Introverted Ethics Fi Described As "Resonance"

[Mattie]

So I've been toying with some of the words in the old Information Aspects thread, because I have a (very skeptical) friend I talk to Socionics about, and she tends to pick apart how I explain the fundamentals such as IAs/IEs. Besides that we are different types, I want to eventually get to a place where I can clearly describe what IAs and IEs are without having to rely on completely abstract definitions that sound esoteric to those not familiar with Socionics, or any of Jung's work. So my main interest with words representing IAs is to easily communicate what process is about through a general "feeling," explaining a process in a manner that is both true to the IE but not so abstract that a person unfamiliar with Socionics would be able to understand. Predictably, I've been thinking the most about and , using the words of Permutation and Resonance (respectively) to communicate a general feeling, then describe a process that takes on these qualities that is more concrete. I'm still bouncing around , but I figured I'd talk about as Resonance.

I don't claim absolute originality with this, as it was more inspired by Ashton's list of words and descriptions of some, and maybe other people have mentioned. But the way they were described never felt truly whole, so I decided to take a whack at it. This idea requires the knowledge of what a theremin is, so here's a quick explanation for those who don't feel like reading up on it: A theremin is a musical instrument that doesn't need you to touch it to make sound, the proximity of your hands to it's antennae control the pitch and volume; so when you wave your hands around it at different distances, it makes different sounds depending on what kind of output is set. So, for an example, if you were to put your hand right up close to it, it might have a quiet high-pitched sound, but as your hand travels away, the pitch gets lower and louder. It might not be exactly near is high-pitched and loud, but the idea of your distance controls the sound is what is important, and that you can make a composition by fluctuating your distance.

With this in mind, let's say the information that is privy to views everyone like they are theremins. The 'sounds' that are made are feelings, and instead of high- and low-pitched 'sounds,' we'll use pleasant and unpleasant feelings. What manipulates the feelings are certain types of qualities and actions that are emitted from another person (or "object" in Socionics colloquialism, which includes ideas and such), and whether they are a pleasant or unpleasant 'distance' differs from person to person. This might seem like a rather dynamic and oscillating process for something usually seen as a static system of sorts, but it is the IA as opposed to IE; the IE will be aware of that process and use that information for its respective function placement. The idea of "Resonance" is important to this processes because of that hard to pin down feeling that one gets from music and sounds that is being talked about here, especially when you're listening to something instrumental and you have a feeling from it even though there isn't a direct explanation of what kind of feeling that music is trying to evoke.

So, now that I've babbled for so long, I can say that now I can clearly describe how works without ruining the integrity of what it actually is (or, at least, that's what I'm attempting to do). If this was to be applied, some ways is described on this forum wouldn't really apply, though you could see how they came about. It could also be used in a practical manner to explain actions that would come about because of placement without heavily relying on ideas that are prone to subjective interpretation. It is understood that using a theremin as an example is the product of a subjective understanding of , but the process of how a theremin works is not, and therefore has an equal potential to be understood by all people practicing Socionics rather than relying on sketchy terms such as 'morals' and 'rules,' which differ from person to person. If we were going to take this way of describing about an -creative person, we could say they are adjusting or observing actions and qualities that would make a pleasant 'sound,' but these 'sounds' are not so much directly observable (to show how this differs from , which looks for cues rather than placement) is but 'felt' to be harmonious or not. We can see how 'relationships' as a tag-line for arises because this shows how two people (or objects) affect each other, but isn't contained to just relationships between people, but also from a person to an idea; an idea would have to be within a certain 'distance' to be well received by someone who values , and that 'distance' can change when qualities are revealed or adjusted. It can also reveal the process clash of vs in a balanced manner, though I'd have to think more on after I'm satisfied with .

I have been thinking about this lately and wanted feedback so I can continue to stew a bit, not really intending to stick around. I moreso need to know what issues would come up when trying to explain this way, and if it is clear enough.

[anndelise]

We can see how 'relationships' as a tag-line for arises because this shows how two people (or objects) affect each other, but isn't contained to just relationships between people, but also from a person to an idea; an idea would have to be within a certain 'distance' to be well received by someone who values , and that 'distance' can change when qualities are revealed or adjusted.

Or you could skip the musical instrument analogy and talk about this. (Though I admit to liking the analogy, myself.)

But the basics is why we get analogies to magnetic force, orientation (as in orientation to/away from certain qualities), and such. As well as morals and ethics...which are ideals/rules based on how something affects a person/peoples.

If this friend of yours needs to experience what it might feel like to focus on Fi element, then use
* the musical instrument experience,
* two strong magnets with pole ends (--, ++, -+) and having her feel the force that pulls them together or pushes them apart (that cushion of force where the ends just won't meet without greater force pushing on them),
* and/or questions about how she feels towards different qualities of an item/person...or how do those qualities affect her and her own life/actions/beliefs/etc.

And if she says something like "well everyone is attracted/repelled by different things/qualities", you can respond with "yes, but not everyone focuses on those, nor use those to primarily make decisions with, nor use that to build up their understanding of the world, environment, situations, relationships, etc." In other words, not everyone uses that information as primary information to consider.

[Suz]

I personally liked expat's analogy of Fi/Fe, with the laser beams and fog.

[Mattie]

Or you could skip the musical instrument analogy and talk about this. (Though I admit to liking the analogy, myself.)

But the basics is why we get analogies to magnetic force, orientation (as in orientation to/away from certain qualities), and such. As well as morals and ethics...which are ideals/rules based on how something affects a person/peoples.

You're basically replacing the theremin with magnets, I'm guessing for simplicity's sake since everyone is aware how magnets work on a basic level. My goal was to have a term and example that generated a specific feeling; magnets as an example has the feeling of "attraction" and "repulsion," which isn't what I want to communicate, I don't see as a push and pull process, more like things feel in and out of sync, which makes Resonance and the theremin more appropriate. And it isn't finding an example for example's sake, rather explaining something with a balance of integrity and clarity; the example of a process, such as how a theremin or magnets work, is the clarity, but the 'feeling' (attraction/repulsion vs being in and out of sync) those examples tries to keep true to the abstract aspect of IAs that is hard to put into words, which I tried to explain in my post. I don't think your example is bad if you think it's the best for that feeling, but I prefer mine, it lends better to what I think the 'feeling' of is.

If this friend of yours needs to experience what it might feel like to focus on Fi element, then use
* the musical instrument experience,
* two strong magnets with pole ends (--, ++, -+) and having her feel the force that pulls them together or pushes them apart (that cushion of force where the ends just won't meet without greater force pushing on them),
* and/or questions about how she feels towards different qualities of an item/person...or how do those qualities affect her and her own life/actions/beliefs/etc.

And if she says something like "well everyone is attracted/repelled by different things/qualities", you can respond with "yes, but not everyone focuses on those, nor use those to primarily make decisions with, nor use that to build up their understanding of the world, environment, situations, relationships, etc." In other words, not everyone uses that information as primary information to consider.

I think it's less of a problem with my friend and more with Socionics, or, the understanding of Socionics as a whole. Being able to describe IAs/IEs without relying on self-referential information reflects a better understanding in both the speaker and listener; it's like using a word in it's own definition when explaining the word to another person, it means you don't fully know the definition since you can't figure out what it is on it's own, and therefore a person who doesn't have any idea about the word won't fully grasp the word. Which is why I wish there was more interest in clarifying the IAs (and in effect the IEs).

I personally liked expat's analogy of Fi/Fe, with the laser beams and fog.

