Information Aspects

[Gilly]

This is my attempt to clarify the nature of the terms used in information aspect analysis.



Internal/External
The existential nature of perceived information - contrived vs. extant

Internal elements focus on information that arises purely as a result of experiential analysis. Intuition and Ethics do not analyze the concrete aspects of what is perceived, but rather the interpretive nature of whatever information they are exposed to.

External elements examine information that arises as a direct result of existence, or its direct applicabilities or relations. Sensing and Logic focus on the immediate nature and properties of entities, and how they are relevant to other extant entities.



Abstract/Involved
The method of distillation of information - formulation vs. experience

Abstract functions distill information by way of detached mental process: organizing matter into a functioning whole. Intuition and Logic both make cognitive deductions and take steps away from what is directly perceived in order to make sense of it.

Involved functions distill information directly, and take it at its experiential face value. Sensing and Ethics do not question their perceptions, but rather experience them directly; their information does not require any analysis beyond the immediate perceptions through which they are received and the comparisons that can be made between them.



Object/Field
The method of apprehension of information - discreet vs holistic

Object functions take information from outside the self and use or compare it in reference to other information obtained from outside the self. All extroverted functions require input, and take their input at face value, considering the information they receive to be discrete and existing in its own right, without considering its relevance to the self, but only, rather, how it matches up with other perceived information.

Field functions are subjective in the sense that they interpret the relation of all information to the self; they gauge the relevance of all perceived information to the self, using subjective reactions to interpret connections in the forms of patterns and consistency. All input these functions receive is translated within the pre-established parameters of the self, and assimilated or judged based on how it interacts with a prior internal state or conception.


Static/Dynamic
The perceived relation of information to time - fixed vs. mutating

Static functions analyze properties or relations that are perceived to be unchanging, fixed in time. They do not consider whether or not these things may change, but merely that it is true at the moment it is perceived in relation to.

Dynamic functions analyze properties and relations that are perceived to be in motion. They analyze change and development, and do not consider things discretely or in relation to a particular moment in time, but rather consider the mutating and contiguous aspects of that which is perceived.

[tcaudilllg]

I don't have a problem with this.

[Gilly]

My next step will be to break down each function by pair combinations of these defining terms. I think that could do a lot of good for operational clarification, and help people see what really differentiates the functions, where the lines are drawn between them, so to speak. I'm sick of watching people wade through seas of generalities and buzz words; the human brain operates along very specific parameters, just like any computer, and if those parameters remain unrefined in the minds of the users, well, people will never know what they can really do with this model.

[Gilly]

Man, I don't even know why I try. Two threads in the last week that are pure gold, and you people turn your noses up like you even have this shit down already. This shit was new for me, so I KNOW most of you could use it.

[Suz]

THANK you for doing this Gilly!! This clarified a lot of my confusion of these terms, i appreciate it.

[Gilly]

...that's it? It's all crystal clear, just like that?

I'm so confused.

[Cyrano]

Man, I don't even know why I try. Two threads in the last week that are pure gold, and you people turn your noses up like you even have this shit down already. This shit was new for me, so I KNOW most of you could use it.

I could use some examples. It's all a little over my head.

[Gilly]

Is there one in particular you're having trouble with, so I know what to get at?

[Creepy-male]

Man, I don't even know why I try. Two threads in the last week that are pure gold, and you people turn your noses up like you even have this shit down already. This shit was new for me, so I KNOW most of you could use it.

Ok I'll take the cue....

*claps*, Gilly thank you, you are like a modern day Prometheus, stealing fire from the gods and giving it to us mere mortals, we are forever in debted by both your intellect on this subject, and by the professional yet classy manner with which you present such findings to the general public. Your a pillar of the socionics community and without further discussion I'd like to personally wish you many years ahead of abundant prosperity. *makes a toast*

(seriously though, I'll look this over later, it could be useful)

[tcaudilllg]

Gilly, why not let's get together and maybe you, me, Ashton and whomever else can prepare a paper to submit to the socionics institute journal? The worst we can do, is get rejected... right?

[Gilly]

Ok I'll take the cue....

*claps*, Gilly thank you, you are like a modern day Prometheus, stealing fire from the gods and giving it to us mere mortals, we are forever in debted by both your intellect on this subject, and by the professional yet classy manner with which you present such findings to the general public. Your a pillar of the socionics community and without further discussion I'd like to personally wish you many years ahead of abundant prosperity. *makes a toast*

(seriously though, I'll look this over later, it could be useful)

Get fucked.

[stanprollyright]

My next step will be to break down each function by pair combinations of these defining terms. I think that could do a lot of good for operational clarification, and help people see what really differentiates the functions, where the lines are drawn between them, so to speak. I'm sick of watching people wade through seas of generalities and buzz words; the human brain operates along very specific parameters, just like any computer, and if those parameters remain unrefined in the minds of the users, well, people will never know what they can really do with this model.

