All information is transmitted in Dynamic form

[krieger]

There is no such thing as a transmission of Ti, for instance. Nor such a thing of Ne, Se or Fi. To transmit these things you have to translate it to information of the Dynamic kind. A lot of the depth of meaning tends to get lost in the process of translating. Hence why communication with Static types tends to be less direct. It usually doesn't make sense to interpret the words of a Static litterally. What they mean is only hinted at by their words.

I think it may have to be said that all information is ultimately Te and Si...

For reference:
Static = Ti, Se, Fi, Ne
Dynamic = Fe, Ni, Te, Si

[Exodus]

I partly agree, except I would think that only extroverted information is actually expressed. Do you have an example in mind for irrational information?

[krieger]

Another thing...

The kind of stuff that Statics are certain of, the pieces of knowledge that they most strongly invest their confidence in (Creating/Limiting/Static info), is stuff of a kind that takes many factual assertions to relate to another person. In jargon: Creating/Limiting/Static information needs to be expressed in many instances of Creating/Empowering/Dynamic information.

I partly agree, except I would think that only extroverted information is actually expressed. Do you have an example in mind for irrational information?

A perceiving function is simply expressed in a name. When I say "hotelambush" I am relating introverted perception information.

Now, try to explain exactly what the thing-behind-the-screens that "hotelambush" refers to constitutes. It will take you many, many factual statements.

Remember Gotlob Frege?
Pi = sense
Pe = reference

Immanuel Kant?
Pi = phenomenom
Pe = noumenom

[Trevor]

Would that mean that Ni information is based on generalized Si perceptions?

[krieger]

Yeah, something like that. Where Si would order perceptions in the sequence they were given to it, Ni would order them on the basis of their actual properties. Consider a movie/film on the one hand and an actual understanding of an unfolding process on the other. Ni would be able to complete the steps between the images where Si would only be able to tell how the movie begins, progresses and ends. This makes Ni seem more powerful, but lets keep in mind that the necessity to understand makes the Ni way of looking at things more drudging, slower. To Ni the movie would not exist in any absolute way because it is arbitrary; something to be discarded due to it's irrelevance... but this means it can not anticipate things by means of this movie either.

[krieger]

I'm pretty close to explaining how + and - follow from the Clubs with the above story... Just a few missing links...

[krieger]

What I decribe in that post is a transformation from a sequence of percepts with large individual steps, to one with very small ones. Hm... which club does this belong to? Which function? It obviously has to do with Ni and Si but that is not all...

[Exodus]

A perceiving function is simply expressed in a name. When I say "hotelambush" I am relating introverted perception information.

A name signifies an object, and hence extroverted information.

Immanuel Kant?
Pi = phenomenom
Pe = noumenom

This is good, but it has nothing to do with the actual transmission of information.

If I say something like "It feels hot in here", you have no actual reference as to what the temperature actually feels like (), but if I say something objective, like "The temperature is 99 degrees Fahrenheit" (), then something is actually communicated.

[ZTCrawcrustle]

First, as a reminder to labcoat, both Ni and Si are dynamic elements, which by your theory means that they are both communicated.

Second, I'm at a loss for words. I'll go in the order that the objections come to me. Sensing: both Se and Si are verbalized. Se information, which is everything sensing that does not provoke an inner sensation, is easy. "That building is tall" is technically Se information (it is not Te.)

Intuition: the most commonly verbalized form of the two intuitions is Ne. Ever read an Ni writer? Notice how they are usually hard to understand?

Ethics: personal sentiments differ from emotional outbursts. They are both verbalized. And both transmitted.

Logic: Ti is not transferred through Te. Ever have someone best you in a logical argument when you are both equally informed on the subject? Then you have witnessed a transfer of Ti.

Saying that static information needs to be translated is bogus. It would mean that the entirety of static information is non-verbal. This is obviously not true as Ti-leading types do happen to talk to people on occasion.

[krieger]

A name signifies an object, and hence extroverted information.

You are making an argument in favor of my position. A name signifies an object. It does not constitute one in full.

If I say something like "It feels hot in here", you have no actual reference as to what the temperature actually feels like (), but if I say something objective, like "The temperature is 99 degrees Fahrenheit" (), then something is actually communicated.

The problem is the vagueness of the former statement, not it's objectivity. It would be objectively verifiable if we knew the tool or heuristic that the person employs to "feel" temperature (which is likely extremely complicated considering it is biologically instantiated) and the criterion the person maintains for "hot". Those things in mind, there is no essential difference in format.

Se information, which is everything sensing that does not provoke an inner sensation, is easy.

In other words, bull-shit. There is no such thing as an "outer sensation" and if something doesn't provoke or constitute a sensation of the only kind there is why is it called "sensation" in the first place?

"That building is tall" is technically Se information (it is not Te.)

