I drew a picture of socionics
I made this up to help me better conceptualize the information elements and socionics theory in general. It's really not self-descriptive, but I kinda wanna see if this makes sense on any sort of conceptual level.
The oval is meant to represent the self.
I feel like the arrows are misnomers. They don't denote motion so much as they are meant to represent change in some fashion. I'll probably have to redo them somehow (suggestions?).
This is a perfect representation of the information elements, and I feel as though I now understand it all. I would recommend that you don't change a thing.
I feel that they're good representation of the bare bones schematics of the elements, but it doesn't really give implications towards any sort of manifestations they inhabit. As such, I'd be surprised if anybody would understand everything about IEs just from thisOriginally Posted by polikujm
And thank you for the positive feedback
Well, one big thing I see wrong about the chart, and something we probably disagree on, is the idea that "internal" functions in the tri-code nomenclature is indicative of what is more inside the self. Instead I feel that a better representation of Socionics would be to say that introverted functions, like Si for example, deal with aspects that are more "self internal" and less influenced by reading into external changes. So all the introverted functions should have little shapes inside the egg.
Well the thing is that in the case of Si, it's very nature is that it's prone to external changes, which is why I keep it on the outside of the self in this representation. As is the case with all field functions, the point of focus is the connection to the self and not the separate node. So with Si the point isn't the changes in the thing itself (which would make it an object function), rather it's how those perceived changes affect the thing's connection to the self. I kinda think of Si as viewing something "about" the thing, and not so much an object as a physical entity.
In case this is what's causing the disconnect, internal != introverted
EDIT: maybe I should try to come up with some diagram denoting temperament too
Ah well, I made an edit a few minutes ago, I reworded as "influenced by reading into external changes," where I believe that Si is similar to Jungian Si in that it reads into the internal representation of the external changes, and more so gets information from the body and its reactive state, the biology more than the physics, more than the external spectrum of matter. I don't believe that any introverted function has more of a focus on what is external or reading into external changes, as well as the extroverted functions do.
Well if this is what you think, then I'd like to see your own representations of the functions in a model like this
I think I can kinda see what you're getting at. My take on introverted IEs is that the brain/self creates its own constructs for how these information elements are to be understood and perceived. Say for Ti: the Ti valuer draws upon external information, then creates its own systems and methods for accepting or denying more information as it goes along. It may be external, but the way it operates is still constructed and operated by the self.
There seems to either be a focus on drawing upon external information, or a focus on internalizing the information, for each of the four modes: ethics, logic, sensing, intuition. As it says in model A, a person good at the extroverted version will be just as good as the introverted version, but have a focus on one over the other. A prime and most famous mode of operation for someone to both draw upon external information and internalize this information would be of the two ego functions working together. So any time you receive a piece of information about a type, you should look to see what of the 8 functions it may fit into, and how one piece of information gets changed into something else because of an interaction in functions.
Much of what I agree on can be found in the descriptions on the Socionics Workshop. Another example of an extroverted function that is so obviously to me not all that "internal" is Fe, especially when people compare it to reading into emotional states. There is no way you can read into an emotional state by just looking at what is inside the self. Fe just like Se, Ne, Te, quite simply, deals with the more visibly objective information, and Fi like Si has a more personal and internal representation of what "x, being emotion, stimulus, of some sort" may be happening on the outside, which is why Fi is often referred to in relationships, because of its introversion, incorporating whatever individual perceptions there are and less of what can be read without bias if it existed, and ethics, often dealing with people. Fe seems to take on something much more visibly inclusive and literally far-reaching from person to person in the realm of ethics.
Removed at User Request
So irrational elements are on the inside? I thought introverted ones would be.
Actually internal functions (Ne, Ni, Fe, and Fi) would be on the inside.
pretty cool arctures.
it explains the need for balance really well. as in why duals complement each other so well and why other relationships are slightly off balance, even when they are socionically good relations.
look at SLE....all externally focused. they need IEI...all internally focused to balance things out. and further, by way of contrast, take IEI and ILE illusionary. it's a little out of balance with too much internal emphasis, not enough external.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
Good idea but it needs some work, right now its a bit weak. I mean theres the issue of it being a mere pneumonic device or something that actually tells us about cognition and psychology. Theres also the issue of what each of the three terms mean, I've always pictured some of the concepts like "static" and "dynamic" and "fields" like physics. Electrostatics, Electrodynamics, and Electric Field. I've always asked how those differ and then used that to think about how the elements differ in socionics.I made this up to help me better conceptualize the information elements and socionics theory in general. It's really not self-descriptive, but I kinda wanna see if this makes sense on any sort of conceptual level.