I remember reading that a while back, I think it just rehashes what is already established... It gave a visual of vs in how it was static vs dynamic and object vs field, but it felt rather... mechanical and not like an organic process. It was more about the IE than IA, and what I'm talking about here is more the IA.

[anndelise]

I'm not trying to force the magnet example, but I did want to clarify that when holding the two magnets, one can feel the affect of distance between them. When holding the attraction at the right distance, with eyes closed, you can feel the draw between them, or if reversed then you can also feel the 'natural distance' effect.

Much like how you're using the instrument and how close the hand is to the instrument to alter the output of the instrument.

But also, when you add in other items that would be affected by the magnet, and you try to say, find a path for the magnet to travel, you could see how the different items affect or are affected by the magnetic force...which can also give a sense of in/out of syncness.



Some people may respond better to one kind of example or a couple of examples, but not to others. Which is why I like having a range of options when talking one-on-one with someone, as then I could pick and choose those that might make sense to the other person, to at least give them an idea of what's being referred to. So, as I said, I wasn't trying to push for any one example, and I think that instrument one is a good one to add to the repertoire.

[April]

This is a really helpful analogy for me. I agree that the theramin is a better example than magnets for the reasons you stated. Also, a magnet would suggest that distances or qualities (in the way that I'm talking about them) are fairly immutable. Though I understand that is static, this just isn't the case in reality. To take it back to Expat for a brief moment, the laser beam color can change (though not always easily).

In addition, what about how the theramin can take into account both volume (e.g., distance between the objects) and pitch (e.g., quality of the field)? would focus on both of these things, correct?

[Mattie]

I'm not trying to force the magnet example, but I did want to clarify that when holding the two magnets, one can feel the affect of distance between them. When holding the attraction at the right distance, with eyes closed, you can feel the draw between them, or if reversed then you can also feel the 'natural distance' effect.

It doesn't feel forced I understand how you connected the magnets to and my example, it doesn't sound far-fetched at all. But there's the overall feeling of attraction vs repulsion that comes with using that example that differs from the theremin one, and in my own deliberation I find that my example is closer to the idea of , but it's very possible it's just my idea of and most people think that the magnet might be closer, that's something I'm trying to field out here It mostly comes from a particular action that you can do with magnets that paints your example, when the theremin as a whole is representative, which would eliminate extraneous associations.

But also, when you add in other items that would be affected by the magnet, and you try to say, find a path for the magnet to travel, you could see how the different items affect or are affected by the magnetic force...which can also give a sense of in/out of syncness.

This furthers my point, I think that you're doing a good job showing how magnets would be a good example, but doesn't feel like a push/pull to me; and the 'sync-ness' that you describe isn't the focus, and I want it to be I want someone to get the feeling of vibration, oscillation, and relational distance. I think your magnet example might be better suited for specifically -creative, now that I think on it.

Some people may respond better to one kind of example or a couple of examples, but not to others. Which is why I like having a range of options when talking one-on-one with someone, as then I could pick and choose those that might make sense to the other person, to at least give them an idea of what's being referred to. So, as I said, I wasn't trying to push for any one example, and I think that instrument one is a good one to add to the repertoire.

You see, I'm trying to find THE example Similar in how you would explain something scientific. But of course, having a bunch of examples and knowing which would communicate the best is definitely a good thing. Something that I just realized is that I specifically wanted an example of "Resonance," because that's the word I've chosen to go with that describes , the IA, the best as a word. So this might need to be refocused to a "Do you agree that 'Resonance' can describe well, and does the theremin example fully support my reasoning of assigning 'Resonance,'" being that it is (hopefully) both a clear example that still holds true to the essence of the IA.

In addition, what about how the theramin can take into account both volume (e.g., distance between the objects) and pitch (e.g., quality of the field)? would focus on both of these things, correct?

I thought about going further into the 'antennae' of people, if they were theremins, but I figured it would be too specific of a detail for a general understanding. But it would be along what you're saying there; I'd say the volume would be how much it affects the person, as in how it influences their behavior away from the norm, and the pitch would be the quality, as in judging if it was a pleasant or unpleasant 'distance.' That could use a little more fine-tuning, but could make the example stronger

[anndelise]

This furthers my point, I think that you're doing a good job showing how magnets would be a good example, but doesn't feel like a push/pull to me; and the 'sync-ness' that you describe isn't the focus, and I want it to be I want someone to get the feeling of vibration, oscillation, and relational distance. I think your magnet example might be better suited for specifically -creative, now that I think on it.



You see, I'm trying to find THE example Similar in how you would explain something scientific. But of course, having a bunch of examples and knowing which would communicate the best is definitely a good thing. Something that I just realized is that I specifically wanted an example of "Resonance," because that's the word I've chosen to go with that describes , the IA, the best as a word. So this might need to be refocused to a "Do you agree that 'Resonance' can describe well, and does the theremin example fully support my reasoning of assigning 'Resonance,'" being that it is (hopefully) both a clear example that still holds true to the essence of the IA.



I thought about going further into the 'antennae' of people, if they were theremins, but I figured it would be too specific of a detail for a general understanding. But it would be along what you're saying there; I'd say the volume would be how much it affects the person, as in how it influences their behavior away from the norm, and the pitch would be the quality, as in judging if it was a pleasant or unpleasant 'distance.' That could use a little more fine-tuning, but could make the example stronger

Again, I'm not pushing.
I think the sense of misunderstanding comes from the idea of the push/pull of the magnet. I tend to interpret it more as tension/release, aka the pleasure principle. Some tensions are considered positive or pleasurable (think sex and just before final part of orgasm), but even then, the release of tension is what is generally considered pleasurable. Yet, not lack of tension, as it's tension that gets us moving and thinking and doing.

Ideas, people, objects, etc can create varying levels of tension within us, as well as can release some tensions we're holding.

And it's not even an all or nothing thing. One idea can cause some tension, yet at the same time release other tension. Where and how the tension is felt in the mind/body will vary between people as well as vary between ideas, objects, etc. This is what I view as leading the sense of 'in-syncness', vibration, and relational distance.

In terms of the magnet, instead of interpreting it as push/pull, interpret the "push" as the level of tension being caused. You can increase the tension, which feels like the increase of pressure when physically pushing the magnets together (remember the focus of the example isn't on the pushing, but on how that cushion between the magnets feels...the levels of tension that can be created/released). The further the magnet is held away, the less tension is felt, until the magnet reaches a point of relational distance that doesn't cause tension anymore, allowing each of the magnets/people to focus on other ideas, objects, etc. (aka release from tension)

When holding the opposing poles towards each other, there is also the tension of trying to hold them apart. Again, one can feel the level of tension being created depending on how far apart they are. At the point of connection, there is a release from tension, which causes pleasure as well as a sense of the two magnets now being in sync with each other.


If using, say, a stringed instrument like a harp as an example, one can apply various levels of tension on each string, which creates the harps' pitch. Setting those various tensions in motion can create harmony or disharmony, depending on which strings/tensions are being triggered at any given moment. Such that an idea can cause...say...a major 5th feel, a minor 7th feel, or even a tritone or vii chord feel (lots of tension). A person will seek out those ideas, chords, or harmonic intervals that either release tension of previous ideas/chords, or that feel good (resonate) to the person.

But that resonation, imo, still comes from varied tensions/release levels occurring at the same time, or within a close time distance.


However, we might also want to consider that Fe deals with similar as well. The difference primarily being that Fe ego looks for the level of arousal, the level of tension, the level of release, the level of pleasure.....while Fi looks for what's causing the various tensions and releases.

