1. Butchering the definitions

I can't sleep, and started to think about information elements definitions.
Does it make any sense to cut the last third out (object/field) and consider only the first two?

Noticing for example that beta STs are totally external and static ( + ), beta NFs totally internal and dynamic ( + ). Delta would be different but equally polarized.
Alpha NTs ego elements are both static, but one is internal and one is external, and we can say something similar for alpha SFs and all gammas.

2. Considering various combinations of the three parts of each information aspect/element makes sense when you're trying to understand each of those parts and how each of the information aspects/elements is different from the others.

You can compare/contrast in two ways. First of all, you can take out one part and pair up the information aspects/elements based on what's left. Here's the breakdown of which pairs match up if you take out each of the following:

• Internal vs. External
• Ne and Se
• Te and Fe
• Ni and Si
• Ti and Fi

[*]Static vs. Dynamic (I haven't put much thought into any of these except Te and Se, because it comes up so frequently here)
• Te and Se
• Fe and Ne
• Ti and Si
• Fi and Ni

[*]Objects vs. Fields
• Te and Si
• Fe and Ni
• Se and Ti
• Ne and Fi

Secondly, you can look at what's left once you take out one similar aspect in Fe/Fi, Te/Ti, Se/Si, and Ne/Ni. For example, Fe vs. Fi:
• Comparing similarities between Fe and Fi is more difficult because the only thing that's the same is that they're both internal. (I think a lot of what people attribute to "Fe values" is actually Ti values.) This is why it's easier to compare the differences between Fe and Fi than the similarities.

Fe: dynamics of objects (internal)
Fi: statics of fields (internal)

"Statics of fields" can be read "states of relationships" or "stationary connections".
"Dynamics of objects" can be read "activity of people/things" or "actions of people/things".

Overall, I generally find it easiest to take out the internal/external part and then match up what's left. From that point you can see how information aspects/elements in each pairs are different based on the internal/external part of them.

3. I think I understand where Aristocracy vs. Democracy comes from...

If you take out static vs. dynamic, you're left with two pairs of Alpha values and two pairs of Gamma values, but the pairs don't consist of the first two functions of any one type. However, if you take out object vs. field, you're left with two pairs of Beta values and two pairs of Delta values, and the pairs are each combinations that you'd see in the first two functions of ST's or NF's (or Beta and Delta types, the Aristocratic quadras).

I feel like an underwear stealing gnome at this point, but I do think this is where the Aristocratic vs. Democratic dichotomy comes from.

4. Originally Posted by Joy
Considering various combinations of the three parts of each information aspect/element makes sense when you're trying to understand each of those parts and how each of the information aspects/elements is different from the others.

You can compare/contrast in two ways. First of all, you can take out one part and pair up the information aspects/elements based on what's left. Here's the breakdown of which pairs match up if you take out each of the following:

• Internal vs. External
[list:4591ae9e0d]
• Ne and Se
• Te and Fe
• Ni and Si
• Ti and Fi

[*]Static vs. Dynamic (I haven't put much thought into any of these except Te and Se, because it comes up so frequently here)
• Te and Se
• Fe and Ne
• Ti and Si
• Fi and Ni

[*]Objects vs. Fields
• Te and Si
• Fe and Ni
• Se and Ti
• Ne and Fi
[/list:u:4591ae9e0d]

Secondly, you can look at what's left once you take out one similar aspect in Fe/Fi, Te/Ti, Se/Si, and Ne/Ni. For example, Fe vs. Fi:
• Comparing similarities between Fe and Fi is more difficult because the only thing that's the same is that they're both internal. (I think a lot of what people attribute to "Fe values" is actually Ti values.) This is why it's easier to compare the differences between Fe and Fi than the similarities.

Fe: dynamics of objects (internal)
Fi: statics of fields (internal)

"Statics of fields" can be read "states of relationships" or "stationary connections".
"Dynamics of objects" can be read "activity of people/things" or "actions of people/things".

Overall, I generally find it easiest to take out the internal/external part and then match up what's left. From that point you can see how information aspects/elements in each pairs are different based on the internal/external part of them.
This was helpful to me. I was curious, Joy, if you could direct me towards resources to get more in depth information on all this. I've browsed wikisocion and all that, but I haven't quite found anything that breaks things down in this manner. I've been reading Jung's Psychological Types, which has been useful, but I guess I'm looking for something specifically geared towards Socionics theory. Also, while keeping in mind what's been said about the Je/Ji portion of things, I was also wondering where I might find info on that, as I've completely failed to find anything that speaks to that dealio. I'd appreciate the help.

