Information aspects

[Aiss]

The Information aspect - Wikisocion article is far from complete, and other resources are scattered (like Notes on "The Semantics of the Information Elements" ), so let's put it together in this thread - post any sources, notes, ideas you'd like to share.

[mfckr]

.

[krieger]

(Se) EOS = Phenonema

I think Se is interested in the object that occasions a phenomenon more so than it is interested in individual phenomena themselves. Phenomenology is the study of how things appear to the subject, so it should be associated with an introvert/field function if anything ever is.

[Mattie]

I tried to trim down, swap around, and add a few to the individual aspects to the words that gave the clearest feeling and definition:

= Phenonema, Denomination, Appraisal, Texture, Composition, Contour
= Corollary, Etiology, Determinancy
= Parameters, Schematic, Axiom
= Homeostasis
= Permutation
= Induction
= Essence??
= Coalescence, Evolution

The bolded ones I'm particularly satisfied with, the others could use more searching.

[Galen]

I think permutation and translation seem like very apt characteristics of Ne.

I talked a little while ago with esper about Ni, and she described Ni as "evolution" as well. From what I've come to understand from that discussion, Ni is attune to the way that changes in internal characteristics of a thing alter the entire structure. Conversely, Ne would see those internal characteristics as isolated entities without an implicit sense of cohesion behind them? I'll have to sleep on it.

[Mattie]

I think permutation and translation seem like very apt characteristics of Ne.

I talked a little while ago with esper about Ni, and she described Ni as "evolution" as well. From what I've come to understand from that discussion, Ni is attune to the way that changes in internal characteristics of a thing alter the entire structure. Conversely, Ne would see those internal characteristics as isolated entities without an implicit sense of cohesion behind them? I'll have to sleep on it.

I kept batting back and forth in that, I didn't know what connotation evolution would have when someone read it- If they thought of the Theory (which I did), they might think of adaptation and how the environment or sexual selection causes species to change, or if they thought of the term in general, (which I think most people will), it would be the change of something over a course of time, past and future. So I changed it back to .

I really wasn't satisfied with any of the ones, they didn't seem to click with me at all. All the other ones I could at least see where it was coming from and the words had particular feelings with them... None of the ones did

[Galen]

I really wasn't satisfied with any of the ones, they didn't seem to click with me at all. All the other ones I could at least see where it was coming from and the words had particular feelings with them... None of the ones did

I'd say essence is one of the more important descriptors for Fi. The nature of Fi is that the valuer sees a sort of all-encompassing quality in something. The word 'essence' itself does bring up thoughts of pretentious neo-spiritualism, but when taken out of that context it seems like a very apt characteristic.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[mfckr]

Very good idea to keep records on them. For the record - even if I consider your reservations - most of the keywords there are bogus, for the associated aspects, IMO. Some are actually good.

All of this started out as a quest to find the perfect word corresponding to the abstract process I saw representing each function/aspect. I chose the words I did because I felt they described or captured a relevant quality of these processes.

All of the words refer to a specific meaning, usually drawn from the OED (Oxford English Dictionary). Many of these are not commonly used meanings, so beware of that.

Some of them are also highly subject-dependent words exclusive to some scientific or mathematical field. Example, the word Divergence listed under , is used for its meaning in vector calculus because I felt this process qualitatively depicts the way perceives sensory information. Induction is used for in the sense of electromagnetic induction, because I felt this process usefully describes the way in which works between people.

Edit: here, for example, the notions associated with Static are perfect, but the ones associated with dynamic are actually static as well. It would rather be more correct: Change, Variation (actually I see "variable", as long as it's an adjective, yes, that's correct, when it's a noun - with a sense of a placeholder, that would not do it), Effect (s), etc.

The crux of what I see as distinguishing Dynamic/Static, is that Dynamic functions deal with time-dependent information whereas Static functions are time-independent. Naturally, any perception of change belies an awareness of time, which is why I tend to associate Dynamic with terms relating to 'change'. Static functions on the other hand, treat information 'as is' in the instantaneous moment or in some timeless apprehension irrespective of what was or will be.