I call it Te. To transmit Se you would have to transmit the full identity of the building in question (to the extent one would have the patience to go to that length; normally we suffice with a simplification), which would require multiple factual assertions.

Intuition: the most commonly verbalized form of the two intuitions is Ne. Ever read an Ni writer? Notice how they are usually hard to understand?

I love this word "verbalized" that you are using here. It perfectly captures what I mean we do when we try to transmit Static info like that of Ne. As to Ni types, they are often exacting and precise. In as far as they are vague, refer to the bit of the post where I speculate that all info might in fact be SiTe rather than Dynamic.

Ethics: personal sentiments differ from emotional outbursts. They are both verbalized. And both transmitted.

No disagreement there.

Logic: Ti is not transferred through Te. Ever have someone best you in a logical argument when you are both equally informed on the subject? Then you have witnessed a transfer of Ti.

Nowhere do I say that Ti does not get transfered at all. I see Ti mostly as structural understanding rather than logic. It produces Te out of nowhere and expresses itself in it. Logic is trickier. It is something on a meta level that I'd prefer not to attribute to any term in socionics at all.

Saying that static information needs to be translated is bogus. It would mean that the entirety of static information is non-verbal. This is obviously not true as Ti-leading types do happen to talk to people on occasion.

For one thing it's a known and well documented fact that we do it less than most types. For another just that a person's strongest assets are non-verbal does not mean they posess no verbal skills at all. Furthermore as I touched on earlier I think Ni and Fe may be non-verbal too, so it's not just the Static functions. Finally, non-verbal does not mean inexpressible, just indirectly expressed.

[krieger]

I have no problem with taking into the consideration the notions abstract and concrete function in the smilexian sense except when it comes to sensing function. What in earth does it mean to say "abstract sensing" or "concrete sensing". You either sense it or not. Of course, one could say the same for other functions but when it comes to that I have no problem with Smilingeyes' definitions.

What in earth does it mean to say "abstract sensing" or "concrete sensing".

The former means ST club: being conretely aware of a process that you control. The latter means SF club: being at the behest of a sensation, experiencing it without control on your own part.

[ZTCrawcrustle]

In other words, bull-shit. There is no such thing as an "outer sensation" and if something doesn't provoke or constitute a sensation of the only kind there is why is it called "sensation" in the first place?

Se handles all sensations that do not trigger an inner one. I can see a square frame. As long as I focus on that square frame and not on the intricate design in the woodwork that makes me feel warm and enjoy the frame, I'm using Se. Hearing a bird call and using it to find the bird is Se; hearing the bird call and identifying its pleasing quality is Si.

I call it Te. To transmit Se you would have to transmit the full identity of the building in question (to the extent one would have the patience to go to that length; normally we suffice with a simplification), which would require multiple factual assertions.

No, because "tall" is not a fact; it is an impression. The building could be two stories and the guy seeing it a hunter from the African plains. Factual assertion or not, the impression is not produced from Te.

I love this word "verbalized" that you are using here. It perfectly captures what I mean we do when we try to transmit Static info like that of Ne. As to Ni types, they are often exacting and precise. In as far as they are vague, refer to the bit of the post where I speculate that all info might in fact be SiTe rather than Dynamic.

Again, you were dead wrong with that info bit. I would prefer you step back and think how wrong you were. As for "verbalized", all information transfer outside of (in some cases) Fe, is verbal.

Nowhere do I say that Ti does not get transfered at all. I see Ti mostly as structural understanding rather than logic. It produces Te out of nowhere and expresses itself in it. Logic is trickier. It is something on a meta level that I'd prefer not to attribute to any term in socionics at all.

Logic stems solely from analysis, which is very much in the realm of Ti. You did not actually say anything here. You stated that you think Ti is more structural and ignored the obvious implications behind that (one of which was that you were disproving the very sentence you were writing).

For one thing it's a known and well documented fact that we do it less than most types. For another just that a person's strongest assets are non-verbal does not mean they posess no verbal skills at all. Furthermore as I touched on earlier I think Ni and Fe may be non-verbal too, so it's not just the Static functions. Finally, non-verbal does not mean inexpressible, just indirectly expressed.

No, it's not. Ever have a Ti professor? An ILE?

All eight elements can be and regularly are put into words, which then transmit information. There is no other way for them to do it other than words. How do you understand interactions between types who you say do not verbalize or have to translate their information into unvalued elements?

Also, every so often, I noticed you come up with a new way of looking at things. However, never do you adequately provide a reason as to why things are the way you say they are. It is a ridiculous case, but I can very well argue that things are the other way and we only transmit information through static elements.

[krieger]

Se handles all sensations that do not trigger an inner one. I can see a square frame. As long as I focus on that square frame and not on the intricate design in the woodwork that makes me feel warm and enjoy the frame, I'm using Se. Hearing a bird call and using it to find the bird is Se; hearing the bird call and identifying its pleasing quality is Si.