I am anxiously awaiting this ^

(I didn't want to spam this thread because if it gets long and convoluted with peoples' shit then you have to dig for the actual information)

[anndelise]

And just so you don't think I'm pulling random stuff out of my ass:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...html#post98840
(have to type in the link that's under the image to get to the original russian page)

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tml#post239264

As I mentioned in the drawing thread, I just finally figured out the P, J thing (after what...3-4 years?? argh!!!)
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/660170-post29.html

[Gilly]

anndelise: I am responding to this, and I am excited because I feel like this conversation has the potential to be very progressive and productive for this forum's understanding, as well as my own, but I ran out of Ti half way through and am going to have to finish my response in about 30 minutes but I wanted you to know I am working on it, and I think this is going to be good.

[Gilly]

bump for all those out there who still don't know IM theory

jxrtes will never sticky this because he is too proud, but it is important for beginners to know how the IMs work.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Rick provides a clearer and more comprehensive alternative explanation of these in my view:
The Socionist: information aspects
Socionics :: Information Elements

[Creepy-male]

Socionics :: Information Elements

"They feel when a particular activity or sensation has become tiresome and initiate a new one that strokes different pleasure receptors."

LMFAO

[tcaudilllg]

Rick provides a clearer and more comprehensive alternative explanation of these in my view:
The Socionist: information aspects
Socionics :: Information Elements

I wish you would leave.

*ignores*

[717495]

Great job, gilly. I have a difficult time getting into this stuff because there's so much writing on it, lit up with example after example, and when you get a lot of writing, you get x amount of questions and contradictions. Yours was simple and effective, and doesn't look at all contradictory to the types. Like you said, its simple because its clearly categorized with opposite actions/frameworks, and it hits the concept of the information elements themselves, not all the concrete examples, terms, and stereotypes, that seem like more of a Ti/Te or external approach to this.

Jung's type descriptions are also said to be useful here, once you get past all the examples and into the essence of them.

[Gilly]

Rick provides a clearer and more comprehensive alternative explanation of these in my view:
The Socionist: information aspects
Socionics :: Information Elements

lol @ those being more "comprehensive" when I am the only person to outline what the actual ASPECTS are in plain English, instead of just throwing out the terms like their meaning is obvious and piling a bunch of stereotypes on top of them.

Great job, gilly. I have a difficult time getting into this stuff because there's so much writing on it, lit up with example after example, and when you get a lot of writing, you get x amount of questions and contradictions. Yours was simple and effective, and doesn't look at all contradictory to the types. Like you said, its simple because its clearly categorized with opposite actions/frameworks, and it hits the concept of the information elements themselves, not all the concrete examples, terms, and stereotypes, that seem like more of a Ti/Te or external approach to this.

Thanks Everything is simple when it's in binary, and really Socionics was already in binary, only nobody ever bothered to explicate what the fuck was going on and just assumed their way was right.


As far as Jung goes, he's a bit convoluted, and uses a lot of vague speech and over-generalizations, but if you can get past that, and look at the kind of person and methods of thinking he was talking about, they can be useful; granted, you have to have both a decent subset of people to compare to and quite a bit of self-knowledge in terms of interpreting your own thought processes within that framework in order to see what fits where, what is relevant or not, etc, and they are only useful up to a certain point because there is no real rigid definition for what he is talking about. But if you look past the particulars, then yeah, Jung can be useful.

[Not A Communist Shill]

lol @ those being more "comprehensive" when I am the only person to outline what the actual ASPECTS are in plain English, instead of just throwing out the terms like their meaning is obvious and piling a bunch of stereotypes on top of them.

well I disagree - I think you unnecessarily described them in more complicated language, while essentially saying the same (maybe) as what is already there. But Rick in those two links is clear and decribes the elements to the fullest extent, while also describing the IMs in parallel terms at the same time.

[Gilly]

No, he describes how they manifest, without explaining what they mean. Nice for claiming to know something and superficial practice, ineffectual for actually understanding and applying the theory, as is demonstrated by your failure to recognize the actual usefulness of this thread for practicing socionics.

[Gilly]

Some fine tuning/clarification given to the Object/Field dichotomy.

[anndelise]

Some fine tuning/clarification given to the Object/Field dichotomy.

Except that the discreet/holistic aspects relate to J/P, not Xe/Xi.
If you don't believe me, look at the links I had posted earlier in this thread.

Perception elements are holisitic elements, aka continuous, integrity/integral, analogous. It takes many 'points', closely spaced/timed to build up the perception. If they were further apart as in digital, large chunks of 'perception' would be missing.

Judging elements are discreet elements, aka divisible, digital.