Then Extrinsic, although I put it on Decisive and Serious, that could be considered Fields as IA - idem with Intrinsic.
Then Objective/Subkective to External /Internal.

What do you think?

You're talking about Reinin Dichotomies, which I think is outside the contextual scope of these information aspect descriptors.

[mfckr]

I think Se is interested in the object that occasions a phenomenon more so than it is interested in individual phenomena themselves. Phenomenology is the study of how things appear to the subject, so it should be associated with an introvert/field function if anything ever is.

I wasn't using Phenomenon according to its meaning in Phenomenology.

Unrelated, but I do think any serious study of functions must ultimately be founded in their Phenomenological nature.

[Beautiful sky]

By you say evolution because things to them are constantly changing?
so is stable, stability.

[mfckr]

Anyway, we're not getting anywhere (you appear as a clear ESI to me), we simply have totally different directions.

Cool.

Edit: don't take it the wrong way, it's just I prefer not to talk, not that you're wrong, or something.

Not a problem. No offense taken.

[mfckr]

By you say evolution because things to them are constantly changing?

Think of how the process of evolution works and it will tell you something about how the process of works. Starts with something simple and gradually compounds into something which unfolds with ever greater complexity.

so is stable, stability.

Sort of; I wouldn't call it stable/stability. gives a more appropriate information framework with which to grows its thinking in, so that what results is more refined and accurate. Without , it runs the risk of becoming increasingly unbounded and disconnected from actual reality.

[Beautiful sky]

Think of how the process of evolution works and it will tell you something about how the process of works. Starts with something simple and gradually compounds into something which unfolds with ever greater complexity.



Sort of; I wouldn't call it stable/stability. gives a more appropriate information framework with which to grows its thinking in, so that what results is more refined and accurate. Without , it runs the risk of becoming increasingly unbounded and disconnected from actual reality.

What?
I thought my thinking will grow disconnected from reality not the other way around...did you get that right?

[mfckr]

I kept batting back and forth in that, I didn't know what connotation evolution would have when someone read it- If they thought of the Theory (which I did), they might think of adaptation and how the environment or sexual selection causes species to change, or if they thought of the term in general, (which I think most people will), it would be the change of something over a course of time, past and future. So I changed it back to .

I really wasn't satisfied with any of the ones, they didn't seem to click with me at all. All the other ones I could at least see where it was coming from and the words had particular feelings with them... None of the ones did

There's very interesting differences between how adjacent quadras use the same function.

For instance, I think in Gamma couples with , whereas in Delta it couples with . Such pairings modulate the expressions of quite a bit. I'll dig up some specific examples later on.

[Mattie]

There's very interesting differences between how adjacent quadras use the same function.

For instance, I think in Gamma couples with , whereas in Delta it couples with . Such pairings modulate the expressions of quite a bit. I'll dig up some specific examples later on.

Why and / together? Is it just one out of many combinations, or do they have another commonality, seeing that it's usually and paired together. And if this is true, do we have to make the distinction with more terms?

[mfckr]

Why and / together?

They're both field functions. This also seems, from my observations, to be what usefully describes the differences in function manifestation between adjacent quadras.

The same principle would apply to object functions.

Is it just one out of many combinations, or do they have another commonality, seeing that it's usually and paired together.

It's just a relationship that seems useful to me to in potentially explaining certain crucial differences between adjacent quadras.

And if this is true, do we have to make the distinction with more terms

Oh, I don't know. I've never bothered to come up with a term for it myself, but if someone originated something reasonably awesome, why not.

[Mattie]

Oh, I don't know. I've never bothered to come up with a term for it myself, but if someone originated something reasonably awesome, why not.

