Results 1 to 40 of 40

Thread: what the functions are

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default what the functions are

    information elements are the central component of socionics. everything else in socionics is entirely derived from information metabolism. predictably, the vast majority of misconceptions about socionics stem from misconceptions about information elements.


    i realize this is a complete about face from my previous position, but hear me out. the following are the only acceptable definitions of the information elements:

    Te = external dynamics of objects
    Ti = external statics of fields
    Fe = internal dynamics of objects
    Fi = internal statics of fields
    Ne = internal statics of objects
    Ni = internal dynamics of fields
    Se = external statics of objects
    Si = external dynamics of fields


    the above definitions, despite being meaningless, are the only way to accurately describe information elements. the reason lies in that although the above does not describe what the information elements are to any degree of satisfaction, it does describe what an information element is and what it is not.

    productivity, for example, is not Te. productivity/efficiency/whatever is rather a manifestation of a psychological process which filters out "objective" data and tries to use it to accomplish some goal.

    the above definitions are not useful in describing what Te actually means, but they are useful in terms of seeing how an information element is a tool to deal with information.


    i need to go. more later.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok, this shows promise.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17 View Post
    the above definitions, despite being meaningless, are the only way to accurately describe information elements. the reason lies in that although the above does not describe what the information elements are to any degree of satisfaction, it does describe what an information element is and what it is not.

    productivity, for example, is not Te. productivity/efficiency/whatever is rather a manifestation of a psychological process which filters out "objective" data and tries to use it to accomplish some goal.
    Okay, I agree that calling productivity Te, or health Se, and so forth is wrong. But how can say that the formulation with internal/external etc. is the only way to to accurately describe information elements? Why is it any better than calling Ti "external rational statics," Te "external rational dynamics," Ni "internal irrational dynamics" and so forth? Mathematically, that scheme is just as good.

    Or why not call Ti "external rationality of fields," Te "external rationality of objects," Ni "internal irrationality of fields" and so forth? That works too.

    Or why not define S&F as "involved" and N&T as "abstract" and call Ti "abstract statics of fields," Te "abstract dynamics of objects," Fe "involved dynamics of objects?"

    Or the other two combinations of what I've already mentioned? So far we have six different schemes, all of which uniquely name each IM element.

    Also, if people don't know what Ti is, do they know what external, statics, and fields are? If they don't, why not call Ti "Ti"?

    I'm not saying that thinking about these dichotomies...statics vs. dynamics, and so forth, has no explanatory value. I'm just maintaining that these are merely coordinates and, although they have become a sort of convention in Socionics, they're no better than other equivalent approaches, such as the other 5 schemes I've shown here.

  4. #4
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Then you would probably need to go behind and define what each of those terms (external, dynamic, objects) so that when you see the terms together it does actually make cohesive sense.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Ok, this shows promise.
    hmm... maybe i'm doing something wrong here...

  6. #6
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    Okay, I agree that calling productivity Te, or health Se, and so forth is wrong. But how can say that the formulation with internal/external etc. is the only way to to accurately describe information elements? Why is it any better than calling Ti "external rational statics," Te "external rational dynamics," Ni "internal irrational dynamics" and so forth? Mathematically, that scheme is just as good.
    Rational and irrational don't work in place of objects and fields. The meaning is totally different.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In the end, Augusta defines these things as inconcrete varieties of relationship. It's a problem of Ne: Ne knows what it sees, but rarely how it got there. In the meantime, we have these vague definitions and loose correlations to real life phenomena.

    As for your use of "rational" in the above definitions, allow me to ask, "what is rational?"

    If I had the option, I would replace "external" with "interrelational", because external alone says nothing.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    Okay, I agree that calling productivity Te, or health Se, and so forth is wrong. But how can say that the formulation with internal/external etc. is the only way to to accurately describe information elements? Why is it any better than calling Ti "external rational statics," Te "external rational dynamics," Ni "internal irrational dynamics" and so forth? Mathematically, that scheme is just as good.

    Or why not call Ti "external rationality of fields," Te "external rationality of objects," Ni "internal irrationality of fields" and so forth? That works too.

    Or why not define S&F as "involved" and N&T as "abstract" and call Ti "abstract statics of fields," Te "abstract dynamics of objects," Fe "involved dynamics of objects?"

    Or the other two combinations of what I've already mentioned? So far we have six different schemes, all of which uniquely name each IM element.

    Also, if people don't know what Ti is, do they know what external, statics, and fields are? If they don't, why not call Ti "Ti"?