5. Re: Butchering the definitions

Originally Posted by PotatoSpirit
I can't sleep, and started to think about information elements definitions.
Does it make any sense to cut the last third out (object/field) and consider only the first two?

Noticing for example that beta STs are totally external and static ( + ), beta NFs totally internal and dynamic ( + ). Delta would be different but equally polarized.
Alpha NTs ego elements are both static, but one is internal and one is external, and we can say something similar for alpha SFs and all gammas.
Was this inspired by an interpretation of my statements? Because they were misinterpreted.

I think it makes no sense to only consider three possible divisions of information as the only possible ones. And not to mention that nobody has shown that they are independent of each other, that one division cannot be formulated through another. I think choosing the three divisions that are chosen is trying to fit reality into preestablished ideas of how it should function (Jungian functions). I mean, has anybody even consider a non binary division? I find the divisions and the resulting aspects of reality biased reasoning and because of it you can chose any grouping of the divisions you like, it doesn't really matter imo, it's all technically invalid.

6. Cool Joy. (c:
I guess I'll need to fill those with some content now.

Here's another question: why have the same names ("logic" "ethics" "sensing" "intuition") been given to elements that are equal for the first part of their definition, but different for the other two?

external statics fields
external dynamics objects

Why do they end up having these striking similarities when you observe them IRL?

7. Re: Butchering the definitions

Originally Posted by snegledmaca
No
Originally Posted by snegledmaca
I think it makes no sense to only consider three possible divisions of information as the only possible ones. And not to mention that nobody has shown that they are independent of each other, that one division cannot be formulated through another. I think choosing the three divisions that are chosen is trying to fit reality into preestablished ideas of how it should function (Jungian functions). I mean, has anybody even consider a non binary division? I find the divisions and the resulting aspects of reality biased reasoning and because of it you can chose any grouping of the divisions you like, it doesn't really matter imo, it's all technically invalid.
Hoping I understood what your problem is (c: ...

I'm sure you can divide reality in as many parts as you want... I guess these guys decided for 8, and to get to eight you need three-parted definitions.
Obviously changing the whole system to get to 256 information aspects would increase accuracy, but I really don't think it would be an efficient use of time... 8 seem enough to me, and it's really about choice. Reality is what it is, if we are to describe it we have to choose how to divide it.

8. Originally Posted by munenori2
This was helpful to me. I was curious, Joy, if you could direct me towards resources to get more in depth information on all this. I've browsed wikisocion and all that, but I haven't quite found anything that breaks things down in this manner. I've been reading Jung's Psychological Types, which has been useful, but I guess I'm looking for something specifically geared towards Socionics theory.
From http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?p=273165

Ne = the states of underlying, independent aspects of reality
Se = the states of apparent, independent aspects of reality
Te = the changing of apparent, independent aspects of reality
Fe = the changing of underlying, independent aspects of reality
Ni = the changing of underlying, interconnected aspects of reality
Si = the changing of apparent, interconnected aspects of reality
Ti = the states of apparent, interconnected aspects of reality
Fi = the states of underlying, interconnected aspects of reality

extraverted intuition = internal statics of objects
extraverted sensing = external statics of objects
extraverted logic = external dynamics of objects
extraverted ethics = internal dynamics of objects
introverted intuition = internal dynamics of fields
introverted sensing = external dynamics of fields
introverted logic = external statics of fields
introverted ethics = internal statics of fields

There's also some information at http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...rmation_aspect

Also, while keeping in mind what's been said about the Je/Ji portion of things, I was also wondering where I might find info on that, as I've completely failed to find anything that speaks to that dealio. I'd appreciate the help.
I've tried to figure out where those terms came from, too. The first time I've heard them was from pedro the lion/science as magic, and I've heard them from a few forum members since, but that's about it... I've never seen anything on them anywhere else (though I've never read Jung, either). I tend to think of them as "Socionics slang", for lack of a better answer as to where they've come from.