For F creatives, both the level of arousals and the triggers are considered.
Fe creative has the subconscious Fi triggers pushing their Pi into action.
Fi creative has the subconscious Fe arousal levels pushing their Pe into action.

For F base, however, there's the tendency to somewhat ignore the subconscious influences of one so as to focus primarily on the other more.


In the example of the theremin, one can use it to give an example of both Fe and Fi. The sounds the instrument makes would be an example of Fe. How the sounds are made, aka the relationship between the person's hand and the instrument and how that influences the sounds the instrument makes...would be an example of Fi. (note, actually, even this example would be more complicated when one takes into consideration the Ti/Te parts involved as well, depending on how "explicit" one wants to get )

[Creepy-female]

You're basically replacing the theremin with magnets, I'm guessing for simplicity's sake since everyone is aware how magnets work on a basic level. My goal was to have a term and example that generated a specific feeling; magnets as an example has the feeling of "attraction" and "repulsion," which isn't what I want to communicate, I don't see as a push and pull process, more like things feel in and out of sync, which makes Resonance and the theremin more appropriate. And it isn't finding an example for example's sake, rather explaining something with a balance of integrity and clarity; the example of a process, such as how a theremin or magnets work, is the clarity, but the 'feeling' (attraction/repulsion vs being in and out of sync) those examples tries to keep true to the abstract aspect of IAs that is hard to put into words, which I tried to explain in my post. I don't think your example is bad if you think it's the best for that feeling, but I prefer mine, it lends better to what I think the 'feeling' of is.

So um, did I understand this right, what you're describing with the theremin is the actual direction experience of the function, the IA, and how it's structured is the IE?

[Mattie]

Si is involved as well.

I would ascribe this experience, this general idea of "feeling music" in the manner that you describe, to the blocking of Si with Fe. Not to say that other people don't experience it, but it seems like a subjective assimilation of the general internal essence of the music being heard (internal object dynamics), derived from the direct integrated sensory experience of it (external involved dynamics).

What is in my example is the process of how a theremin works, substituting the theremin for an individual. I feel like people are getting stuck on certain specifics, like the fact that it's music, or the type of instrument, etc, my friend did as well. So my next step is to wonder what I'm not being clear about, or what can I change to create less attachment to the details and highlight the process. Ultimately, if you take away everything, what matters the most here is how a theremin works, and then relating its function to a person and how that works out in describing . This was inspired by assigning the word "Resonance" to , and I feel that if we could say "Resonance" to describe , then the theremin would do well. But if "Resonance" is the incorrect word, then this entire example is not applicable, because it was meant to get an objective process of how "Resonance" is . But the reason I went through the trouble of writing out such an example is because I really do think "Resonance" describes well, and chose this instrument because it would retain the feeling of "Resonance" while explaining an objective process; this is most useful for those outside of the Socionics/Jung community, because they aren't going to be like "Well, usually I think of music and sensations with Xx elements," therefore it is an effective example. This example isn't saying "Feeling music is under the realm of ," honestly something like that feels rather arbitrary to me, but either way it's not really relevant.

I suppose I can see the potential usefulness of cross-comparing elements using analogy, but it risks misinterpretation because of the disparity between the specifics and their application to the theory, and what is actually attempting to be conveyed.

It's not the elements but the aspects, and the aspects moreso 'exist' and aren't used, which is why you don't really have to worry about an application issue. This isn't describing as a whole, and I realize now I should have put the IA Described as "Resonance," but oh well. the IE would be something else, I'm not sure you really need an analogy for it.

But hey. Sorry for ruining your thread.

Nothing was ruined, I was just trying to see how this related to my OP because this is a thread focused on something rather specific, so if you had something to share, that's great. But if you're looking for something else, there might be another thread that is more appropriate and will help you out more than this one.

So um, did I understand this right, what you're describing with the theremin is the actual direction experience of the function, the IA, and how it's structured is the IE?

The theremin example is only the IA and not the IE. I tried to toy with how this would be applied as an IE later in the post, but I haven't really committed to that just yet. I would say it's how the IA is working as a natural process, and possibly how one experiences it as well. The IE has access to the information revealed by the IA and is filtered through whatever function it is placed in.

[Creepy-female]

The theremin example is only the IA and not the IE. I tried to toy with how this would be applied as an IE later in the post, but I haven't really committed to that just yet. I would say it's how the IA is working as a natural process, and possibly how one experiences it as well.

So the way I understand this part, IAs are direct perception, like our sense of touch, or smell, or hearing..is that correct? I'm sort of imagining someone as a human theremin? Like you have eyesight, and then you have pitches of feeling, high and low, loud and soft, as you move around and adjust your distance to them. So the nature of it is static, because it's you who is moving around within the perceptions.

The IE has access to the information revealed by the IA and is filtered through whatever function it is placed in.

Er what do you mean by that? Could you possible give an example?

[Galen]

We can see how 'relationships' as a tag-line for arises because this shows how two people (or objects) affect each other, but isn't contained to just relationships between people, but also from a person to an idea; an idea would have to be within a certain 'distance' to be well received by someone who values , and that 'distance' can change when qualities are revealed or adjusted.

Your whole post is pretty good, but this part stood out to me as the most interesting. I've been trying to consider on a level greater than simply "people," and I think this sums it up pretty satisfactorily. I know personally that some ideas I hold very close to myself, and others that are somewhat more psychologically distant yet still important.

[Mattie]

Your whole post is pretty good, but this part stood out to me as the most interesting. I've been trying to consider on a level greater than simply "people," and I think this sums it up pretty satisfactorily. I know personally that some ideas I hold very close to myself, and others that are somewhat more psychologically distant yet still important.

I first came about this in a thought experiment with said friend, to find out if Socionics required a person involved in order to exist, and she used two objects and asked me to explain how Socionics worked between the two objects. I realized that "objects" in Socionics was an interesting term, and wondered what constituted an "object." It's pretty similar with what is known when talking about IAs, I would say when dealing with "objects" in Socionics, it is anything that is a noun that doesn't require a particular person's perception in order to exist. So a person can be an object, because they will exist beyond a person's perception, and an idea, say spirituality, also does. A person can have their own individual idea of what spirituality is, but the concept of spirituality exists outside of them. Socionics doesn't apply to anything outside of human (that we know of), and therefore only people can access these qualities about objects. So when it comes to "fields," that exist between two or so "objects" (and to relate this to ), one of those objects HAS to be a person, because it's their perception of the field that makes the field exist in the first place. But the other "object" doesn't have to be another person as well, so applies to the Resonance (if I may) between a person and animal, piece of furniture, abstract concepts, and things that they can't directly interact with. A person's understanding of an idea or whatever can change over time and certain qualities will also change, making it resonate to make a more pleasant feeling.

[Galen]

Jung words blah blah blah

Everything you bolded is astonishingly descriptive of myself.

[Galen]

Really? Please say more, curious.

I guess what I identify with most specifically is the idea of an "internal vision" of sorts, one that doesn't necessarily exist in the world. To me that sort of my super basic, animalistic, even verging on "stupid" way of thinking (I say stupid because were I to explain such a vision to anybody else I'm sure it would come out really weird and cheesy). On a more physical level, sometimes I'll see some scene in the physical world, like a sky-scape or city-scape or any other kind of scape, and if it strikes me in a specific way it's almost as if that scene is a manifestation of the hyper-romanticized vision of the world I hold in my head. And those moments where my inner vision of how I want to the world to be meets the real-life manifestations of those visions is extremely, uh ... epiphanic? It's almost as if such moments justify my existence on Earth. I kinda talked about this with Dolphin and she seemed to like the idea too.

