joy]

The problem with that is that one's "role" is their third function.

[Jarno]

The problem with that is that one's "role" is their third function.

yes maybe the 3rd function needs to change to "adequate" or something.

I still prefer role above position, because position would be a nice name for rational/irrational as it points to the place in the mind where the process takes place.

Although position could point to the place of counscious and uncounscious... now I'm in doubt again...

[Exodus]

It doesn't really matter what each thing is called; people learn the names quickly enough.

I've discussed it a bit with Rick on the wiki, and I tend to think there is no good reason (at this point at least) to make a distinction between the aspects and elements. It is unrelated to the mathematical model, and it implies a kind of Cartesian divide between the subjective (elements) and objective (aspects), which ideally should not exist. This is all incredibly pedantic, but it's part of a more general philosophy that I hope to apply to other areas of knowledge as well.

[Rick]

Yeah, I'm starting to feel that codifying all the terminology isn't as important as I used to think it was.