The oval is meant to represent the self.
I feel like the arrows are misnomers. They don't denote motion so much as they are meant to represent change in some fashion. I'll probably have to redo them somehow (suggestions?).
I'm not an expert on Info Elements, though, but instinctively when I first looked at this I was like !!!!!!! (cool idea), but then after inspecting it, I felt kind of let down, which probably means you need to fashion it a little more if you really want to come up with something great/profound, give it some time and work in the details.
"In Soviet Russia, picture of socionics draws you"? Because, in theory, that is true in all socionics, really...
Anyway, I like it, because I like pictures. I don't think it is necessarily the core of the functions, but I do like the idea. You should spend lots of your own time and effort animating it in Adobe After Affects so that the dynamic elements can actually move. But seriously, as a visual representation, it's interesting, and not at all bad.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
I also think it should be introverded (field) elements that should be inside, although that would spoil the variety of your graph a bit. The internal/external dichotomy refers to what is or isn't directly perceivable, so you might have a point in putting it inside (as "imagination" more than "reality"). Si/Se is a good example why at least perception works the other way, though. I'm less sure about rational functions, although it makes sense there as well, I think.
From statics/dynamics dichotomy on wiki (while far from exhausting the subject, there are some good points there):
*(static) perceives outward sensory data projected by objects. Unless objects change their appearance significantly, the
*(dynamic) perceives internal reactions to sensory data. Each perception of the same thing can be different depending on the observer's changing internal state.
*(static) perceives inherent potential in objects. Objects don't tend to change their nature much over time, though new circumstances can reveal hitherto unnoticed aspects of that potentiality.
*(dynamic) perceives internal reactions to external potentiality. Today the possibilities might seem inviting and favorable, but tomorrow they might produce a sense of foreboding or despondency.
*(static) perceives logical interrelations between objects, which by definition belong to a certain class or location, unless the point of reference is changed.
*(dynamic) perceives what those objects are doing and what is being done with them. One and the same object can be used effectively or ineffectively.
*(static) perceives connections of a subjective, emotional nature that exist between objects. These feelings arise gradually and change little until a significant disruption occurs.
*(dynamic) perceives how objects are interacting on an emotional level. One and the same object can interact very different with a stable set of other objects depending on a variety of factors.
Removed at User Request
I attempted something similar a year ago. New Element Symbols -
I will attempt to post some of that info to here, but it's been a while since I've done something on a forum, it may not come out quite right format wise. For the full story, see that thread.
post #20 shows them in action as icon alternatives to the typical symbols used. Ashton was nice enough to offer them as an option on his site, for me.Post #4: Ok, so the elements are made up of the following aspects:
Involvement (the self is contained in the information; F/S; notice the dot (self) is within the info) (Note: by 'self' I mean if you placed yourself in the position of the dot, and looked at the information, it would suggest how you view that information in relation to your own 'self'/position)
FeFi
SeSi
Abstract (the self appears separated from the information; T/N; notice the dot (self) is outside the info)
TeTi
NeNi
External (explicit information; S/T; notice the info has a solid line that only lets you see the exterior)
Se
Te
Internal (implicit information; N/F; notice the info has a dashed line, allowing you to see past the exterior and into the interior)
Ne
Fe
Object (content, object, person, idea; Xe; notice the "node" (the large main circle))
Ne
Se
Field (context, connections, relationships; Xi; notice the lines that would be connecting the nodes together)
SiFi
NiTi
Static
Dynamic
(These had to be done separately into gif symbols, post in #18 and #19. If they don't show up here, and you can't seem them moving there, then message me with an email and I'll email them to you. I have no idea where to go to to host gif images.)
NeNi
Fe
Fi
SeSi
Te
Ti
and post #26 regarding my thoughts on "subjective" vs "objective" and how I don't see it as being related to the Xi/Xe thing (which is where most of the criticism keep coming in on the object/field and internal/external thing come in)
post #26 regarding "subjective" vs "objective"
Honestly, I don't use 'objective/subjective'. I have seen how often those terms are used in the 16t as well as in regular life, and I've yet to figure out what a person actually means when they are using the term.