The part about seeking an "inner intensity" with objects being "accessory stimuli" also kinda reaffirms my ideas about , the idea that "the things I like about something doesn't explain why I like it". It's like looking at the characteristics about the thing don't give me any real impression about what the thing actually is. Like I could go on and describe a bunch of things about my best friends, but what I'm really focused on is the sort of inner core/drive/intensity/whatever that defines the person. In that sense it almost seems like by comparison, from my perspective, defines things by the seeming "accesory" characteristics they possess.

[plotter]

Okay let's see if I've got it right.

I'm going to go about this by comparing F/T. I want to keep it as minimal, and precise as possible.

_____TEXTURE____________FOCUS/PURPOSE____________Method
Te:__ Structure oriented____Reliability/Appliance__________Process (What's going on)
Fe:__Context oriented______Attitudes/Appliance_________ Process
Ti:__ Structure oriented_____Specification/Correction_____ Static (What is)
Fi:___Context oriented______Evaluation/Correction_______ Static

Thoughts and corrections would be appreciated.

EDIT: I first used "Subject oriented" instead of "Context oriented". Thought it was more fitting, but know I'm unsure again =P

[anndelise]

Okay let's see if I've got it right.

I'm going to go about this by comparing F/T. I want to keep it as minimal, and precise as possible.

_____TEXTURE____________FOCUS/PURPOSE____________Method
Te:__ Structure oriented____Reliability/Appliance__________Process (What's going on)
Fe:__Context oriented______Attitudes/Appliance_________ Process
Ti:__ Structure oriented_____Specification/Correction_____ Static (What is)
Fi:___Context oriented______Evaluation/Correction_______ Static

Thoughts and corrections would be appreciated.

EDIT: I first used "Subject oriented" instead of "Context oriented". Thought it was more fitting, but know I'm unsure again =P

Context and structure are actually pretty much the same thing...the relationship between things.
If you're going to do it this way, consider Xe=content and Xi=context.
When dealing with Te, it's the Pi that puts the Te into context..into it's system of interrelationships. (actually applies to Fe as well)

Such that say:
Te: content oriented....logical
Fi: context oriented....affective

Fe: content oriented....affective
Ti: context oriented....logical

[Gilly]

I guess what I identify with most specifically is the idea of an "internal vision" of sorts, one that doesn't necessarily exist in the world. To me that sort of my super basic, animalistic, even verging on "stupid" way of thinking (I say stupid because were I to explain such a vision to anybody else I'm sure it would come out really weird and cheesy). On a more physical level, sometimes I'll see some scene in the physical world, like a sky-scape or city-scape or any other kind of scape, and if it strikes me in a specific way it's almost as if that scene is a manifestation of the hyper-romanticized vision of the world I hold in my head. And those moments where my inner vision of how I want to the world to be meets the real-life manifestations of those visions is extremely, uh ... epiphanic? It's almost as if such moments justify my existence on Earth. I kinda talked about this with Dolphin and she seemed to like the idea too.

The part about seeking an "inner intensity" with objects being "accessory stimuli" also kinda reaffirms my ideas about , the idea that "the things I like about something doesn't explain why I like it". It's like looking at the characteristics about the thing don't give me any real impression about what the thing actually is. Like I could go on and describe a bunch of things about my best friends, but what I'm really focused on is the sort of inner core/drive/intensity/whatever that defines the person. In that sense it almost seems like by comparison, from my perspective, defines things by the seeming "accesory" characteristics they possess.

This isn't related to Fi; this is being Enneagram sx variant.

[Mattie]

Uh, okay lol First of all, this is something I want to do for all of the IAs... Meaning I'm not elevating one thing over the other, and I find it curious that anyone would take that I'm promoting over . I'm the first person who will tell another that no IA/IE is better than the next, and I think my posts back that up... I chose because it is the one I feel most comfortable talking about, and the bulk of the thread was trying to find another way of looking at IAs, just happened to be the one I started with. My goal is to remove the stereotypes that have been planted on here by finding processes that a objective in function, so I honestly don't see what there's to be up in arms about in my post.

I do agree with the general opinion in this thread, which is that Fi is viewed in a subjective manner; thus, the evolution of the perspective of Fi has become quite specific. That is, the only path Fi is credited for is:

People ---> Bonds --> Relationships --> Morals and Ethics

Which really is one of many, not necessarily so linear and even incomplete.

Right, I would like to dismantle this for all the IEs, and being NeFi, I've run into this being describe to me, about me. being something like "morals" can't work because of it's specificity, and also because what constitutes as "morals" is up to subjective interpretation. I think if we were all to look back at IAs, start from the source and then work our way to the practical implementation, we would have something that realistically applies to people while retaining the essence of the IA. I think my OP does that and I hope to do it for other IAs.

If I were to pick one word for Fi, and excuse the lack of mystic appeal, it would be "Anthropocentric Interaction". This is because it is the interaction between an individual (that needn't be the self) and an individual (that may be the self), an idea, an animal, an attire, or any other objects, that Fi is most attuned to and how they are able to know that dimension of a person. What Fi is also aware of is that a reaction, though caused by an object, is not necessarily correlated to it but, nevertheless, there is a homogeneity in the meaning behind that reaction.

What a person does with this information is a subjective matter.

I'm open to correction and revision.

You'd have to provide more information, the term on it's own doesn't really provide much nor gives a feel so much to hint at what is about. What dimension of a person are you talking about? As well, is more aware about the "field" than the "object," and this seems "object" focused; the reason why Resonance works is because it describes what is going on in the 'space' between two "objects", it doesn't really encompass information about the "object". is the flip side to this, it focuses on information from the "object" (How lowbrow, right? ). I generally just need more information on your term, from my anthropology knowledge, that term seems strange to me.

Okay let's see if I've got it right.

I'm going to go about this by comparing F/T. I want to keep it as minimal, and precise as possible.

_____TEXTURE____________FOCUS/PURPOSE____________Method
Te:__ Structure oriented____Reliability/Appliance__________Process (What's going on)
Fe:__Context oriented______Attitudes/Appliance_________ Process
Ti:__ Structure oriented_____Specification/Correction_____ Static (What is)
Fi:___Context oriented______Evaluation/Correction_______ Static

Thoughts and corrections would be appreciated.

EDIT: I first used "Subject oriented" instead of "Context oriented". Thought it was more fitting, but know I'm unsure again =P

I'm not sure where this comes from, but the chase-phrases your're using for "Purpose" are subjective in nature and can be interpreted differently from person to person. Your idea of what Reliability is can be different from mine, and seeing that we're trying to keep a somewhat scientific methodology (and failing for the most part), you're going to want to remove what can be subjectively interpreted enough to influence your results. It's understandable to use dichotomies at first when something seems abstract and you can't understand it without something referential like those, but don't become reliant on them. Other than that, I don't know how this relates to my thread.

Again, I'm not pushing.
I think the sense of misunderstanding comes from the idea of the push/pull of the magnet. I tend to interpret it more as tension/release, aka the pleasure principle. Some tensions are considered positive or pleasurable (think sex and just before final part of orgasm), but even then, the release of tension is what is generally considered pleasurable. Yet, not lack of tension, as it's tension that gets us moving and thinking and doing.

Ideas, people, objects, etc can create varying levels of tension within us, as well as can release some tensions we're holding.

And it's not even an all or nothing thing. One idea can cause some tension, yet at the same time release other tension. Where and how the tension is felt in the mind/body will vary between people as well as vary between ideas, objects, etc. This is what I view as leading the sense of 'in-syncness', vibration, and relational distance.