    I'm not saying that thinking about these dichotomies...statics vs. dynamics, and so forth, has no explanatory value. I'm just maintaining that these are merely coordinates and, although they have become a sort of convention in Socionics, they're no better than other equivalent approaches, such as the other 5 schemes I've shown here.
    none of that actually matters. these are what the functions were apparently, quote-on-quote, defined as by the venerable aushra augusta. i don't really care what "fields" means or any of the other dichotomies (but fields/objects seems especially senseless). once you've established what the IM elements are and what kinds of effects they can have, you can start to assign to them characteristics and associating concepts. but you need to know what an IM element is first.


    the point that i'm trying to make is that each IM aspect represents a specific type of information. calling Te "external dynamics of objects" helps to reinforce this idea; it refers to only that information which can be expressed as external dynamics of objects, and nothing else.

    there are a couple of reasons why this model is useful. one is that it completely separates different types of information. Te is external dynamics of objects and Fe is internal dynamics of objects; there's nothing in between. it makes sense that types can have different kinds of IM preferences, but that the different types of information be completely discrete.

    the most important reason, however, is that in the form of specific types of information controlled by specific dichotomies, an IM aspect cannot be further simplified. XoX's recent thread talking about all of the IM elements referred to things like "Ti = subjective thought." except it's not; it's something very specific: external statics of fields. whatever that actually means, you can't simplify the IM element any further than the totality of what it represents as an IM aspect.


    it is of course arbitrary that there be exactly 8 different types of information, but that's the assumption of socionics and it seems to be a reasonably good one.

  9. #9
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17 View Post
    it is of course arbitrary that there be exactly 8 different types of information, but that's the assumption of socionics and it seems to be a reasonably good one.
    There being 8 types of information is the effect of there being 3 components in each type of information.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    There being 8 types of information is the effect of there being 3 components in each type of information.
    i get that, but i think that's arbitrary and not really important.

  11. #11
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Then you still don't understand it.

    However, I do agree in that there are also other ways to classify reality (in other systems).
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    Then you still don't understand it.
    you misunderstand me. i clearly reject the utility of this system in determining what the specific IM elements are; it's however very useful for telling what a generic information element is.



    also answer me this: why could there not be alternative models of IM elements with four dichotomies? Is there any real reason why three was selected? it's absolutely arbitrary.

  13. #13
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's what I meant when I said that there are also other ways to classify reality. I personally haven't thought of anything that isn't already covered by one those three components, but like I said, they're simply defined differently by different systems.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  14. #14
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Are you looking at it in relation to something else, or are you looking at it in and of itself?

    Are you looking at the readily observable, immediately apparent, or measurable aspects of it? Or are you looking at what lies beneath the surface, what is unseen, what is abstract?

    Are you looking at it's state, or are you looking at it's activity?



    These questions/differentiations are the basis of Socionics.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    absolute devil's advocate: tell me how, for example, Ne is "looking at the readily observable, immediately apparent or measurable aspects" rather than "what lies beneath the surface, what is unseen, what is abstract" (at least, this seems to be objects/fields)

  16. #16
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaullidg
    Ne knows what it sees, but rarely how it got there. In the meantime
    this is actually more Ni than Ne. Ne would be able to backtrack easier than Ni because of it's orientation.

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    but fields/objects seems especially senseless
    this is actually a very important dichotomy

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    absolute devil's advocate: tell me how, for example, Ne is "looking at the readily observable, immediately apparent or measurable aspects" rather than "what lies beneath the surface, what is unseen, what is abstract" (at least, this seems to be objects/fields)
    Ne is looking at inherent possibilities of objects. it is internal, so it is focused on essences of external things. what you have described is Se.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    Ne is looking at inherent possibilities of objects. it is internal, so it is focused on essences of external things. what you have described is Se.

    the above was right out of what appeared to be the objects/fields dichotomy. Ne falls on the objects side. either i have miscontrued that dichotomy as fields/objects where it is something else, or else Ne is an object rather than by that dichotomy, or else that dichotomy, at least as described by that definition, is bullshit.

    there is no way around that.

  18. #18
    aut0's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    404
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What does all this mean in English?

  19. #19
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think niffweed is either ESTj or ISTp; either one would fit nicely. He's definitely using -Ti/+Te.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  20. #20
    aut0's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    404
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here, have a cookie. Now, sit back down.

