# Thread: Are new symbols needed?

1. ## Are new symbols needed?

There is an awful lot of confusion over the IM elements and their relationship to the aspects they process. Is Ne an element, or an aspect? If you speak of -Ne, are you talking about an aspect which is processed by either an -Ne or +Ne elements, or are you talking about +Ne as an element? We need some kind of system to distinguish between aspects and elements.

2. No.

3. Symbols are Ni.
Ni people have Se people for duals.
Se people have Ne in the super-ego.
Change and newness is Ne.
Ni people do not want to upset their duals or they will get vicitmized hard(er than normal).

Therefore there can never be new symbols.

+1 for me.

4. What are you talking about? I was arguing for symbols apart from the triangles, angles, circles and squares we use for the elements.

Kioshi: what are you talking about? Are you just saying this or do you have documents to prove your point?

5. Originally Posted by JRiddy
Symbols are Ni.
Ni people have Se people for duals.
Se people have Ne in the super-ego.
Change and newness is Ni.

Therefore there can never be new symbols.

+1 for me.
+3

6. ## x

Extroverted sensing

Extroverted logic

Introverted logic

Extroverted ethics

Introverted ethics as base function

Introverted ethics as creative

Introverted intuition

7. Originally Posted by JRiddy
+1 for me.
Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
+3
-4

8. Originally Posted by Jem
-4
+5

9. Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
+5
-5

10. Originally Posted by Kioshi
Anyone that has been to elementary school is familiar with the statement y = f(x): there is a systematic relationship such that some aspect that we can identify varies as a function of another. When precisely defined, these aspects are called variables.
I've got nothing against you or your <3 for precision in logic and so forth, but I'd like to point out that anyone who has learned anything about logical reasoning has heard of "equivocation," as well as "begging the question." What makes you certain that "aspect" and "function" mean the same thing in IM as they do in lambda calculus? I actually think you might be on to something here, but I am curious how you think they relate.

I don't know how I can be any clearer about how I use these terms.
Here you're actually confusing "clear" with "precise." You could be clearer by being more accessible and more relevant.

11. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
There is an awful lot of confusion over the IM elements and their relationship to the aspects they process. Is Ne an element, or an aspect? If you speak of -Ne, are you talking about an aspect which is processed by either an -Ne or +Ne elements, or are you talking about +Ne as an element? We need some kind of system to distinguish between aspects and elements.
But then there are those who dispute the validity of plus and minus functions.

More symbols for elements and functions would just confuse the issue more, no? Considering the terms are still widely used as inter-changeable and the symbols on their own can be confusing enough to new starters.

12. I have been using the labels "Limiting" and "Empowering" to denote absolute, fixed things on one hand and random, contingent things on the other. Perhaps it would be better to name these "Necessitated" and "Contingent" instead. In any case I would consider it a good thing if some others tried to understand what they are about.

13. Originally Posted by Cyclops
But then there are those who dispute the validity of plus and minus functions.

More symbols for elements and functions would just confuse the issue more, no? Considering the terms are still widely used as inter-changeable and the symbols on their own can be confusing enough to new starters.
Well now here's one for you: how many ENFjs do you know who piss people off? How many ESFjs do you know who cheer people up?

+/- explains that vital difference in no uncertain terms.

14. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Well now here's one for you: how many ENFjs do you know who piss people off? How many ESFjs do you know who cheer people up?

+/- explains that vital difference in no uncertain terms.
OK. My thoughts are that anyone can be positive or negative, and that a function is a function regardless of wither someone else is being annoying or not- or cheering someone up or not. Thing as well, is what you find annoying, will be different to what someone else finds annoying, or what I find annoying. If you ask a bunch of ISTp's if an ESFj cheers them up, they will likely say no. Ask a bunch of INTj's about the same ESFj and they will likely say yes. So i'm skeptical of calling something a plus or minus based on what you say about ESFj's cheering people up or ENFj's pissing people off.

15. I wish I hadn't introduced the term "information element," which seemed good at the time, but rather used the terms "information aspect" and "function" from the very beginning. "Extraverted sensing" is a psychic function. It perceives the "solid circle" (the forum doesn't offer me the symbols to post). The solid circle can represent both the information aspect and the function that perceives it.

