Defining IM Elements: Contextualization and Impact/Flux

[limNol]

This is part of something I've been working on aiming to clarify the IM elements. Let me know what you think! Also, keep in mind the definitions of the IM elements as internal statics of fields, external dynamics of bodies, etc. while you're reading this.

Contextualization

Socionics is a theory of the transformation of perceptual experience into conceptual understanding. It describes the way we organize the constant stream of isolated bits of data we perceive into the webs of information that form our conceptual understanding of the world. Organizing pieces of data into structures of information means placing everything into a context.

Different socionic types don't perceive different aspects of reality; rather, they orient the same perceptions in different contexts. Therefore, two types are able to draw radically different meanings from the same sequence of events – it may even appear that they are perceiving altogether different aspects of a situation because different kinds of data are more readily integrated into specific contexts, so different types assign varying levels of importance to the same events.

IM elements are a putting into context of data, and different IM elements are merely a preference for different contextual structures.

Impact and Flux

IM elements can be divided into Fi, Ti, Ne, Se on the one hand, and Fe, Te, Ni, and Si on the other – the former are 'static' and the latter 'dynamic.' These two classes of IM elements understand the transitions and transformations of reality from different perspectives: static functions in terms of impact, and dynamic functions in terms of flux.

Static IM elements conceptualize transition in terms of discrete, sudden, and instantaneous changes. Think of a rock being thrown through a window: static types understand this situation in terms of impact: the instantaneous transition from an unbroken window to a broken window. Statics model change as a juxtaposition of states with decreased emphasis on time.

Dynamic IM elements, on the other hand, understand change as part of a broader reality that is in constant flux. In terms of the previous example, dynamic functions would conceptualize the shattering of the window as a moment in the trajectory of the rock. The change the window undergoes is not a juxtaposition of two distinct states – rather, it is an element of a system that is in flux before the rock actually impacts the window. Dynamics model change as a multiplicity of forces that form a trajectory.

Contextual Impact and Flux

These two concepts – contextualization and impact/flux – outline a method of understanding the IM elements that supplements and clarifies traditional definitions.

Se places objects in context by modeling their ability to impact surrounding objects (objects can be either physical or abstract).

Ne places objects in context by modeling how they can be impacted in different ways (ie. How different impacts can transform their internal structure).

Ne is sometimes falsely reduced to 'potential,' but the truth is that both Se and Ne perceive different types of potential. For Se, the context of an object is its potential to transform other objects, and for Ne, the context of an object is its potential to be transformed. It could also be said that Se sees things as 'subjects' and Ne sees them as 'objects.'

Ti places objects in context by modeling the channels through which they can impact other objects (Se) or be impacted (Ne).

Fi places channels in context by modeling the way they can impact the objects they connect (Se), or be impacted by the objects they connect (Ne).

To put this another way, Ti models relationships between objects, and Fi models the connection between those relationships and the objects they relate.

Ti and Fi are blocked with either Se or Ne, so they always model channels of impact. To put this another way, Ti and Fi create context by building a map of possible routes through which objects can potentially transform other objects (Se) or be transformed themselves (Ne). The difference is that Ti focuses on these routes themselves whereas Fi focuses on the relationship between these objects and the routes that connect them.

Te places objects in context by modeling the flux of their effects on other objects.

Fe places objects in context by modeling the flux of their reactions to other objects.

The Te/Fe dichotomy is similar to Se/Ne in that the former places things in context as subjects, the latter as objects. In this sense, Te is simply the dynamic counterpart to Se and Fe is a dynamic “Ne.”

Si places objects in context by modeling the channels through which the flux of an object's effects on other objects (Te) or the flux of an object's reaction to other objects flows.

Ni places channels in context by modeling the flux of their effects on the objects they connect (Te) or the flux of their reactions to the objects they connect (Fe).

The Si/Ni dichotomy is closely related to its static counterpart, Ti/Fi. The essential difference is not in the definition of Si/Ni vs. Ti/Fi as isolated functions, but the functions they are blocked with. Si and Ni are blocked with dynamic functions, so while both Si/Ni and Ti/Fi model channels of interaction between objects, Si/Ni model the channels of constant flux between objects whereas Ti/Fi model channels of impact between objects.

To be continued...

[EyeSeeCold]

Clarification by complication? That's a new one.