Oh interesting, I didn't associate the push/pull with tension/release I see where you are coming from now. I'd say come up with a singular word to encompass your example, and it'd put things into a more practical model for me, as my point was to go from something abstract to a specific process to retain (as much that is possible) objectivity, and I guess you just skipped to the example The theremin does make it a bit complicated, but I think because my friend and I both saw a theremin at an art exhibit in Chicago, I was able to easily communicate my example and I didn't see it as difficult.

If using, say, a stringed instrument like a harp as an example, one can apply various levels of tension on each string, which creates the harps' pitch. Setting those various tensions in motion can create harmony or disharmony, depending on which strings/tensions are being triggered at any given moment. Such that an idea can cause...say...a major 5th feel, a minor 7th feel, or even a tritone or vii chord feel (lots of tension). A person will seek out those ideas, chords, or harmonic intervals that either release tension of previous ideas/chords, or that feel good (resonate) to the person.

Funny, my friend at first tried to replace the theremin with a piano for similar reasons that you have here, but it's that internal oscillation I want to communicate, like that feeling inside your body when you are near really loud music, or emotionally overwhelmed by music, rather than the actual sound of Resonance, I want the feeling of Resonance.

However, we might also want to consider that Fe deals with similar as well. The difference primarily being that Fe ego looks for the level of arousal, the level of tension, the level of release, the level of pleasure.....while Fi looks for what's causing the various tensions and releases.

Hmm, I have to see how this meshes with what I understand about . I see as Induction for now, how it inducts from external cues to understand the internal state and therefore I can see what you're saying here, but I'd have to get back to you on the rest.

[Galen]

This isn't related to Fi; this is being Enneagram sx variant.

Feels like a combination of both to me. I'm sure the Sx stacking accentuates these feelings a lot, but I'd have to ask other sx stacking non-Fi valuing people to know if it's both in tangent.

[Gilly]

I am so ripping this thread a new asshole as soon as I get some sleep.

[Gilly]

*moan* But I just got off work and my brain is all furry.

[Gilly]

Go figure. Else you wouldn't be disagreeing with this thread.

Actually I agree with the general concept. But I still need to tear it open with a rant about stereotypes of Fi and Fe and a thorough dissection of both of the elements from a purely IM standpoint, leading into the specifics of the functions and how they operate when blocked with their complimentary functions...which my brain can't do right now. I am not capable of after 11 pm unless I've had something to drink, and nobody is in the chat so I am probably going to just pass out.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Whatever.

The general theme I'm sensing in this thread, is that Fi types are jacking themselves off for generally being more uhh 'effectual' than Fe types, that Fe is somehow too frothy and airy. Because who wouldn't want to resonate? Who doesn't want to get into everybody's consciousness and completely rape their brain cells about all they are.

And maybe they're right. In that case, it makes Fe-types that much more pleasant to be around. Less emotional vampire like. More concerned with their own emotional sphere than sucking everything out from others. To me, Fi feels invasive like that. Please mind your own business.

I guess maybe I'm not being fair. I jack myself off for having no tempo and being a powerful one-note chord, so I guess you guys can jack yourselves off for resonating.

[The Greeter]

Don't take this so personally (to those who are). Fi has such a one-dimensional reputation in this forum, and it's not surprising because it's usually Ti-valuers describing it.

We can see how 'relationships' as a tag-line for arises because this shows how two people (or objects) affect each other, but isn't contained to just relationships between people, but also from a person to an idea; an idea would have to be within a certain 'distance' to be well received by someone who values , and that 'distance' can change when qualities are revealed or adjusted. It can also reveal the process clash of vs in a balanced manner, though I'd have to think more on after I'm satisfied with .

I said something of this sort in the "Fi and Attraction" thread:

To simply put it: one way I am able to identify a person's attraction and repulsion to an object is by detecting the flux in their behaviour. That is, how a person's general behaviour changes, even slightly, when interacting with the object of interest. Assessments like "good" and "bad" hardly come into play in this level of analysis; it actually enters the framework when the person and relationship are parametrized. When this has been identified, values, resources and effort are adjusted and used to either sustain, develop or disintegrate the relationship.

"Fi" as "Resonance"

If we were to pick an all encompassing word that attempts to describe Fi, I am not sure I would agree with "Resonance". Even from your [Mattie's] analogy, it can be seen that Fi is more than just "resonance" in terms of information aspects (IAs). I only say this because it includes many different phases in which resonance is only one of its state.

I do agree with the general opinion in this thread, which is that Fi is viewed in a subjective manner; thus, the evolution of the perspective of Fi has become quite specific. That is, the only path Fi is credited for is:

People ---> Bonds --> Relationships --> Morals and Ethics

Which really is one of many, not necessarily so linear and even incomplete.

If I were to pick one word for Fi, and excuse the lack of mystic appeal, it would be "Anthropocentric Interaction". This is because it is the interaction between an individual (that needn't be the self) and an individual (that may be the self), an idea, an animal, an attire, or any other objects, that Fi is most attuned to and how they are able to know that dimension of a person. What Fi is also aware of is that a reaction, though caused by an object, is not necessarily correlated to it but, nevertheless, there is a homogeneity in the meaning behind that reaction.

What a person does with this information is a subjective matter.

I'm open to correction and revision.

[Gilly]

sigh

[Airman]

LOL

I think that as Bullets said, Betas see Fi as 'vampire-like'.

They think any kind of emotional connection to anyone which is real is 'vampirizing'...

[Airman]

Betas "need to feel free to be themselves"... = ******s who need private lives to indulge in homosexual orgies

[Galen]

Betas "need to feel free to be themselves"... = ******s who need private lives to indulge in homosexual orgies

I'm sure they'd drag that gay-orgy part of them into their public image too.

[Gilly]

Betas "need to feel free to be themselves"... = ******s who need private lives to indulge in homosexual orgies

Deltas "don't need to feel free to be themselves" = people without a sense of self who have been drained of their own emotions and capacity for internal experience.

[krieger]

Resonance sounds more like something Dynamic, so I'd sooner associate it with Fe. Fi is something more stable, lasting and invariant to circumstance.

[silverchris9]

Ergh. Thinking this way makes my head hurt. I'm pretty sure it makes sense though, and at the least it's real socionics, which happens comparatively rarely around here. I'm not sure that I buy this idea that the "Information Aspect" can be dynamic while the "Information Element" is static, but I can totally buy a dynamic representation of a static process. And I've been tending to view static/dynamic less as a permanent thing and more as a direction that the IA/IE/whatever wants to go. That is, Fi presumably wants to make things more static, so, using your analogy, once Fi gets "close" to something, be it a person or an idea or an inanimate object, and that closeness produces the positive emotional "frequency," Fi wants (and of course the verb wants is anthropomorphizing, but we're using analogies in this thread, right?) to keep it as constant and certain as possible. Now, this is Fi totally abstracted, because in actual delta NFs, there's Ne to balance things with a dynamic alternative, which is sort of an elegant system: one function to hold relationships constant, another to prepare one for all the changes possible.