Thehotelambush argues that information aspects are actually hardly ever discussed in socionics and are more or less irrelevant to the theory. I disagree, but I can see where he's coming from.

16. Originally Posted by Rick
I wish I hadn't introduced the term "information element," which seemed good at the time, but rather used the terms "information aspect" and "function" from the very beginning. "Extraverted sensing" is a psychic function. It perceives the "solid circle" (the forum doesn't offer me the symbols to post). The solid circle can represent both the information aspect and the function that perceives it.
But isn't that part of the problem?

Let me get clarification: was "information element" your term, or Augusta's? What do the Lithuanians use?

If a psychic function is what you've called an IM element, then what are those dispositions inherent to points on the model A ring?

Thehotelambush argues that information aspects are actually hardly ever discussed in socionics and are more or less irrelevant to the theory. I disagree, but I can see where he's coming from.
Surely you agree that they are relevant to understanding how the functions work.

17. Originally Posted by Rick
I wish I hadn't introduced the term "information element," which seemed good at the time, but rather used the terms "information aspect" and "function" from the very beginning. "Extraverted sensing" is a psychic function. It perceives the "solid circle" (the forum doesn't offer me the symbols to post). The solid circle can represent both the information aspect and the function that perceives it.

Thehotelambush argues that information aspects are actually hardly ever discussed in socionics and are more or less irrelevant to the theory. I disagree, but I can see where he's coming from.
Rick, I've seen some of your writings where you express something similar about information aspects being "aspects of reality," and insofar as you are using the the word "aspect" in the sense of "a perspective or way of viewing something," I can see how it is very relevant. However, I get the impression from many that these "aspects" are thought to be more or less components of reality, rather than a viewpoint. If that is the case, than we are making very speculative ontological assumptions about the nature of information itself, because we are implying that these things are not merely human viewpoints, but objective parts of reality. That is not an assumption that I want to make, and it does not seem in any way necessary to developing a model of cognition.

This can become especially dangerous when combined with a very concrete definition of the functions. I make no inference about the prevalence of these misconceptions, but I do see them, and I wonder if they are at least in part do to a concept of information aspects as objective pieces of reality. For example, I have heard some individuals ascribe all financial decisions or calculations of worth to . Of course, this, along with model A, suggests that IXFps and EXFjs would find such things taxing and uncomfortable, which does not jive with my experience or intuition (general, non-socionics-specific sense). Ultimately, we are looking for something that is valid and predictive, and not something that appears to have more explanatory power than it does. This does not require any assumption about reality, but only ways to test the validity of the models. And I like that a lot better.

Oh, and just to let you know, you can just type : Se : without the spaces to get a symbol: . Obviously, you can do this with any of the abbreviations.

18. Thanks, JRiddy. Let me try: , , okay hoped that works.

Tcaudilllg, the very same terminological mess that we have here exists in Russian socionics, with surprisingly few people distinguishing between in the psyche (i.e. the psychic function) and in reality (i.e. the information aspect). The term "information element" is used by some, but "aspect" is more prevalent. I decided back then that the English word "aspect" doesn't quite have the same breadth of meaning, and so chose "element."

Last year I talked to the heads of the socionics institute in Kiev about this, and they said they just made an administrative decision early on that their journal would use a certain terminology, and have been enforcing it since. They encouraged me to do the same. If I were a type, perhaps I would have an easier time of getting everyone to use the "right" terminology!

Funny thing is, I approached a couple other socionists about this issue as well, to try to find out their terminology for " as a mental module in the psyche" versus " as a component of information". They couldn't quite grasp the question and started telling me about something else! Mironov told me that he refers to both as "aspects of information" -- which really is a terrible term for describing a mental process! Only the socionics institute understood what I was getting at. They use "information aspect" or "aspect of information" to describe components of information (e.g. " in the world") and "function" to describe the mental module (function was Jung's original term, and it makes the most sense linguistically).

But, now there's an issue with two different uses of the word "function," because there's also the use of "leading function," "creative function," etc. I think this is less of a problem. It makes complete sense to say, for instance, "the function of is my leading function."