Basically what you are doing is re-interpreting them, not capturing the essence of IM elements and aspects. I don't see how this explains things any more adequately than bodies and fields.

[limNol]

My goal was to clarify them by putting them in a different perspective. What would you consider 'the essence' of IM elements/aspects?

[tcaudilllg]

My goal was to clarify them by putting them in a different perspective. What would you consider 'the essence' of IM elements/aspects?

Why not read the history of the subject (on this forum)? So much has been said already...

[ashlesha]

jeez. i don't think it ever hurts to reframe things or to put forth your thoughts on an established subject for the sake of clarity or thinking about things. i thought it was interesting, especially the paragraph contrasting Ne and Se. it might not be groundbreaking, but it's cool.

thanks limNol.

[tcaudilllg]

jeez. i don't think it ever hurts to reframe things or to put forth your thoughts on an established subject for the sake of clarity or thinking about things. i thought it was interesting, especially the paragraph contrasting Ne and Se. it might not be groundbreaking, but it's cool.

thanks limNol.

But it didn't add anything new. "OMG here's a reformer-biased view of the functions OMG!" We've heard so many pseudo-intellectuals over the years come in and assert the functions mean this or that, when in reality they are just ontological processors which cover wide ranges of phenomena. Gulenko, Boukalov, Augusta et al have spoken at length about them... we have a lot of information.

Socionics is a theory of the transformation of perceptual experience into conceptual understanding. It describes the way we organize the constant stream of isolated bits of data we perceive into the webs of information that form our conceptual understanding of the world. Organizing pieces of data into structures of information means placing everything into a context.

Different socionic types don't perceive different aspects of reality; rather, they orient the same perceptions in different contexts. Therefore, two types are able to draw radically different meanings from the same sequence of events – it may even appear that they are perceiving altogether different aspects of a situation because different kinds of data are more readily integrated into specific contexts, so different types assign varying levels of importance to the same events.

IM elements are a putting into context of data, and different IM elements are merely a preference for different contextual structures.

I've wrote at length about ALL of that..., as the alternative theories and other personality typologies forums attest.

He just ripped all the years of thought I've had about the structure of the information elements. Hell, DATA? Give me a break, you ripped that from my EM type theory. Straight out.

What he said, Augusta never said. I'm the only one to have ever said it that I know of. And I did that through an exhaustive process over several years. Not going to be written off by some well-spoken upstart with a stick up his ass.

He's not even a social progressive. He couldn't POSSIBLY come up with all that by himself. But that whole spiel after it isn't even right, which shows right out he's bullshitting.

[limNol]

i don't think it ever hurts to reframe things or to put forth your thoughts on an established subject for the sake of clarity or thinking about things. i thought it was interesting, especially the paragraph contrasting Ne and Se. it might not be groundbreaking, but it's cool.

Thanks. That's what I was aiming for with this -- not reinventing socionics, just throwing out my perspective on things.

I've wrote at length about ALL of that..., as the alternative theories and other personality typologies forums attest.

He just ripped all the years of thought I've had about the structure of the information elements. Hell, DATA? Give me a break, you ripped that from my EM type theory. Straight out.

What he said, Augusta never said. I'm the only one to have ever said it that I know of. And I did that through an exhaustive process over several years. Not going to be written off by some well-spoken upstart with a stick up his ass.

He's not even a social progressive. He couldn't POSSIBLY come up with all that by himself. But that whole spiel after it isn't even right, which shows right out he's bullshitting.

I hate to break it to you, but I've never even fucking heard of you, your theory, or your articles. If the rambling quality of your posts is any indication of your writing in general, I don't think I could read your articles if I tried. In fact, the only thing that's clear to me from your post is that you're not as smart, original, or important as you think you are.

But I think you know I didn't steal your ideas. Maybe I'm giving you too much credit, but I don't think you're that delusional and self-absorbed. Seems to me you just can't come to terms with the fact that it took you an "exhaustive process" consisting of "several years" of "thought" to arrive at a conclusion that is fairly straightforward. It must be shocking to realize that using the word "data" doesn't make you special.

However, I'm glad you think I'm well-spoken.

[EyeSeeCold]

I didn't mean my words so harshly, lol, if they were perceived that way.

I'm just saying you're providing a new perspective, but one that's only helpful to you because only you have the background to understand your own work. Which makes it masturbatory and not progressive.