So then, in the realm of ideas, do you find that Fi would judge an idea based upon the "resonance" it makes with the individual? More of an intuitive process, it seems, as resonance isn't determined by a series of tests or anything like that, but more by "spending time with an idea," "tossing it around in your head" and the like. To use the metaphor, you try it at varying positions relative to the thurmim to see what sort of "pitch" you get. Whereas Ti would judge the idea based on the resonance it makes not with the individual, but with a series of axiomatic "truths". To use the idea from the information aspects thread, these axiomatic truths can be seen as a sort of schematic to which all information is compared, sort of like civil engineering. If you think of an idea as a building, the Ti internal schematic is like the list of things that every building must have, or the chart showing what every building must have based on size, function, etc. But then there are some things that every building has to have period. Also, I'd imagine the Fi thurmim is something like the most basic Ti schematic, insofar as it holds the absolute core "things" of the Fi valuer, which I'm sure can't be necessarily quantified or broken down into specific types of information or types of stuff or anything, but it seems like the thurmim would be like the most basic "stuff" of the Fi-valuer, and that's what the information in question resonates with or fails to resonate with, much like there are core principles/requirements/standards in the Ti-schematic that ideas or actions or people or whatever meet or fail to meet.

Also, of course Fi "changes" insofar as one's orientation towards anything changes. Fi just likes to change less, whereas Fe's ideal is a constant state of change, like a Dickens novel where you feel happy, then sad, then overjoyed, the melancholy, then angry, etc. (Not that Fi-valuers don't love Dickens too.)

[anndelise]

Ergh. Thinking this way makes my head hurt. I'm pretty sure it makes sense though, and at the least it's real socionics, which happens comparatively rarely around here. I'm not sure that I buy this idea that the "Information Aspect" can be dynamic while the "Information Element" is static, but I can totally buy a dynamic representation of a static process. And I've been tending to view static/dynamic less as a permanent thing and more as a direction that the IA/IE/whatever wants to go. That is, Fi presumably wants to make things more static, so, using your analogy, once Fi gets "close" to something, be it a person or an idea or an inanimate object, and that closeness produces the positive emotional "frequency," Fi wants (and of course the verb wants is anthropomorphizing, but we're using analogies in this thread, right?) to keep it as constant and certain as possible. Now, this is Fi totally abstracted, because in actual delta NFs, there's Ne to balance things with a dynamic alternative, which is sort of an elegant system: one function to hold relationships constant, another to prepare one for all the changes possible.

So then, in the realm of ideas, do you find that Fi would judge an idea based upon the "resonance" it makes with the individual? More of an intuitive process, it seems, as resonance isn't determined by a series of tests or anything like that, but more by "spending time with an idea," "tossing it around in your head" and the like. To use the metaphor, you try it at varying positions relative to the thurmim to see what sort of "pitch" you get. Whereas Ti would judge the idea based on the resonance it makes not with the individual, but with a series of axiomatic "truths". To use the idea from the information aspects thread, these axiomatic truths can be seen as a sort of schematic to which all information is compared, sort of like civil engineering. If you think of an idea as a building, the Ti internal schematic is like the list of things that every building must have, or the chart showing what every building must have based on size, function, etc. But then there are some things that every building has to have period. Also, I'd imagine the Fi thurmim is something like the most basic Ti schematic, insofar as it holds the absolute core "things" of the Fi valuer, which I'm sure can't be necessarily quantified or broken down into specific types of information or types of stuff or anything, but it seems like the thurmim would be like the most basic "stuff" of the Fi-valuer, and that's what the information in question resonates with or fails to resonate with, much like there are core principles/requirements/standards in the Ti-schematic that ideas or actions or people or whatever meet or fail to meet.

Also, of course Fi "changes" insofar as one's orientation towards anything changes. Fi just likes to change less, whereas Fe's ideal is a constant state of change, like a Dickens novel where you feel happy, then sad, then overjoyed, the melancholy, then angry, etc. (Not that Fi-valuers don't love Dickens too.)

My response probably won't mean much, but I'll try.

a) it's not so much a desire to hold something constant...as it is paying attention to that which is relatively constant. The whole "the more things change, the more they remain the same" kind of thing

b) "So then, in the realm of ideas, do you find that Fi would judge an idea based upon the "resonance" it makes with the individual? More of an intuitive process, it seems, as resonance isn't determined by a series of tests or anything like that, but more by "spending time with an idea," "tossing it around in your head" and the like. "

Yes, yet slightly different. For Delta NF, they are using their Ne to toss ideas around in their head. But unlike Ti who judges how well two or more ideas fit by their logical consistency (see that..consistency...static fields), The Fi instead judges how well two or more ideas fit based on the affects they are having on the person tossing the ideas around. (eg "What's 'true' or good for you may not be 'true' or good for others.")

For Beta NFs, they toss the ideas around with their Ni, and pay attention to how things interact together. There's more of an abstract view of how they all fit together. Like looking at it, but from a 2nd or 3rd person pov. But for Delta NFs, there is more of an involvement view of how it fits together. They have to see it and feel it for themselves, if they want to make sense of it. One could say that we feel it in our core. Even if it's not logically consistent, it IS or isn't consistent with the person.

So yes to "trying it at varying positions relative to the thurmim to see what sort of "pitch" you get".

And yes to "but it seems like the thurmim would be like the most basic "stuff" of the Fi-valuer, and that's what the information in question resonates with or fails to resonate with," ....well, though one could see the thurmim as the idea and how well it resonates with the core of the Fi valuer....but then my understanding of the wordings (of both of us on this) may be off, heh.

[Mattie]

So the way I understand this part, IAs are direct perception, like our sense of touch, or smell, or hearing..is that correct? I'm sort of imagining someone as a human theremin? Like you have eyesight, and then you have pitches of feeling, high and low, loud and soft, as you move around and adjust your distance to them. So the nature of it is static, because it's you who is moving around within the perceptions.

At least for what I'm trying to convey, yes, I think you have the right idea But it's passive and not something you actively use... So, I'd say IAs are like natural phenomena that happen, like gravity. We don't necessary see gravity, and not all that it influences directly, but we can see it's effects and know it exists. The IAs are naturally happening processes that aren't controlled, the manipulation comes in for the IEs.

Er what do you mean by that? Could you possible give an example?

The IEs take the information gained from the IA and funnel it through a function. So really, the IE doesn't really stand on it's own, it's only really -creative, -suggestive, etc. The forum tends to use IA, IE, and function synonymously, which is strange as they are very distinct and separate parts of this whole process. -creative is taking the observations that can be gained from the IA and implementing it in a creative (the function) manner. I unfortunately don't have a good analogy thought up for it right now, but I don't mind trying to further bring clarity if this wasn't a satisfying enough answer.

The emphasis in my description is actually on interactions rather than the objects, which is why there is always at least two objects involved in my rhetoric.

Also, like I said before, "Resonance" only describes one aspect of what Fi entails. What we're trying to do in this thread, I think, is abstract Fi -- a luxury that a number of the functions have attained. Why I add "anthropocentric" before "interaction" is because, fundamentally, all introverted functions deal with interactions between the entities it chooses to focus on, but the specialization of this with regards to all things "humane" is Fi.

Wouldn't adding that "regards to all things 'humane'" be too specific? I actually think "Resonance" covers the IA very well, but you might be wanting to cover the IE as well in some manner, which it doesn't do. You'd have to further break down (or maybe clearly list) what you think are the 'parts' of what the IA is. I also don't think 'field' and 'interaction' are interchangeable either... I think the Xi IAs are more relational, maybe more effectual; it's less of the objects being present and more what it is that exists between them. It's possible I'm missing your point, I don't feel like I have a clear idea of what you're saying

Both Ti and Fi are social functions, but one of the major differences between these two functions is, Ti is devoid of the any "emotional" context and Fi is always taking this into account. Why Ti is considered "social" is because of its ability to organize the data provided by its supporting perception in a framework that can be understood by human beings.