JRiddy, yes, in your first paragraph I think you understand correctly. At least that's the assumption Augusta made; she wanted to distinguish the psyche from the information it was processing. She didn't use specifically this metaphor, but she essentially viewed reality as a huge feast consisting of different kinds of information and stimuli, which the psyche could selectively pick and choose from to satisfy its needs. Someone else could come by and pick different dishes of the feast, not paying attention to the parts you favored.

19. Originally Posted by Rick
Thanks, JRiddy. Let me try: , , okay hoped that works.
no prob bob
Tcaudilllg, the very same terminological mess that we have here exists in Russian socionics, with surprisingly few people distinguishing between in the psyche (i.e. the psychic function) and in reality (i.e. the information aspect). The term "information element" is used by some, but "aspect" is more prevalent. I decided back then that the English word "aspect" doesn't quite have the same breadth of meaning, and so chose "element."

Last year I talked to the heads of the socionics institute in Kiev about this, and they said they just made an administrative decision early on that their journal would use a certain terminology, and have been enforcing it since. They encouraged me to do the same. If I were a type, perhaps I would have an easier time of getting everyone to use the "right" terminology!

Funny thing is, I approached a couple other socionists about this issue as well, to try to find out their terminology for " as a mental module in the psyche" versus " as a component of information". They couldn't quite grasp the question and started telling me about something else! Mironov told me that he refers to both as "aspects of information" -- which really is a terrible term for describing a mental process! Only the socionics institute understood what I was getting at. They use "information aspect" or "aspect of information" to describe components of information (e.g. " in the world") and "function" to describe the mental module (function was Jung's original term, and it makes the most sense linguistically).

But, now there's an issue with two different uses of the word "function," because there's also the use of "leading function," "creative function," etc. I think this is less of a problem. It makes complete sense to say, for instance, "the function of is my leading function."

JRiddy, yes, in your first paragraph I think you understand correctly. At least that's the assumption Augusta made; she wanted to distinguish the psyche from the information it was processing. She didn't use specifically this metaphor, but she essentially viewed reality as a huge feast consisting of different kinds of information and stimuli, which the psyche could selectively pick and choose from to satisfy its needs. Someone else could come by and pick different dishes of the feast, not paying attention to the parts you favored.
All's I'm saying is that this distinction between X thingy in the mind and X thingy in the world seems unnecessary. Worse, it's potentially misleading because it suggests a view of functions as what someone is perceiving/thinking/feeling/ignoring rather than how they are doing it. Of course we all miss things that others see and see things that others miss, but there are plenty of things that can contribute to that which have nothing to do with socionics.

Let's scope this thing back a little and leave the more philosophical, ontological stuff to people who have more time to waste on things that never get resolved. Let's focus on how we see it.

20. Originally Posted by jxrtes
I doubt if Augusta had intentionally embarked to dislodge relativity, string theory or other physical theories from explaining reality. Or to introduce eight symbols that encompass something outside of direct human perception.

It seems that most of the problems on these forums about information aspects comes from the erroneous belief that they're meant to describe actual processes happening in the physical world like time/space etc. I think it's obvious that they're just eight (or sixteen) distinct filters through which someone can choose to perceive/interact with reality.

Model A Functions are a way to differentiate and prioritize that processing in different types.

Non-cognitive or statistical processes like a society are "modelled" through socionics by integral types... though yeah that's probably something controversial.

I've read that Ne/Ni describe time, Se/Si describes space etc. These are just indirect analogies like internal/external, which I don't take to describe the whole aspect, though some concrete subset of them is probably type-consistent and can be studied directly, or else people of certain types wouldn't show spooky similarities.

\$0.02
Fair 'nuff.

21. Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
There is an awful lot of confusion over the IM elements and their relationship to the aspects they process. Is Ne an element, or an aspect? If you speak of -Ne, are you talking about an aspect which is processed by either an -Ne or +Ne elements, or are you talking about +Ne as an element? We need some kind of system to distinguish between aspects and elements.
use @ for aspect (external reference) and ^ for function (internal bias) and your problem is solved.

22. Are any symbols needed?

23. Originally Posted by jxrtes
I doubt if Augusta had intentionally embarked to dislodge relativity, string theory or other physical theories from explaining reality. Or to introduce eight symbols that encompass something outside of direct human perception.