  21. #21
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    the above was right out of what appeared to be the objects/fields dichotomy. Ne falls on the objects side. either i have miscontrued that dichotomy as fields/objects where it is something else, or else Ne is an object rather than by that dichotomy, or else that dichotomy, at least as described by that definition, is bullshit.

    there is no way around that.
    ok, I see, you were only looking at that dichotomy. well, it is correlated with extroversion and introversion. it is not so much about seeing surface appearances or underlying forms as it is about focusing on that which is seperate from the observer or that which is perceived through the observer. Se focuses on sensations as they are; Si however may perform the same activity every day with a new feeling of it each time.

    one could actually hypothesize that objects and fields correlate to cognitions and reactions. that may be a little too general, but it gives some perspective.

  22. #22
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    I think niffweed is either ESTj or ISTp; either one would fit nicely. He's definitely using -Ti/+Te.
    I sense much Ti in his writing. this thread is enough evidence.

  23. #23
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    one cannot focus on only one of the three aspects of each functions abstract description because that could easily muddy things. for example, Ti is external...."but it's an introverted function!"....

    and that brings up that aspect....external/internal, which I think someone already touched on. external is primarily about more measurable, concrete things while internal is about more subjective and abstract things.....no surprise that N and F are both internal.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aut0 View Post
    What does all this mean in English?
    as far as "external dynamics of fields" and such goes, nothing.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    I sense much Ti in his writing. this thread is enough evidence.
    *sigh*

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    one cannot focus on only one of the three aspects of each functions abstract description because that could easily muddy things.
    then the entire model of X dynamics of Y is useless.


    and that rather markedly contradicts what joy's post seems to indicate. i'd like to hear joy respond to how Ne can fit into her "object" definition.

  27. #27
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17
    then the entire model of X dynamics of Y is useless.


    and that rather markedly contradicts what joy's post seems to indicate. i'd like to hear joy respond to how Ne can fit into her "object" definition.
    no, the model isn't useless. for example, x dynamics of y. they all combine to make a meaningful definition. if you only look at x without looking at dynamic or y, you could be confused. but that actually has more to do with the individual's actual knowledge of what words such as "external" and "objects" mean, so yeah...

    what that I said contradicted what joy said?

  28. #28
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Are you looking at the readily observable, immediately apparent, or measurable aspects of it? Or are you looking at what lies beneath the surface, what is unseen, what is abstract?
    (if this is what niffweed was referring to)....this is external/internal, not object/field.

    I will clarify my position:

    internal: subjective, abstract ..... external: objective, concrete

    static: states, properties ..... dynamic: movements, activity

    object: perceived as separate from observer; independence of objects

    field: perceived through observer; connectedness of objects

    remember, these are just general. if the discussion progresses to a specific focus, I will expound more.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    Rational and irrational don't work in place of objects and fields. The meaning is totally different.
    Of course the meaning is different. The point is that if you want to define each IM Element as the convergence of three dichotomies in such a way that you uniquely define each element, then there are at least 6 ways to do it.

    One could say, as niffweed is saying here, that Augusta did it a certain way, and however Augusta defined the IM elements, that's what they are, end of story.

    I happen, rather, to think that Augusta was trying to understand some actual phenomenon, and that her understanding of this evolved with her and with other Socionists, and can continue to evolve. This is not to say that total chaos regarding the basic definitions is a good thing. It's just that saying Ti "is" external statics of fields is not the whole story.

    In fact, from what I recall, it seems that Augusta understood the IM elements first and then came up with this thing of "defining" them as this convergence of three dichotomies, which makes it sound so "scientific"...but to what effect?

    I know people come up with all sorts of ideas about the IM Elements based on these 3-dichotomies "definitions," but then one of two things tends to happen:
    1) The person conceives of the IM Elements totally from these "definitions" and thereby comes up with really weird typings of people as a result.
    2) The person "checks" this understanding against what he/she already knows the IM Element is supposed to be like...in which case he/she isn't using the *definition* as a real definition.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ok. apparently strrrrng wants to define the dichotomies a different way. i won't argue with this; i think this stuff is ridiculous anyway.

  31. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I happen, rather, to think that Augusta was trying to understand some actual phenomenon, and that her understanding of this evolved with her and with other Socionists, and can continue to evolve. This is not to say that total chaos regarding the basic definitions is a good thing. It's just that saying Ti "is" external statics of fields is not the whole story.