However, slang or not, I don't think they're useful for those who don't already understand the theory and irl manifestations of each of the information aspects/elements. And for those who do, I still don't see why they're at all useful. But that's just me.

9. Originally Posted by PotatoSpirit
Cool Joy. (c:
I guess I'll need to fill those with some content now.
I was actually planning on working on that at some point sometime soon. Here's a quick set:

Internal vs. External: inherent, hidden, beneath the surface vs. outward, apparent, observable or measurable
• Ne and Se: the state of people/things, stationary people/things
• Te and Fe: the movements of people/things, people/things in action
• Ni and Si: the interconnections of events; cause and effect relationships, the changes in relationships, changing interconnections
• Ti and Fi: systems; stationary connections, the states of relationships

Here's another question: why have the same names ("logic" "ethics" "sensing" "intuition") been given to elements that are equal for the first part of their definition, but different for the other two?

external statics fields
external dynamics objects
Most of the theory of Socionics was originally written in Russian, and I think some of the English terms assigned to the original concepts don't convey the right idea.

I personally find the terms "logics" and "ethics" quite misleading and pretty much worthless. I haven't found a good way of saying them though. I think sensing and intuition may be described as relating to the physical and relating to the abstract.

Why do they end up having these striking similarities when you observe them IRL?
They don't, imo, except in that types with strong Te also have strong Ti, types with strong Se also have strong Si, etc. (I think Te is much more similar in appearance to Se or Fe than it is to Ti, for example.)

10. Static vs. Dynamic: state/stationary vs. activity/changing
• Te and Se: the readily observable characteristics of people/things
• Fe and Ne: the hidden, inner qualities of people/things, the qualities of people/things that are not readily observable or measurable
• Ti and Si: readily observable or measurable interconnections
• Fi and Ni: the hidden/inner qualities of interconnections, relationships that are not readily observable or measurable

11. Objects vs. Fields: people things in and of themselves vs. relationships, interconnections
• Te and Si: readily observable events
• Fe and Ni: inner events, changes that are not apparent or readily observable
• Se and Ti: readily observable or measurable states
• Ne and Fi: states which are not readily observable or measurable, the status or the unapparent

12. Thanks, Joy.

13. Originally Posted by Joy
Why do they end up having these striking similarities when you observe them IRL?
They don't, imo, except in that types with strong Te also have strong Ti, types with strong Se also have strong Si, etc. (I think Te is much more similar in appearance to Se or Fe than it is to Ti, for example.)
So they (Jung?) basically noticed that Xe and Xi were always strong or weak together, assumed they were the same thing and decided it manifested itself differently in people based on their being J or P?
Originally Posted by munenori2
Thanks, Joy. Smile
Indeed

14. you're welcome :-)

Originally Posted by PotatoSpirit
Originally Posted by Joy
Why do they end up having these striking similarities when you observe them IRL?
They don't, imo, except in that types with strong Te also have strong Ti, types with strong Se also have strong Si, etc. (I think Te is much more similar in appearance to Se or Fe than it is to Ti, for example.)
So they (Jung?) basically noticed that Xe and Xi were always strong or weak together, assumed they were the same thing and decided it manifested itself differently in people based on their being J or P?
If you look at the information aspects/elements, each axis contains opposites. Examples:

Te: external dynamics of objects
Fi: internal statics of fields

Se: external statics of objects
Ni: external statics of fields

Originally Posted by dee
Originally Posted by Joy
Objects vs. Fields: people things in and of themselves vs. relationships, interconnections
• Te and Si: readily observable events
• Fe and Ni: inner events, changes that are not apparent or readily observable
• Se and Ti: readily observable or measurable states
• Ne and Fi: states which are not readily observable or measurable, the status or the unapparent
how is Fe not observable? how Si is an event, etc. i think this is a load of bollox if you ask me.
Fe isn't observable because it's about internal processes. People take information they've received via sensory/external/irrational (depending on how you look at it) information elements and use it to determine the Fe of a situation. Seeing someone's face freeze for a second before they continue and knowing that it means that they're shocked isn't a purely Fe process. The "knowing that it means that they're shocked" is the only part about it that's Fe.

Si is about cause and effect relationships (as is Ni). If someone is massaging your shoulders and you're enjoying it or if you're scratching your arm and it's making it stop itching, that's Si.

15. I'll start a thread. You can post or not post.

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•