Hmm, none this really settles well with me to be frank. I feel like these are relying on catch-qualities rather than what they are. Firstly, I don't think any of the IAs are inherently "social," or at least, more or less social than the other. Also, I don't think emotion and logic are factors in and either; when I said feelings in my example, I wasn't necessarily meaning emotions, more sensations. An emotion is a psychological state of being, and that's not really what I was trying to communicate, more the feeling along the lines of being affected by something.

There are many layers and perspectives to an individual. The dimension I speak of, that is related to Fi, is how the human and the object interacts. Inter-and intraspecific relations is but one aspect of an individual, and that which Fi understands best.

Again, this sounds more like of what I'm trying to avoid. is less about being aware of certain things in people and more about an abstract sensation based on certain parameters that creates a relational web between objects.

Yeah. Idk, but it just creates a sense of smugness that I don't like. I don't even like myself when I act that way. I'm more charmed by people who can properly make fun of themselves. It really makes me lighten up and relax. It's not even one person being smug, it's just the general aura of the thread.

All I can say is that it was never my intention to be smug nor convince anyone of anything. My main focus was to help create further clarity to my ideas:

I have been thinking about this lately and wanted feedback so I can continue to stew a bit, not really intending to stick around. I moreso need to know what issues would come up when trying to explain this way, and if it is clear enough.

I don't understand. Why did it become about Fi jacking off to itself? Or smugness? She's putting a lot of effort into detailing an aspect of the theory that she wants to discuss, and I thought it's led to a lot of detailed, well thought out responses, and they don't seem particularly offensive..perhaps they are wrong, but who cares? If they are wrong then their wrongness speaks for itself. You can think that and still not attack their motives. I don't think the point of the thread wasn't to "charm" you in the first place. And I don't see how anyone would desire or feel obliged to communicate in a manner more conducive to your wishes when your first response to an emotionally neutral query/discussion is to attack the motives of the atmosphere or the people involved. wtf?

You said it for me, thanks

I suppose I can see the validity of the analogy, if we are assuming that it's a consistent sense of this resonance rather than an active one, which would be more related to a dynamic function.

I meant it to be a continual, non-situational process. Any ideas to make that more clear would be appreciated.

Resonance sounds more like something Dynamic, so I'd sooner associate it with Fe. Fi is something more stable, lasting and invariant to circumstance.

I think you're getting caught up in the word dynamic as it isn't related to Socionics, and then Dynamic, the term in Socionics. This sounds dynamic as an adjective, and that's because all IAs are dynamic and static in different perspectives, when you take those words out of Socionics context. If wasn't dynamic, then you'd be feeling the same "Resonance" that you were when you were first able to consciously "feel" it. Or, outside of this, it means that the information in cannot change at all, which in practice we all know isn't true.

I'm not sure that I buy this idea that the "Information Aspect" can be dynamic while the "Information Element" is static, but I can totally buy a dynamic representation of a static process. And I've been tending to view static/dynamic less as a permanent thing and more as a direction that the IA/IE/whatever wants to go. That is, Fi presumably wants to make things more static, so, using your analogy, once Fi gets "close" to something, be it a person or an idea or an inanimate object, and that closeness produces the positive emotional "frequency," Fi wants (and of course the verb wants is anthropomorphizing, but we're using analogies in this thread, right?) to keep it as constant and certain as possible. Now, this is Fi totally abstracted, because in actual delta NFs, there's Ne to balance things with a dynamic alternative, which is sort of an elegant system: one function to hold relationships constant, another to prepare one for all the changes possible.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're describing, but as I stated above, this is a confusion with dynamic and static as words outside of Socionics, and Dynamic and Static as Socionics terms. is ONLY Static (in Socionics) but can be both dynamic and static (in general English definitions). What you are talking about here is more about the IE (and it seems like -creative actually) and not the IA, which is what I'm describing. I would definitely love to jump into explaining the dual processes of and and how they interact (presumably as Permutation and Resonance, but if I'm convinced otherwise they could change), but I'd like to first clearly explain them so I feel confident that I actually know what I'm talking about and can back up my observations.

So then, in the realm of ideas, do you find that Fi would judge an idea based upon the "resonance" it makes with the individual? More of an intuitive process, it seems, as resonance isn't determined by a series of tests or anything like that, but more by "spending time with an idea," "tossing it around in your head" and the like. To use the metaphor, you try it at varying positions relative to the thurmim to see what sort of "pitch" you get.

the IE, maybe, but not the IA, the IA is just a natural process that happens and the IE takes the information from the IA and channels it through the function placement. But yes, I think we're on the same page

Whereas Ti would judge the idea based on the resonance it makes not with the individual, but with a series of axiomatic "truths". To use the idea from the information aspects thread, these axiomatic truths can be seen as a sort of schematic to which all information is compared, sort of like civil engineering. If you think of an idea as a building, the Ti internal schematic is like the list of things that every building must have, or the chart showing what every building must have based on size, function, etc. But then there are some things that every building has to have period.

Yes, I completely agree, though I'm not sure if gets that resonant feeling, more like what you cited, it seems to be a more schematic process (I'm trying to figure out how to verb that word...). I thought of as a building plan as well, makes me feel a little more confident about this

Also, I'd imagine the Fi thurmim is something like the most basic Ti schematic, insofar as it holds the absolute core "things" of the Fi valuer, which I'm sure can't be necessarily quantified or broken down into specific types of information or types of stuff or anything, but it seems like the thurmim would be like the most basic "stuff" of the Fi-valuer, and that's what the information in question resonates with or fails to resonate with, much like there are core principles/requirements/standards in the Ti-schematic that ideas or actions or people or whatever meet or fail to meet.

Right, as far as I can tell this aligns well with what I'm thinking.

She's trying to point at something, as clearly as she can. Either we can try to grasp what she's trying to point at, and then assist her to become more clear, or we can sit here and nitpick for the next...how many years? ....or even try to shut her efforts down completely, particularly when it doesn't 'resonate' with our own ideas/beliefs.

Thank you, this reflects what I'm thinking. I'm just honestly trying to make a sound and clear example that is accessible to everyone. Appreciate it

[Creepy-female]

At least for what I'm trying to convey, yes, I think you have the right idea But it's passive and not something you actively use... So, I'd say IAs are like natural phenomena that happen, like gravity. We don't necessary see gravity, and not all that it influences directly, but we can see it's effects and know it exists. The IAs are naturally happening processes that aren't controlled, the manipulation comes in for the IEs.

Yeah I think that works. Cause it seems like there is a filtering process that takes place even from the beginning..I think.

The IEs take the information gained from the IA and funnel it through a function. So really, the IE doesn't really stand on it's own, it's only really -creative, -suggestive, etc. The forum tends to use IA, IE, and function synonymously, which is strange as they are very distinct and separate parts of this whole process. -creative is taking the observations that can be gained from the IA and implementing it in a creative (the function) manner. I unfortunately don't have a good analogy thought up for it right now, but I don't mind trying to further bring clarity if this wasn't a satisfying enough answer.

No that's clear. I think I've never actually understood the difference before. It might be helpful if there was like a glossary or some thread clarifying this stuff, for example:

Information Elements (IEs): blah blah blah blah

Information Aspects (IAs): blah blah blah blah blah

But maybe you already made one and I missed it.

On a side note, do you think that Accepting/Producing changes with subtype?