    In fact, from what I recall, it seems that Augusta understood the IM elements first and then came up with this thing of "defining" them as this convergence of three dichotomies, which makes it sound so "scientific"...but to what effect?
    Augusta was a big fan of Einstein, and physics in general. (you could just see it in her the title of her first text, The RELATIVITY of Erotic Feelings. She wasn't a physicist, but she knew something about it. She also knew something about Ayn Rand. (from what Rick tells us) Put these together with Jung's "psychorelativistic" (very vaguely defined, discussed only as a rationale for syncronity) hypothesis, and you end up with a philosophy that breaks down to the world being relativitistic as per Einstein, and yet having an Objectivist element of the absolute. Our processing of this element is the psyche, and so you have all of physics and all of psychology and all of philosophy all rolled up into a neat little ball. (although, Augusta never proposed a theory of work.) It's just that fact, that these little elements -- and their relationships to each other besides -- are the substance of EVERYTHING, that makes Socionics such an earth-shattering and potentially omnipotent discovery.

  32. #32
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Field vs. Object: Are you looking at it in relation to something else, or are you looking at it in and of itself?

    External vs. Internal: Are you looking at the readily observable, immediately apparent, or measurable aspects of it? Or are you looking at what lies beneath the surface, what is unseen, what is abstract?

    Static vs. Dynamic: Are you looking at it's state, or are you looking at it's activity?
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  33. #33
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    Field vs. Object: Are you looking at it in relation to something else, or are you looking at it in and of itself?

    External vs. Internal: Are you looking at the readily observable, immediately apparent, or measurable aspects of it? Or are you looking at what lies beneath the surface, what is unseen, what is abstract?

    Static vs. Dynamic: Are you looking at it's state, or are you looking at it's activity?
    That's pretty much it. Why is there confusion here?
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  34. #34
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    one cannot focus on only one of the three aspects of each functions abstract description because that could easily muddy things. for example, Ti is external...."but it's an introverted function!"....

    and that brings up that aspect....external/internal, which I think someone already touched on. external is primarily about more measurable, concrete things while internal is about more subjective and abstract things.....no surprise that N and F are both internal.

    Good points in both paragraphs, and these definitions are far from useless, but instead are the essentials of Socionics. One basically just has to imagine them playing out and begin looking for them, and you'll see how they manifest in people - and its gonna be a lot different than many superfluous functional definitions that are currently out there.

  35. #35
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy
    Field vs. Object: Are you looking at it in relation to something else, or are you looking at it in and of itself?

    External vs. Internal: Are you looking at the readily observable, immediately apparent, or measurable aspects of it? Or are you looking at what lies beneath the surface, what is unseen, what is abstract?

    Static vs. Dynamic: Are you looking at it's state, or are you looking at it's activity?
    niffweed, this is exactly how I define them, so why are saying I'm defining them differently?

    and if they're useless, why did you use them as the basis for a description of what the functions are?

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah strrrng's definitions are how I've understood them and also how Joy has stated them... I think there's some misunderstanding here on niffweed's part

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    and if they're useless, why did you use them as the basis for a description of what the functions are?
    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17 View Post
    the above definitions, despite being meaningless, are the only way to accurately describe information elements. the reason lies in that although the above does not describe what the information elements are to any degree of satisfaction, it does describe what an information element is and what it is not.
    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17 View Post
    once you've established what the IM elements are and what kinds of effects they can have, you can start to assign to them characteristics and associating concepts. but you need to know what an IM element is first.


    the point that i'm trying to make is that each IM aspect represents a specific type of information. calling Te "external dynamics of objects" helps to reinforce this idea; it refers to only that information which can be expressed as external dynamics of objects, and nothing else.

    there are a couple of reasons why this model is useful. one is that it completely separates different types of information. Te is external dynamics of objects and Fe is internal dynamics of objects; there's nothing in between. it makes sense that types can have different kinds of IM preferences, but that the different types of information be completely discrete.

    the most important reason, however, is that in the form of specific types of information controlled by specific dichotomies, an IM aspect cannot be further simplified. XoX's recent thread talking about all of the IM elements referred to things like "Ti = subjective thought." except it's not; it's something very specific: external statics of fields. whatever that actually means, you can't simplify the IM element any further than the totality of what it represents as an IM aspect.

    goddam 1 character requirement. mcnew please kill it.

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    niffweed, this is exactly how I define them, so why are saying I'm defining them differently?
    i misinterpreted joy's definitions. but it doesn't take away from the point of this thread, which basically postulates them as useless anyway.

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee View Post
    i agree, but i also think that there are Te, etc. "packets" of information too, like the type of info transmitted. or perhaps it's just our brain is wired to only process the limited portion of the universe unless "helped" by additional means (but you gotta be careful here).

    ???

  40. #40
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    They'll be useless to anyone who doesn't understand them.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

Posting Permissions

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