I am also of the mind that, in essence, all information is subjective at heart, meaning that no matter how 'objective' we think the information is...in order to make sense of it it still has to pass through our own brain..it still has to be interpreted and/or experienced. Now, a computer may obtain data. But the moment it gets put into our hands, and we read the data, it's the individual who has to interpret it into himself and process it in himself. No matter how 'objective' he may think he is, he is still human and thus subject to the limitations of being human.
There is, however, a perception of being objective. This is the perception of being detached from our processing/interpreting of the information. It is also often combined with the external. For example, we can both be looking at the elephant, and talking about. But it's still MY senses and MY experiences that I'm drawing from to come up with the words I'm using to represent what I'm seeing of the elephant. Just as in order for you to make sense of it, you have to draw from your own senses/experiences. For example, I start talking about the trunk and that the trunk is spraying water onto the baby elephant. You'll use your senses to either see the trunk yourself...or what you remember about an elephant's trunk, as well as senses/memory to access "baby elephant" and "water" and "water spraying out of trunk" and "water spraying onto baby elephant". During our discussion we perceive ourselves as talking about something 'objective', yet we are still having to access data from our own minds/experience to decode and encode the information.
As for the object/field thing where in one definition field is defined as being 'through the subject', and right next to it field is defined as the link between objects (without necessarily being through the subject), it's easy to get confused. But when you look at "object" as a "node" and "field" as a "link" then it makes more sense that we can discuss nodes and the links between nodes without necessarily being the other node.
An example:
* = node; Xe
-- = link; Xi
The subjective interpretation says that *--*Me (the node is connected to me). That if I deal with a node, then I must necessarily be the other node to which it is being linked to.
The other interpretation says that *--* (the node is connected to another node) That I can deal with two nodes, and the links between them, without myself necessarily being that other node.
In my experience, and I'm sure yours as well, I am fully capable of talking about *dog--runs after--*cat, without having to reference myself at all. I can however say *I--see--*(*dog--runs after--*cat). In this example 'dog runs after cat' is a node, and I also am a node.
In english, we have two kinds of sentences that technically mean the same thing...but one is perceived as being 'subjective' and the other as 'objective' just because a certain phrase was dropped off.
Example situation: Two people are watching a dog running after a cat.
"subjective" statement: I see the dog running after the cat.
"objective" statement: The dog is running after the cat.
Is one somehow more truthful than the other? No.
All that happened was that one 'dropped' himself as a node when he communicated his experience of seeing a dog running after a cat. The other kept himself as a node.
I think that some languages make more usage out of specifying the "I see" part. Where in almost every sentence there is an implied (if not flat out stated) portion that says that whatever is being stated is being stated as perceived by the speaker. I don't know if Russia is one of those languages or not.
In usamerican schools, we are often taught to drop ourselves as a node, (so we can become 'more objective').
I don't know if this is done in other countries, nor do I know if Russia does this.
On the other hand, I guess we can also be perceived as the link between two nodes. If this is the case, however, every type is Subjective since every single type deals with links between nodes. Which only serves to prove part of my previous point . . . as humans, with the limitations of human beings, we are all subjective when we process information.
Those are great, anndelise. Very similar to the depictions I was working on in my head, only I hadn't thought to include the Involved/Abstract dichotomy.
Quaero Veritas.
I'm currently writing a small paper on this topic for a philosophy course. There is ample evidence to support the thesis that the terms are plainly ambiguous, both in colloquial and in professional usage.Honestly, I don't use 'objective/subjective'. I have seen how often those terms are used in the 16t as well as in regular life, and I've yet to figure out what a person actually means when they are using the term.
Gulenko actually simplified the expression of the IEs to a single letter each.
Abstract visual representations are nice for those that learn that way, but really?
I don't feel so bad now, for not quite getting it. Let me know what your instructor says about your paper, or whatever other feedback you get on it (I don't know how that stuff goes)?
Last edited by anndelise; 06-03-2010 at 02:41 AM.
Socionics is an Ne+Ti theory. Not everyone's ego deals with Ti. For some of us, while we're interested in the theory may still need a little help to get the Ti'd parts translated to something a little easier for us to deal with. Not to mention that we all seem to go through a process of rewording the concepts to make it more meaningful/useful to us individually, even if not to others. That doesn't mean that we expect everyone to like or use our attempts, but if visual representations helps us, then yes "really".