I think you're getting caught up in the word dynamic as it isn't related to Socionics, and then Dynamic, the term in Socionics. This sounds dynamic as an adjective, and that's because all IAs are dynamic and static in different perspectives, when you take those words out of Socionics context. If wasn't dynamic, then you'd be feeling the same "Resonance" that you were when you were first able to consciously "feel" it. Or, outside of this, it means that the information in cannot change at all, which in practice we all know isn't true.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're describing, but as I stated above, this is a confusion with dynamic and static as words outside of Socionics, and Dynamic and Static as Socionics terms. is ONLY Static (in Socionics) but can be both dynamic and static (in general English definitions). What you are talking about here is more about the IE (and it seems like -creative actually) and not the IA, which is what I'm describing. I would definitely love to jump into explaining the dual processes of and and how they interact (presumably as Permutation and Resonance, but if I'm convinced otherwise they could change), but I'd like to first clearly explain them so I feel confident that I actually know what I'm talking about and can back up my observations.

I think this explanation is neat.

[Mattie]

It might be helpful if there was like a glossary or some thread clarifying this stuff, for example:

Information Elements (IEs): blah blah blah blah

Information Aspects (IAs): blah blah blah blah blah

But maybe you already made one and I missed it.

I haven't personally made anything like this, and one would be extremely helpful, especially if it could be stickied and linked to. A lot of what's being talked about here isn't common enough knowledge, which is why we can see the same names in this thread as there are in threads of similar caliber. Notice that I put this topic in Delta, and there isn't a strong Delta weight; all the usual Delta posters aren't in here. I think this illustrates how a lot of people are bewildered from not having clear, almost dictionary-style reference for what we're talking about here. I would say someone who can go through Gilly and Ann's thread (I'd volunteer Ashton ) and pick out what terms are important to know and would be good to have a quick-reference guide so a larger audience could join in. I personally don't mind this organic way of teaching each other, but I definitely understand the practicality of having a list of terms.

On a side note, do you think that Accepting/Producing changes with subtype?

I'm a bad person to ask, mainly because I don't practice subtypes. Ashton and Ann are all about both the Accepting/Producing dichotomy and subtypes, and I'm sure others are too but they seem to yap about it the most

[The Greeter]

Mattie, sorry for the delayed response. I hope I'm not too late.

A
Wouldn't adding that "regards to all things 'humane'" be too specific? I actually think "Resonance" covers the IA very well, but you might be wanting to cover the IE as well in some manner, which it doesn't do. You'd have to further break down (or maybe clearly list) what you think are the 'parts' of what the IA is. I also don't think 'field' and 'interaction' are interchangeable either... I think the Xi IAs are more relational, maybe more effectual; it's less of the objects being present and more what it is that exists between them. It's possible I'm missing your point, I don't feel like I have a clear idea of what you're saying


....

Again, this sounds more like of what I'm trying to avoid. is less about being aware of certain things in people and more about an abstract sensation based on certain parameters that creates a relational web between objects.

Well, I'm starting to see the differences in our views in Socionics but I'll begin with what is actually similar.

To start with, everything you have written here, regarding the behaviour of introverted functions, I agree with.

Interactions and fields are not interchangeable, you are correct again, but the former is a (read: one) component of the latter; the sum of all interactions create the field, and the properties of the interactions give the holistic result a flavour. Of course, I acknowledge that the sum may not necessarily equate to the whole, but that is, or should be, already be known as a flaw in this theory.

Secondly, it is difficult to speak of fields, without indirectly speaking about the objects that contribute to the field. Even in your initial description, you had to implicitly define two objects, the theremin itself and the person who manipulates it. Despite this, I know that it is not these two objects that are your focus, but what happens between them. Because I am not speaking in metaphors, which in many ways does not demand precise language, but, rather, directly speaking about Fi, objects were unintentionally overemphasized.

Regarding my explanations over the what Fi understands about people, I realized that I went off topic by mentioning this, though I still maintain its validity. But the topic is about Fi itself, and not a consequence of it.

Hmm, none this really settles well with me to be frank. I feel like these are relying on catch-qualities rather than what they are. Firstly, I don't think any of the IAs are inherently "social," or at least, more or less social than the other. Also, I don't think emotion and logic are factors in and either; when I said feelings in my example, I wasn't necessarily meaning emotions, more sensations. An emotion is a psychological state of being, and that's not really what I was trying to communicate, more the feeling along the lines of being affected by something.

I used "emotional" for a lack of a better word, hence the quotation. I agree with the bolded sentence.

In my opinion though, logic does factor into both Fi and Ti, but they are both based on variants of it.

To be honest, your response (the none-bolded, directly above) completely missed what I was trying to convery.

Discussion of the social nature of the judging functions are best saved for another topic. But I will assert that perceiving functions focus on what the world is, and judging functions focus on giving human relevance.

The reason I considered Fi "humane" is because when it creates a relational web, there is always a human tangent with it, but it is not necessarily as "cold" as Ti when it creates one of its own. The problem is that your limits in the way you describe functions suffer from imprecision. Consequently, I feel, there are a lot of overlap of concepts. But this is not necessarily a bad thing, because Socionics as a whole has this problem, so the fact that this discussion pushes it, has a lot of benefit to our understanding.

[Mattie]

I realized that I didn't give any reasoning to why I chose "Resonance," I just assumed people would just accept it and the example would prove itself on its own. I'm thinking that not opening with what I liked about "Resonance" might have made it more difficult to communicate what I wanted to, especially with the focus on music that happened here, I was thinking of a more multi-faceted definition of "Resonance" and was probably only communicating one. So here's the dictionary's definitions for the word, maybe they will lend more to the OP if we take all the definitions into account:

1. the condition or quality of being resonant [1]
2. sound produced by a body vibrating in sympathy[2] with a neighbouring source of sound
3. the condition of a body or system when it is subjected to a periodic disturbance of the same frequency as the natural frequency of the body or system. At this frequency the system displays an enhanced oscillation or vibration
4. amplification of speech sounds by sympathetic[2] vibration in the bone structure of the head and chest, resounding in the cavities of the nose, mouth, and pharynx
5. electronics the condition of an electrical circuit when the frequency is such that the capacitive and inductive reactances are equal in magnitude. In a series circuit there is then maximum alternating current whilst in a parallel circuit there is minimum alternating current
6. med the sound heard when percussing a hollow bodily structure, esp the chest or abdomen. Change in the quality of the sound often indicates an underlying disease or disorder
7. chem the phenomenon in which the electronic structure of a molecule can be represented by two or more hypothetical structures involving single, double, and triple chemical bonds. The true structure is considered to be an average of these theoretical structures
8. physics
a. the condition of a system in which there is a sharp maximum probability for the absorption of electromagnetic radiation or capture of particles
b. a type of elementary particle of extremely short lifetime. Resonances are regarded as excited states of more stable particles
c. a highly transient atomic state formed during a collision process

[1] Resonant meaning resounding, echoing.
[2] Sympathy meaning harmonizing in this case.


I think my example focuses more on the first 3 definitions, but I think I overall created the example with all these definitions in mind. Note definitions 6 and 8, which you can apply to my example without the idea of music but of sensation, which is more of what I was aiming at.

Also, I'm going to be doing next instead, as it has more relevance to my life and therefore I've been focusing on it more with my NeTi friend. So after that will be . Right now I'm having a little difficulty with the exact word I want for ... It might be Schema instead of Schematic, as the versatility of the former word would suit my purposes better. The idea of an Axiomatic Schema fits what I think about , but I will be deliberating and bouncing ideas off of my friend. I'll try to introduce my thread with a definition next time if that seems better, since it will give everyone a point of reference.