It seems that most of the problems on these forums about information aspects comes from the erroneous belief that they're meant to describe actual processes happening in the physical world like time/space etc. I think it's obvious that they're just eight (or sixteen) distinct filters through which someone can choose to perceive/interact with reality.

Model A Functions are a way to differentiate and prioritize that processing in different types.

Non-cognitive or statistical processes like a society are "modelled" through socionics by integral types... though yeah that's probably something controversial.

I've read that Ne/Ni describe time, Se/Si describes space etc. These are just indirect analogies like internal/external, which I don't take to describe the whole aspect, though some concrete subset of them is probably type-consistent and can be studied directly, or else people of certain types wouldn't show spooky similarities.

\$0.02
Back off from that position. It is completely false. Worse, it is extreme.

What you are doing, is devaluing Te, and it is skewering your viewpoint. You're falling into the same trap Einstein did, saying "all is relative". Well Einstein, meet quantum mechanics.

You have erred in that you are irrelevantizing that the "filtration" you speak of must be accomplished somehow. It's not automatic.

How "obvious" is that?

Rick, I've seen some of your writings where you express something similar about information aspects being "aspects of reality," and insofar as you are using the the word "aspect" in the sense of "a perspective or way of viewing something," I can see how it is very relevant. However, I get the impression from many that these "aspects" are thought to be more or less components of reality, rather than a viewpoint. If that is the case, than we are making very speculative ontological assumptions about the nature of information itself, because we are implying that these things are not merely human viewpoints, but objective parts of reality. That is not an assumption that I want to make, and it does not seem in any way necessary to developing a model of cognition.
DANGEROUS DANGEROUS OH DEAR GOD ITS DANGEROUS!!!@!!!! BEE CAREFULL WHUT U THINK IT COULD BE DANGEROUSSSSSS!!!@!!!KTHX BYE

Returning to the 21st century (witchcraft is SO 16th century), it's simply a matter of observing that if your mind can't process something, then you don't know it exists. But it's not like you can just change the brain and create new IM elements. There is no secret code out there, no formula which translates cellular relationships into cognition. (well there is, but I've already glimpsed it and I can tell you that unless you accept that the aspects do exist apart from their observer you will never understand it).

Do you really understand what the IM aspects are at all? Don't you understand that you can't think of a thing which is not one of those eight abstractions, which Augusta gave at least two good outlines of? I can look at your speech -- or any speech -- and label the aspects as they are spoken. With intuition it's quite doable.

Back @jxrtes: You need to think more critically about people's arguments before you just go along with them. Especially if they are by a person of the same type as your own, because it is radicals among your own type which are most likely to lead you astray.

24. Originally Posted by kensi
use @ for aspect (external reference) and ^ for function (internal bias) and your problem is solved.
That's awesome. Thanks for that.

25. Originally Posted by kensi
use @ for aspect (external reference) and ^ for function (internal bias) and your problem is solved.
That's awesome. Thanks for that.

@jxrtes: what are you talking about?

I think the problem with JRiddy is that he doesn't want to consider the consequences of what he is implying. You can't just say things are X way when you can't equate the consequences of that way with what is really going on.

26. Nevermind, this is just a matter of mirror relating. Jxrtes, just drop your "aspects are unnecessary" argument and we'll leave it at that, kay?

27. Originally Posted by jxrtes
eh? I do think aspects are a necessary part of the model, or else this would just be MBTT... I just meant that they weren't as concrete as people made them out to be sometimes.

I have no idea what else is going on.
Then don't dispute their necessity. The model is what Augusta says it is. We build upon what she said.

And don't forget, the IM theory is actually used by Kepinsky to explain the viewpoints held by schizophrenics. At any rate, the bottom line is that if we can't perceive of something, then it had might as well not exist. Anything else is useless, fruitless extrapoloation. And radical, of course.

Now of course the reason radicals make contentious arguments is because they don't believe real peace exists, but that doesn't even come into it. They are the losers, we are the winners.

28. Originally Posted by Kioshi
...
Beautiful. Rather than asking where you got the Kepinsky data, I'll take your word on it. I'll be trying to tie your work here in with supersocion theory, too.

#### Posting Permissions

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