Removed at User Request
I'm aware that many people don't like the Involvement/Abstract split. And technically, we only need three sets of dichotomies to get the 8. However, when placing only three sets of dichotomies within quadras, it becomes obvious that information is missing, which is easily filled in by the Involvement/Abstract set.
I've found from my own experience that it also helps me better understand what's going on within someone's mind when I use all 4 sets to guide me. As of yet, using "objective/subjective" has never helped me get into their heads, but it does seem to make a great case for dismissing someone else's ideas.(I'm not at all saying that you've done that Pinocchio, I'm referring to the many arguments I've seen online and offline where people dismiss another person's ideas by saying things along the lines of "you're too subjective, you should be more objective, like me" merely because they disagree on an idea.)
Subjective functions relate information to mental archetypes developed from past information.
Objective functions take information as it comes without translating it in terms of a broader mental archetype.
Extraversion: Parts (Objects) are accumulated to figure out what the whole is (the subject)
Introversion: Wholes (mental archetypes representing broad kinds of things - subjects) are related to parts to figure out the nature of the parts to the whole.
Extraversion: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,........
Introversion: "Numbers"
This dichotomy is very important
The end is nigh
Removed at User Request
I apologize for not responding sooner, I was stalled on your post, feeling as if multiple other concepts were brought in instead of focusing on the aspects, which is what I was focusing on. I also felt like there was some kind of misunderstanding.Oh, but it is!! It's the Static/Dynamic, and you're right, there should have been three.Originally Posted by anndelise
I'm aware that many people don't like the Involvement/Abstract split. And technically, we only need three sets of dichotomies to get the 8. However, when placing only three sets of dichotomies within quadras, it becomes obvious that information is missing, which is easily filled in by the Involvement/Abstract set.
Using the aspects, it only takes 3 sets of dichotomies to get the 8 elements. However, it takes 4 sets of dichotomies to get the full socion. I created a video today (finally had the time) to show what I was talking about.
I feel comfortable placing it in this thread as it also deals with "pictures of socionics".
The video is only 4 minutes, in a slide show format. There is no sound.
Some other images, just cuz (I finally figured out the flippin P/J analog/digital thing, argh):
(after much hair pulling, I've put in the clickable thumnail image which will open the image up in a separate tab)
Perceiving, Judging Aspects
Perceiving, Judging, & Object, Field Aspects (giving Statics, Dynamics)
NFST clubs via two sets of Aspect Dichotomies
The Socion w/ Aspects reworded (and including the P/J parts)
Last edited by anndelise; 06-20-2010 at 01:52 AM. Reason: now watch the images be tooooo big
anndelise
This is awesome
I tried to do it this morning but I couldn't.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
anndelise, do those images come in large form?
argh, I just noticed that you can't click them for the larger image.anndelise, do those images come in large form?
uh...uh...damn, I forgot how to do the whole formatting thing here.
for now, if you really really want to view them, you can go to my photobucket page: socionicsjunk pictures by anndelise - Photobucket
I'll work on the formatting thing after I pick up my daughter from the pool.
Removed at User Request
it used to be that if you uploaded an image, then it would scale for the post, but if the reader clicked on the image, it would open up...
but it doesn't seem to open up anymore, and I'm not sure how to do that
edited to add: ugh, ok, I guess it happened on photobucket's end...argh
still working on it....(*mumbles about having her balloon popped and crashing after thinking she was all done!!*)
I drew a picture of the practical side of Socionics, the manifestation of Socionics that the behind-the-scenes, in-depth intelligence might not ever get the chance to witness, due to their essential effort towards the evergrowing simplification and betterance of Socionics diagrams, terms, and mental imagery. I hope this helps you to finally see what you, through your strenuous long-days time and thought, have made available to all of us.
I drew a picture of the practical side of Socionics, the manifestation of Socionics that the behind-the-scenes, in-depth intelligence might not ever get the chance to witness, due to their essential effort towards the evergrowing simplification and betterance of Socionics diagrams, terms, and mental imagery. I hope this helps you to finally see what you, through your strenuous long-days time and thought, have made available to all of us.
Whenever sex is the foremost purpose for interacting with a girl, then no amount of theory's gonna help ya. For that matter, neither may experience...or lack thereof... :wink:
Let's not confuse them with all this practical talk. Best stick to the diagram.
Whenever sex is the foremost purpose for interacting with a girl, then no amount of theory's gonna help ya. For that matter, neither may experience...or lack thereof... :wink:
nice drawing, looks like some biological experiment with petri dishes hehehehe
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