[limNol]

Haha, don't worry EyeSeeCold, I gotcha. I was genuinely curious what you meant when you talk about the 'essence' of the IM aspects/elements. Because to me, the more superficial qualities of the IM aspects/elements flow from the characteristics I highlighted above, although as you pointed out, that probably makes more sense in my head than on paper at this point.

[Aiss]

I like how you explained it with examples here. I tried to convey more or less the same idea recently in a more conceptual form (Pe/Pi and Je/Ji thread), but it's been criticized as too abstract, so I hope you get more success.

I just don't get why people seemingly agree it's the *how* that is socionics dependent, not the *what*, yet stubbornly insist to define IEs in term of the latter (health, future, emotions etc.). This perspective is potentially extremely useful as it overlooks behavioural impact and highlights information processing itself, so I'd say it's worth a try, at least.

And tcaud - you're probably well aware by now that comprehensible writing isn't your forte. I can safely say none of your texts that I read ever gave me an indication you meant what you quoted from the OP. But in comparison, that snippet is clear and easy to understand. Call it "userfriendly" if it helps you get my meaning.

[717495]

Clarification by complication? That's a new one.

I somehow doubt this was meant to clarify anything. More like make Socionics sound a lot more vague and useless. Though I'm biased, I don't value , as it seems to want to reframe and reframe things as many times as it can so you end up with all these categorical essences, which really serve no purpose to me.

I apologize to anyone if I've so happened to stumble into the wrong neighborhood. Just giving my opinion of the text.

[tcaudilllg]

Thanks. That's what I was aiming for with this -- not reinventing socionics, just throwing out my perspective on things.


I hate to break it to you, but I've never even fucking heard of you, your theory, or your articles. If the rambling quality of your posts is any indication of your writing in general, I don't think I could read your articles if I tried. In fact, the only thing that's clear to me from your post is that you're not as smart, original, or important as you think you are.

But I think you know I didn't steal your ideas. Maybe I'm giving you too much credit, but I don't think you're that delusional and self-absorbed. Seems to me you just can't come to terms with the fact that it took you an "exhaustive process" consisting of "several years" of "thought" to arrive at a conclusion that is fairly straightforward. It must be shocking to realize that using the word "data" doesn't make you special.

However, I'm glad you think I'm well-spoken.

I don't believe you for a second. It wasn't straight-forward to the other people on this forum, now was it?

[tcaudilllg]

I like how you explained it with examples here. I tried to convey more or less the same idea recently in a more conceptual form (Pe/Pi and Je/Ji thread), but it's been criticized as too abstract, so I hope you get more success.

I just don't get why people seemingly agree it's the *how* that is socionics dependent, not the *what*, yet stubbornly insist to define IEs in term of the latter (health, future, emotions etc.). This perspective is potentially extremely useful as it overlooks behavioural impact and highlights information processing itself, so I'd say it's worth a try, at least.

And tcaud - you're probably well aware by now that comprehensible writing isn't your forte. I can safely say none of your texts that I read ever gave me an indication you meant what you quoted from the OP. But in comparison, that snippet is clear and easy to understand. Call it "userfriendly" if it helps you get my meaning.

Your sentiments are observed and duly ignored. Not like an ILI would ever really understand a theory.

Bottom line: it is unethical to disregard existing arguments about a subject, to the extent that they are coherent, and start over just because you "want to". That's not how science works.

In any case, yeah this guy comes off as another Rick figure, but more assertive and probably, even more arrogant.

What he's basically doing in the beginning of this post, is attempting to rediscover the energy/data metabolizing type. What he's describing is dual-type theory.

But by god I discovered the context relationship years ago, back in 2007.

[tcaudilllg]

I somehow doubt this was meant to clarify anything. More like make Socionics sound a lot more vague and useless. Though I'm biased, I don't value , as it seems to want to reframe and reframe things as many times as it can so you end up with all these categorical essences, which really serve no purpose to me.

I apologize to anyone if I've so happened to stumble into the wrong neighborhood. Just giving my opinion of the text.

That's not the way my Ti works polikujm. What you are describing is aggressive Ti, which seeks to compete against other Ti systems by exploiting factors unrelated to the actual integrity of those systems. And it's basically what limNol just did.

That well-spoken bit was not intended as a compliment. I've already framed your personality, lim. I know exactly what to expect. That the communitarians are rallying behind you comes as no surprise, 'cause it's pretty obvious you are one. Only a (conservative) communitarian would do that, particularly one who desired enormous amounts of attention.