Dynamic = 'holistic fields' + 'discrete objects'
Static = 'discrete fields' + 'holistic objects'

[strrrng]

bending the terms 'holistic' and 'discrete' don't change the basic definitions. object/field has the most direct correlation to discrete and holistic; I don't see how this can be disputed. Se as "continuous, integral and holistic"? right. isolating concrete variables that remain fixed over time accords perfectly with that.

I do agree that there's a more integral quality to the nature of P functions, but that's basically because they operate experientially, i.e. information comes in raw form and doesn't require additional structure to be relevant.

understanding how the functions operate isn't achieved with a top-down approach; the different combinations of dichotomies are what expose the nuances.

[anndelise]

bending the terms 'holistic' and 'discrete' don't change the basic definitions. object/field has the most direct correlation to discrete and holistic; I don't see how this can be disputed. Se as "continuous, integral and holistic"? right. isolating concrete variables that remain fixed over time accords perfectly with that.

I do agree that there's a more integral quality to the nature of P functions, but that's basically because they operate experientially, i.e. information comes in raw form and doesn't require additional structure to be relevant.

understanding how the functions operate isn't achieved with a top-down approach; the different combinations of dichotomies are what expose the nuances.

The continuous/integral/holistic part of an object IS its essence.
The relatively stable/consistent qualities that an object has constitutes its essence.
Which is why Ne and Se are both described in various russian socionics material as dealing with the essences and qualities of objects/ideas.

So yes, for Se:
relatively stable/consistent qualities = static qualities
qualities of an object that belong to that object, and nothing else, and of which if the qualities weren't there, would be a completely different object = holistic properties

[strrrng]

The continuous/integral/holistic part of an object IS its essence

objects can have essential qualities; that doesn't make them holistic in nature. something isolated cannot be holistic.

holistic: Emphasizing the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts.

this attitude becomes relevant when field functions synthesize and structure information gleaned about objects.

So yes, for Se:
relatively stable/consistent qualities = static qualities
qualities of an object that belong to that object, and nothing else, and of which if the qualities weren't there, would be a completely different object = holistic properties

I would see these qualities as more integral than holistic.

[Gilly]

Except that the discreet/holistic aspects relate to J/P, not Xe/Xi.
If you don't believe me, look at the links I had posted earlier in this thread.

Perception elements are holisitic elements, aka continuous, integrity/integral, analogous. It takes many 'points', closely spaced/timed to build up the perception. If they were further apart as in digital, large chunks of 'perception' would be missing.

Judging elements are discreet elements, aka divisible, digital.

Dynamic = 'holistic fields' + 'discrete objects'
Static = 'discrete fields' + 'holistic objects'

I have a different meaning for "discreet" and "holistic" than you, perhaps. My intention in this case is to convey the sense that Introverted functions process the data of interconnections and relativity from a subjective standpoint: feelings of congruence, alignment, cohesion, etc. It's a "right brain" function, so to speak, whereas object functions observe information as discrete chunks, individual entities, that are processed more "consciously."

Actually I sort of split the integral dichotomies into left/right brain tendencies; I think it helps clarify things to some extent:

Object (left) vs Field (right)
Static (left) vs Dynamic (right)
External (left) vs Internal (right)
Abstract (left) vs Involved (right)

One idea I have that sort of helps make sense of things for me is that Internal/External and Static/Dynamic are about the nature of perceived information, and Object/Field and Abstract/Involved referring to the mechanism of perception.

Seriously, if you disagree with the whole Field as "subjective" perception thing, you should read Augusta's descriptions of the functions (wish I had them right now, if anyone knows where to find these they would be much appreciated); her Ti description, especially, makes it painfully obvious, as one would think of it as a purely analytical function, when in fact it relies largely on "feelings" of symmetry and congruence. Rick has read Augusta's actual writing, and purports the most basic, mainstream approaches, and he generally supports this conception of introversion as well.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Gilly]

Yeah tbh that's the one I'm not really sure about.

[Gilly]

Except that the discreet/holistic aspects relate to J/P, not Xe/Xi.
If you don't believe me, look at the links I had posted earlier in this thread.

Perception elements are holisitic elements, aka continuous, integrity/integral, analogous. It takes many 'points', closely spaced/timed to build up the perception. If they were further apart as in digital, large chunks of 'perception' would be missing.

Judging elements are discreet elements, aka divisible, digital.

Dynamic = 'holistic fields' + 'discrete objects'
Static = 'discrete fields' + 'holistic objects'

I do still agree with you, though, about J/P representing divisible/indivisible, respectively, but it is a largely emergent dichotomy, IMO. I have been meaning to do more work on this end, in terms of doing descriptions/classifications for the pairs of element properties...I will try to get to this soon.