If you can see everything there is to the square frame in a single glimpse; are satisfied with this information and capable of processing it in that state, you are using Si. If you need to look at the frame from multiple perspectives in order to construct a representation of it in your mind, you are using Se. Things like "feel" and "enjoy" have no place in a description of a mechanism of information processing, so your version is moot by default.

No, because "tall" is not a fact; it is an impression. The building could be two stories and the guy seeing it a hunter from the African plains. Factual assertion or not, the impression is not produced from Te.

It is expressed in the format of a factual statement, the only obfuscating factor being the vagueness of a term used. "the building is tall" is equivalent in meaning to "the building is taller than the criterion for tall", where "criterion for tall" is a variable that is unknown to the listener (us). Make tall refer to "above 50 meters" and the statement is a bona-fide fact. It is a fact now, but a vague one.

Again, you were dead wrong with that info bit. I would prefer you step back and think how wrong you were. As for "verbalized", all information transfer outside of (in some cases) Fe, is verbal.

Opinion noted.

Logic stems solely from analysis, which is very much in the realm of Ti. You did not actually say anything here. You stated that you think Ti is more structural and ignored the obvious implications behind that (one of which was that you were disproving the very sentence you were writing).

Analysis is a way of reorganizing information. Logic is the metaphysical criterion by which congruent information is distinguished from incongruent information. Obviously an INTj engaging in analysis is going to have to take logic in account, but so is the ENFj that has to deal with the fact that s/he can not love and hate a person at the same time.

If there are "obvious implications", please spell them out so I don't have to guess at what you mean.

All eight elements can be and regularly are put into words, which then transmit information. There is no other way for them to do it other than words. How do you understand interactions between types who you say do not verbalize or have to translate their information into unvalued elements?

I am not disputing any this. Just once it's in words, it is Dynamic information. My views do not affect intertype interaction except in that they emphasize the importance of the odd distrubution of roles between Statics and Dynamics.

Also, every so often, I noticed you come up with a new way of looking at things. However, never do you adequately provide a reason as to why things are the way you say they are.

The reason is that Dynamic is flat, face-value information, and language is flat, face-value information. To interpret the language is Static function use, but the interpretations are not transmitted in language. The language sets the boundaries within which interpretations are allowed.

It is a ridiculous case, but I can very well argue that things are the other way and we only transmit information through static elements.

Except it won't make sense. You're welcome to try.

[krieger]

About vague facts:

Notice that Irrationals have Empowering Dynamic Judging functions.

I say Empowering signifies underdetermination (refer to my writings).

Hence, factual statements of which it is not possible, or not easy to immediately identify what they mean, are the domain of the Irrational types.

[ZTCrawcrustle]

If you can see everything there is to the square frame in a single glimpse; are satisfied with this information and capable of processing it in that state, you are using Si. If you need to look at the frame from multiple perspectives in order to construct a representation of it in your mind, you are using Se. Things like "feel" and "enjoy" have no place in a description of a mechanism of information processing, so your version is moot by default.

Your first case is Se. Your second case is Ne. Do you get why it is ridiculous to say that Se "look[s] at [something] from multiple perspectives"? Now that I've read it again, you actually nicely described how Ne sees an object. "Feel" and "enjoy" do have a place in mechanism processing if they are direct outputs of said mechanism. In this case, they obviously are and they are produced by Si.

It is expressed in the format of a factual statement, the only obfuscating factor being the vagueness of a term used. "the building is tall" is equivalent in meaning to "the building is taller than the criterion for tall", where "criterion for tall" is a variable that is unknown to the listener (us). Make tall refer to "above 50 meters" and the statement is a bona-fide fact. It is a fact now, but a vague one.

Only because that is the way you choose to interpret it. Emphasis on the "you". You interpreting it as a fact does not mean it others would. I can think of it in the following ways: display of amazement (Fe), comparison to a previously existing norm (Ti), stating of a trait (Se, and this was the first definition I've ever read of static), expressing pleasure/displeasure (Si, an odd example, but the only way information could be Si), looking at its potential use, perhaps for a suicide attempt (Ne).

Opinion noted.

explain to me why you think all information is TeSi. What does Si have to do with it at all?

Analysis is a way of reorganizing information. Logic is the metaphysical criterion by which congruent information is distinguished from incongruent information. Obviously an INTj engaging in analysis is going to have to take logic in account, but so is the ENFj that has to deal with the fact that s/he can not love and hate a person at the same time.

If there are "obvious implications", please spell them out so I don't have to guess at what you mean.

Most typings of you are either LII or ILI, right? Why do I have to teach you (and explain to you) how you use one of your strongest functions?