Anyway, I've got work to do so that I can finish my degree, so that I can take due credit for all the thought I've put into understanding, refining, and developing socionics. I've no time to waste with dishonest egotists.

[golden]

This thread is a meltdown in progress.

[717495]

We're all confused right? Just that types are unconsciously confused inside their confusion, and types are repelled by the confusion and go for more efficient methods. Another thing to add to your fun little list, you're welcome.

[ashlesha]

We're all confused right? Just that types are unconsciously confused inside their confusion

this is confusing

[717495]

[tcaudilllg]

We're all confused right? Just that types are unconsciously confused inside their confusion, and types are repelled by the confusion and go for more efficient methods. Another thing to add to your fun little list, you're welcome.

You really don't want to piss us off.

[Aiss]

Just that types are unconsciously confused inside their confusion, and types are repelled by the confusion and go for more efficient methods.

See, that's where your Ti/Te arguments get shady. Just because you don't see anything but confusion in something doesn't mean others can't efficiently use it.

[717495]

See, that's where your Ti/Te arguments get shady. Just because you don't see anything but confusion in something doesn't mean others can't efficiently use it.

That's too general to say, but I can see where its hard to draw the line. However just in this example I don't see any real reasonable efficiency, unless the goal is to continue theorizing how something works and later hope to develop something new. I might be wrong, I don't know, but my experience tells me that this material is difficult to implement, and if it is implemented, which I've seen it done, it looses a lot of objectivity, quality, specific factual evidence, etc. That's what needs to be clarified about the nature of , is that the material it works with is directly relatable to facts and events, to summarize: objects. Contextualization, impact, flux etc, these things specify fields. and are clearly two different learning methods, and you can use somewhat of the other to complement the ego.

You'll often find an INTp, for instance, trying to describe a theoretical process or insight by using simply an unrelated example to encompass the point, instead of pinpointing the internal process itself using its denoted words. It's the form INTp poetry takes I think, just as INFp metaphor is not as fact oriented () and more flowing () and sometimes in a predesignated systemization () which is not so relatable to facts and events, and either can often be confusing to understand or know what is being referred to, because, in the instance of poetry, one encaptures a big picture thought, where half of the picture is going to be explained vaguely and under the surface. Obviously its not always the case that an INTp uses facts, because dominants, but language seen here is certainly avoided, where as ENTjs surely fit this bill. I think one has to compensate for Model A and the way it specifies a few levels for each IM.

[limNol]

I like how you explained it with examples here. I tried to convey more or less the same idea recently in a more conceptual form (Pe/Pi and Je/Ji thread), but it's been criticized as too abstract, so I hope you get more success.

Thanks. I'll check out that thread.

I just don't get why people seemingly agree it's the *how* that is socionics dependent, not the *what*, yet stubbornly insist to define IEs in term of the latter (health, future, emotions etc.). This perspective is potentially extremely useful as it overlooks behavioural impact and highlights information processing itself, so I'd say it's worth a try, at least.

I think there's a lot of room for development and clarification in terms of reconciling the apparent contradiction between 'abstract' definitions of IM elements and 'popular' definitions. IMO the key to this lies in exploring the developmental aspect of socionics.

For instance, a lot of people associate Se with the personality trait 'willpower,' which raises the question -- how d'you get from a more abstract definition like the one I gave above to this concrete characteristic of Se? It's not that having Se endows an individual with increased willpower, but development for Se egos is contingent upon developing a certain tenacity – this is because individuals of this type see life in terms of discrete impacts that can be made upon situations, so affirming their worldview and implementing it in reality implies following through on these conceptualized models of impact.

Or how d'you go from something like 'internal dynamics of objects' to emotions? It's not that being Fe ego instantly makes someone more attuned to people's emotions -- it's just that people are the 'objects' with the most dynamic internal structure, so a Fe ego gravitates towards dealing with people and over time develops skills that allow him/her to perceive and manipulate emotional states with ease. But, as you point out, that's not a definition of a particular IM element -- it's a result.

I don't believe you for a second.

Of course not, because that would mean admitting to yourself that you're not as innovative as you think you are. Now that you're starting to realize that your theories aren't so special, all you've got left is your delusional self-image, and the only way for you to maintain a self-image that has no basis in reality is by attacking me and taking out your frustrations by making false accusations. But eventually you'll realize that you're just a guy on an internet forum who thinks way to much of himelf, and that very few people actually care about you or your theory, and then you'll have to grow the fuck up.