Sounds like the start of a lengthy project I guess I just never thought of them together... But there really isn't any reason not to. And it might be a difference on where is placed than merely valuing it. In hindsight, I remembered looking through the words and feeling they weren't... active enough? feels like it should be a verb to me, but then I started to think that maybe I felt that way because it's my creative IE, while to you, it might seem more "exisitional," or is just there to be accessed rather than used? I wanted a feeling of a process, like a sifter or something to be compared to. I'd have to look them over again now that I'm more aware of my bias.

[Mattie]

Yeah, that's actually exactly why I brought that idea up lol. I mean, I'd like for Fi to have a suitable active process name too. But I'd imagine the process as it is for me, may very well be quite different from your own. And perhaps in some sense, it may be more suitable that each quadra have somewhat different names for its functions.

That's slightly overwhelming to think about when creating a list like this; it's easier to think of the IEs as part of a large and strange spectrum. But I like the idea of assigning words with nuances communicate an idea like what's going on. But where to start seems a little complicated now, because at first I was just like "Start at the most specific, the smallest factor," which were just IEs, but now thinking about it... Hrm. I guess it still is, but later, more words would have to be applied to the combinations that can happen? Or maybe not, that might be splitting hairs. We'd just have to find one word that encompasses it all, because I think Homeostasis for was a great find that explains it very well to me, and if it works for you too, that could imply that there is an essence to it that we all can find to be true in each of our particular cases.

[mfckr]

That's slightly overwhelming to think about when creating a list like this; it's easier to think of the IEs as part of a large and strange spectrum. But I like the idea of assigning words with nuances communicate an idea like what's going on. But where to start seems a little complicated now, because at first I was just like "Start at the most specific, the smallest factor," which were just IEs, but now thinking about it... Hrm. I guess it still is, but later, more words would have to be applied to the combinations that can happen? Or maybe not, that might be splitting hairs. We'd just have to find one word that encompasses it all, because I think Homeostasis for was a great find that explains it very well to me, and if it works for you too, that could imply that there is an essence to it that we all can find to be true in each of our particular cases.

Right, it's very overwhelming to me to consider as well and probably isn't anything I'd want to do in the immediate term. Only something for now I'd want to keep in mind, to make sure that whatever single embodying term ultimately gets decided upon for a given function, really is something representative of its use in both quadras.

[Mattie]

What about being along the lines of "affinity"? That seems to fit with and at the same time as there is the process of assessing what meshes and the particular feelings of an object, and how these feelings relate to a grand scheme. I tried to apply what was just brought up and wanted to streamline my previous list:

= Contour
= Corollary
= Schematic
= Homeostasis
= Permutation
= Induction
= Affinity
= Convergence

What do you think?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Ni and Fi need better words IMO but I really like everything else.

[Galen]

I still think essence is the best single-word descriptor for Fi. I can't think of a better term for an all-encompassing static intrinsic quality of something.

[mfckr]

What about being along the lines of "affinity"? That seems to fit with and at the same time as there is the process of assessing what meshes and the particular feelings of an object, and how these feelings relate to a grand scheme.

I had this thought before as well; it's why I put in the term 'Resonance'. if you've ever seen, or at least happen to remember, a demonstration of how tuning forks with similar frequencies sync in mutual harmony, while dissimilar frequencies are mutually disruptive—which describes something essential to me of how works (if you don't know what I'm talking about, click here for a quick demonstration). The essential analogue is that people with 'congruent' Fi "resonate" w/ and attract to each other, out of an instantaneous unspoken sense of mutual ease in their presence. Conversely, someone incongruent to your person may incur a pervasive sense of discord and repulsion that makes you feel edgy. I tend to think that largely operates in an all or nothing manner as a rule—either you like someone, dislike someone, or maybe you're neutral (though obviously you can feel stronger towards certain people than others because of some shared relational bond, etc.) An additional reason I like this portrayal, is because this phenomenon readily illustrates a contrast to when viewed as 'Induction'.