Here we go. Analysis is a way of reorganizing information. It would be odd if this reorganization made it more vague or blurry, so we will say that it is a way of structuring information into a more clear state. Logic is deductive reasoning that focuses on reformulating, combining, contrasting ideas in order to get a more clearer, simpler version of all the data. They are, in fact, the same process; analysis and logic stem from each other and flow into one another to the point that they are inseparable.

And, you can love and hate a person at the same time.

I am not disputing any this. Just once it's in words, it is Dynamic information. My views do not affect intertype interaction except in that they emphasize the importance of the odd distrubution of roles between Statics and Dynamics.

Why? Why are words inherently dynamic?

The reason is that Dynamic is flat, face-value information, and language is flat, face-value information. To interpret the language is Static function use, but the interpretations are not transmitted in language. The language sets the boundaries within which interpretations are allowed.

I remember you posting something similar several weeks ago and regret that I did not correct you then. No, dynamic is not flat or face-valued information. Dynamic information is information on or about processes that are in constant flux. That is why the above building example is most likely static: the "tallness" of the building is not something that is likely to change. (Before I forget, I find it odd that you seem to use the dichotomy without realizing the actual manifestations of that dichotomy.) Dynamic is as the name suggests dynamic, constantly changing or being reinterpreted. They are not flat because actually understanding them requires a depth of understanding of changing conditions. They are not face-value because when they are said they may already no longer exist or be true.

Out of all the dynamic elements, Te facts are probably the most static of them, which could be why they are used a lot. Most uttered statements, if we are to continue on this train of thought, would be static because they extrapolate a specific instance or case as being the current (unaltered) state.

Except it won't make sense. You're welcome to try.

Refer to the above.

Also, about your second post, that would mean that a) statements that have no obvious meaning are spoken by irrationals, and b) whenever rationals talk, you always know what they mean. Both of those are ridiculous and obviously false.

[krieger]

Si is the only thing that should be called perception in the first place.

[krieger]

I remember you posting something similar several weeks ago and regret that I did not correct you then. No, dynamic is not flat or face-valued information. Dynamic information is information on or about processes that are in constant flux. That is why the above building example is most likely static: the "tallness" of the building is not something that is likely to change. (Before I forget, I find it odd that you seem to use the dichotomy without realizing the actual manifestations of that dichotomy.) Dynamic is as the name suggests dynamic, constantly changing or being reinterpreted. They are not flat because actually understanding them requires a depth of understanding of changing conditions. They are not face-value because when they are said they may already no longer exist or be true.

Out of all the dynamic elements, Te facts are probably the most static of them, which could be why they are used a lot. Most uttered statements, if we are to continue on this train of thought, would be static because they extrapolate a specific instance or case as being the current (unaltered) state.

The reason why dynamic functions process unfolding events more easily than static functions is that they need to process much less information than the static functions. If you are describing a play in which several events follow eachother up in quick succession, do you "define" or "construct" the exact properties of every person or object involved in every chapter? No, you simply mention their names, and their activities. Face-value information. I've watched Dynamic types speak like this my entire life.

[krieger]

Only because that is the way you choose to interpret it. Emphasis on the "you". You interpreting it as a fact does not mean it others would. I can think of it in the following ways: display of amazement (Fe), comparison to a previously existing norm (Ti), stating of a trait (Se, and this was the first definition I've ever read of static), expressing pleasure/displeasure (Si, an odd example, but the only way information could be Si), looking at its potential use, perhaps for a suicide attempt (Ne).

The whole point is that you can read the statement without imposing any sort of interpretation on it all, and when you do, you read the information as Te.

[krieger]

Your first case is Se. Your second case is Ne. Do you get why it is ridiculous to say that Se "look[s] at [something] from multiple perspectives"? Now that I've read it again, you actually nicely described how Ne sees an object. "Feel" and "enjoy" do have a place in mechanism processing if they are direct outputs of said mechanism. In this case, they obviously are and they are produced by Si.

The bit about "immediately being satisfied" that I wrote is mostly about Accepting functions. Apologies for the confusion. However Accepting Se is not about simply processing that is given to you as a whole but about jumping conclusions to stereo-typed interpretation. The result is arbitrary and contingent: Empowering. The Limiting Se of an ISTj is most definitely about constructing an understanding of something behind the screens by integrating data from multiple sources; deducing the only possible indentity by scratching out every alternative. The difference between Se and Ne from there, is that the former learns about a specific object only, while the latter can generalize it's conclusions to all objects it will meet in the future.

Consider this:
If something is given to you, and flat, face-value information, you take in everything there is to know about it at once by immediately being satisfied with what you have. If soemthing on the other hand is voluminous and behind the screens, then any single perception of the object is NOT enough to know the object in full, and settling for immediate satisfaction gets you saddled up with multiplictious information in which any single option is arbitrary.