It wasn't straight-forward to the other people on this forum, now was it?

I couldn't tell you, since I joined less than a month ago.

But I can tell you that long before your groundbreaking "discovery" in 2007, Augusta wrote that introverted IM elements defined "how an object fits into the context of other objects." So this leaves two possibilities:

1) You stole Augusta's discovery and passed it off as your own.
2) The idea that IM elements define context isn't an innovation at all, it's just something that flows obviously from an understanding of socionics.

Which one is it?

I've already framed your personality, lim. I know exactly what to expect. That the communitarians are rallying behind you comes as no surprise, 'cause it's pretty obvious you are one. Only a (conservative) communitarian would do that, particularly one who desired enormous amounts of attention.

I think this is supposed to be an insult, but I'm not really sure what it means -- besides the fact that you're one of those silly people who plays intellectual by making up words and then trying to use them to insult people on internet forums. Honestly, you're like one of those crazy people who stands on street corners and yells incoherently at passers-by for no apparent reason. "You're a conservative communitarian, rawr." The only difference is that you probably don't have the guts to do this in real life, so you do it over the internet.

BTW, the fact that you think you can "frame my personality" from a few posts on an internet forum says much more about you than it does about me.

Anyway, I've got work to do so that I can finish my degree, so that I can take due credit for all the thought I've put into understanding, refining, and developing socionics

Impessive. Some time you should make a post telling us how it feels to go to a university that hands out degrees in socionics. I have to warn you though -- if you think having a degree is all it's going to take for people to take you seriously, you're in for an unpleasant surprise.

[tcaudilllg]

OK hold on now... I thought you said you were introducing an innovative approach, not just rehashing Augusta?

There is a book by Filatova available for those who want to understand socionics. And, people on this site -- myself included -- have gone out of their way to make the official understanding of the IM elements as represented by the professionals as clear as possible.

limNol what I see is a lukewarm desire to accumulate knowledge. For that matter, I think I see an EII, because an LII would never have dared to confront me as you just did. (nor would any other type, probably). Your being an EII would neatly explain why you haven't investigated the ideas of past and present forum members, before asserting your own naive interpretations of how things are going in the socionics community/movement/whatever.

You can go ahead and attack if you want. I'm not really unliked around and nothing you say is going to make me less liked. Certainly there are some people who I've pissed off -- everyone has enemies -- but I did it for the right reasons which are generally respected by most people in the community that I can tell.

I'll leave other people to dissect your argument. You're gonna find this a very demanding group.

But I can tell you that long before your groundbreaking "discovery" in 2007, Augusta wrote that introverted IM elements defined "how an object fits into the context of other objects." So this leaves two possibilities:

1) You stole Augusta's discovery and passed it off as your own.
2) The idea that IM elements define context isn't an innovation at all, it's just something that flows obviously from an understanding of socionics.

Indeed, introverted elements describe how objects fit in the context of each other. But so do extroverted elements. And with regard to the elements, relationships between elements do appear in the context of other elements, even in spite of Model A's processing rules. I had a huge list of all those relationships on my website before it went down due to non-payment of my bill (thank you, Ashford U. financial aid management!). But if weren't the case, we would have no ability to observe correlations (yes, that's what the IM elements really do!), making the IM elements useless!

I think you just hate me. Hate has no place in T-dominated discourses. Ask LSE: people MUST put their passions aside to work together for the common good.

[EyeSeeCold]

limNol what I see is a lukewarm desire to accumulate knowledge. For that matter, I think I see an EII, because an LII would never have dared to confront me as you just did. (nor would any other type, probably). Your being an EII would neatly explain why you haven't investigated the ideas of past and present forum members, before asserting your own naive interpretations of how things are going in the socionics community/movement/whatever.

The first part is untrue. The second is typical for new users.
What I saw from limNol was a disregard for authority and respect for constructiveness, it wasn't about having audacity to confront someone such as yourself.

[ashlesha]

[tcaudilllg]

The first part is untrue. The second is typical for new users.
What I saw from limNol was a disregard for authority and respect for constructiveness, it wasn't about having audacity to confront someone such as yourself.