There's also 'Valence'—a term specific to Psychology which effectively means exactly what you just said. Though there are downsides to using it; namely that everyone, or not, probably experiences varying degrees of this. Though the same could be said of Resonance as well perhaps. Though in either event, maybe this doesn't matter much. See Valence.

I tried to apply what was just brought up and wanted to streamline my previous list:
...
What do you think?

Right now I'm partial to:

= Divergence
= Evolution
= Colligation
= Homeostasis
= Modularization (may be biased towards αNT)
= Induction
= Resonance/Valence
= Emergence

[Galen]

The essential analogue is that people with 'congruent' Fi "resonate" w/ and attract to each other, out of an instantaneous unspoken sense of mutual ease in their presence.

I would have assumed that all types with shared IEs would share that same feeling of mutual ease. What makes this idea of resonance so specific to Fi?

[mfckr]

I would have assumed that all types with shared IEs would share that same feeling of mutual ease. What makes this idea of resonance so specific to Fi?

Quite true that people may generally feel at ease w/ others who have shared IEs. Lol, I forgot for a moment I was speaking from my own subjective POV.

[Galen]

Quite true that people may generally feel at ease w/ others who have shared IEs. Lol, I forgot for a moment I was speaking from my own subjective POV.

No problem lol. I do understand what you mean by resonance though, the idea of an "unspoken" bond between Fi valuers. Although in that context I think Fi is being analyzed in a more active and social basis, like a manifestation of something more basic and intrinsic.

[Aiss]

I like emergence (rather in the meaning of "strong emergence") for Ni. "Uncomfortably like magic" - exactly how I feel about some of others' attitude to Ni. I'd also add homeorhesis for Ni - as a sort of sister-term to Si-homeostasis, which shows the difference between them - in more common words which are often used elsewhere, it is like Si was related to balance, Ni to destiny.

Actuality and potentiality - I'm not sure if these aren't rather dynamic, but I think static bodies functions are a better fit overall. It's interesting for me in that S is usually associated with "what is" and N with "what could be"; this reverses the situation, defining Ne as perceiving potential and Se as dealing with potential that is realized, making it probably more intuitive (conventionally) for intuitives (socionically).

Si - homeostasis
Ni - homeorhesis
Se - actuality
Ne - potentiality

I don't really have any good terms for rational elements at this point, but I think analogies to physics make sense - more directly observable classical mechanics for T and electromagnetism for F - what we can only witness indirectly, like the analogy with magnetic fields that came up a while ago.

[mfckr]

I like emergence (rather in the meaning of "strong emergence") for Ni. "Uncomfortably like magic" - exactly how I feel about some of others' attitude to Ni.

Right, I think its only a meaningful process descriptor for so long as its 'strong emergence'. The arguments for 'weak emergence' really bother me on some fundamental level lol.

I've long enjoyed this definition given on that page, re: defining Emergence:

"The common characteristics are: (1) radical novelty (features not previously observed in systems); (2) coherence or correlation (meaning integrated wholes that maintain themselves over some period of time); (3) A global or macro "level" (i.e. there is some property of "wholeness"); (4) it is the product of a dynamical process (it evolves); and (5) it is "ostensive" (it can be perceived). For good measure, Goldstein throws in supervenience -- downward causation."

It's a distinct match on all major qualities IMO.

I'd also add homeorhesis for Ni - as a sort of sister-term to Si-homeostasis, which shows the difference between them - in more common words which are often used elsewhere, it is like Si was related to balance, Ni to destiny.

Ahh wow. I'm surprised I hadn't come across that word before in all my digging through thesauri. I like it quite a lot. I'll definitely include it.

"… derived from the Greek for "similar flow", is a concept encompassing dynamical systems which return to a trajectory, as opposed to systems which return to a particular state, which is termed homeostasis."

If I'm understanding the term correctly (I'm having a hard time finding greater detail), I'm wondering if that could also imply something about being aware of the cyclicality of certain intrinsic processes... i.e., what I mean by that, is that Ni/Se valuers largely seem to inhabit a perspective that there are certain inherent patterns and processes by which life and the universe are regulated. Nothing ever happens which is essentially 'new' per say—ultimately, all would be expressions of other more general and timeless ideas/phenomena going since the dawn of man. Jung's archetypes would be an example of this.

Actuality and potentiality - I'm not sure if these aren't rather dynamic, but I think static bodies functions are a better fit overall. It's interesting for me in that S is usually associated with "what is" and N with "what could be"; this reverses the situation, defining Ne as perceiving potential and Se as dealing with potential that is realized, making it probably more intuitive (conventionally) for intuitives (socionically).

Hmm. I do like the idea (the reversing situation one) and I like the words more or less. But I'd be worried about bad connotations getting wrapped around "actuality" and "potentiality." And it seems to imply that Se = most in touch with reality by default and/or that nobody can spot potential for something without Ne.

I don't really have any good terms for rational elements at this point, but I think analogies to physics make sense - more directly observable classical mechanics for T and electromagnetism for F - what we can only witness indirectly, like the analogy with magnetic fields that came up a while ago.

Yeah, seems like good avenues to utilize. I imagine there's many said processes which haven't been looked into, that could be decisively useful to this end.

[tcaudilllg]

This whole thread is just... no.

[tcaudilllg]

The Information aspect - Wikisocion article is far from complete, and other resources are scattered (like Notes on "The Semantics of the Information Elements" ), so let's put it together in this thread - post any sources, notes, ideas you'd like to share.

I translated Augusta's work on the subject, and its in this forum still.

[mfckr]

This whole thread is just... no.

So don't respond to it.

[tcaudilllg]

Ah... Ashton is back.

[Gilly]

Ah... Ashton is back.

Took you long enough.

[Aiss]

I could not have guessed because I never met him, so you could have told me.

Actually, I didn't either, but I thought it might be him before Starfall spilled the beans. (I might have had an unintended clue from anndelise in the form of a link to socionix forum, though. But I prefer to say it's .)

[The Exception]

Are you angry cause he spoiled your top-level secrecy?
---

I could not have guessed because I never met him, so you could have told me. I just heard talking here and there, and some rumours about a bogus "Ashtonian Socionics", if I remember correctly?

What is Ashtonian Socionics?

[ArchonAlarion]

Read the thread, and you'll know.

[mfckr]

What is Ashtonian Socionics?

The boogeyman.

[Mattie]

How about we not get hung up about reputations? I thought everything was going well, let everyone have their own theories to work on as we develop each other as community.

= Divergence
= Evolution
= Colligation
= Homeostasis
= Modularization (may be biased towards αNT)
= Induction
= Resonance/Valence
= Emergence

I like Emergence, I didn't realize the multiple places in academia the term has, I haven't heard of it in context yet. But it seems to really work. And I could go with Resonance now that you've given that explanation. I'll have to toss around these terms a little more because they seem a little more specific and give the correct connotation, but I have to actually apply it before it feels comfortable enough to use.

I'm not really like Divergence because it seems too related to Emergence, and I was hoping for rather independent terms, or if any seem like a pair, to pair them all, but then it seems too colored by their partner. As well, Colliagtion seems too verb-y, or at least, something that can be applied at a more inclusive category. I prefer my terms in respect to Evolution and Modularization because they don't seem specific enough, I think Evolution makes it more on the side of and Modularization doesn't give you any particular feeling or connotation if you're not completely familiar with all of its uses, and even then, seems removed.

[mfckr]

I just heard about it, never read something. I just remember this term "Ashtonian Socionics" and I connected it with "Ashton" when I heard the guys talking about along the time.

Something probably embarrassing enough to prefer to stay away from myself .

There isn't any such thing as "Ashtonian Socionics" and there never has been. It's a fairytale.