But look at how the attack was phrased. He (tried) to dig into my psyche, although all he came up with was a naive projection. Specific attention to character flaws outside the bounds of any given theory, points towards EII for me.

Plus, as you said disregard for authority. Sounds like someone needs a good talking to from an LSE about the importance of playing well with others.

[EyeSeeCold]

But look at how the attack was phrased. He (tried) to dig into my psyche, although all he came up with was a naive projection. Specific attention to character flaws outside the bounds of any given theory, points towards EII for me.

Everyone does the same when they get into arguments. *Make an inadequate conclusion about someone's mind-frame and pose a straw man argument. It's typical.

Plus, as you said disregard for authority. Sounds like someone needs a good talking to from an LSE about the importance of playing well with others.

lol, Again new user. Not everyone is hypersensitive about authority.

“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument is an exchange of ignorance”

Shall we get back to discussing?

[limNol]

OK hold on now... I thought you said you were introducing an innovative approach, not just rehashing Augusta?

You were the one claiming to have spent years of work on your "discovery," you were the one claiming that "Augusta never said" what I was saying. I stated in the very first sentence of this thread that this was an attempt to clarify the IM elements and then emphasized later that I didn't see it as a groundbreaking discovery. I was trying to shed light on IM elements by emphasizing a perspective on them that isn't usually emphasized, but one that follows from 'traditional' socionics -- and I think everyone who replied to this thread saw that clearly, except for you. You came in here, whining that this was some revolutionary innovation, that no, I couldn't possible come up with this idea by myself, and that no one before you had discovered it. (You were proved wrong). You are the one collapsing beneath the weight of your own self-importance, so don't fucking try to pin that on me.

limNol what I see is a lukewarm desire to accumulate knowledge.

Well, you haven't seen anything in this thread clearly, so it's hard for me to take what you see in me seriously.

Indeed, introverted elements describe how objects fit in the context of each other. But so do extroverted elements

Since extroverted elements are always blocked with introverted elements, this is just a tautology, and framing it as a "discovery" that took you "several years" to arrive at doesn't change that.

I think you just hate me. Hate has no place in T-dominated discourses. Ask LSE: people MUST put their passions aside to work together for the common good.

Damn right I hate you. I posted my take on the IM elements for discussion, and you came in here and accused me of stealing from your articles, which I've never even heard of. (Probably because most socionists could care less about them.) You are the one who derailed this thread by letting your insecurity over me arriving at conclusions similar to yours cloud your view of the situation. You were the one who shifted the atmosphere from constructive discussion to personal attacks by throwing out false accusations. If you were as logical as you seem to think you are, you'd understand that the idea of functions modeling context isn't very original and sure as hell is not your exclusive property.

BTW, I don't really see your behavior as a "character flaw." All I see is that you are a pathetic wannabe intellectual who frames straightforward ideas as radical discoveries and that you are desperately trying to repress your awareness of this by desperately lashing out at me with false accusations and then refusing to either stand your ground or admit that you were mistaken, all under the pretense of "logical discourse."

Great, now you made me hungry.

[limNol]

Shall we get back to discussing?

Absolutely. And I'm still eager to hear everyone's suggestions, criticisms, etc. as long as they aren't along the lines of "you stole my unoriginal ideas lulz."

[tcaudilllg]

I expect to read fallacious arguments like those in The Weekly Standard, not the16types.

[limNol]

Nice. Come in, throw around false accusations of plagiarism, and then post a one-liner excusing yourself from taking responsibility. Elegant, in a very pathetic and cowardly way.

[tcaudilllg]

None of this is new. What you are trying to do has already been done. Rick advented, and then he left. And based on what he revealed to us, we have built our own base of knowledge by which to inform whoever is interested about personality.

The only thing you could do is take it all outside the forum. The world is not ready.

[limNol]

You seem obsessed with turning my original post into something it wasn't. At first, that was irritating, now it's just kind of strange. You take yourself way too seriously.

[KeroZen]

limNol:

Even if masturbatory or whatever, I liked your post. For sure it's nothing new, for sure it's just a re-phrasing, but it's well written.

Aiss's post received as much criticism as yours, if not more...

I disagree with EyeSeeCold this time: yes bodies and fields is the most semantically correct definition, but let's be realist, it's not the easiest to explain and common mortal beings just don't understand it when using these words/concepts (and that's the reality check, I'm talking about people who don't spend 100's of hours on personality psychology forums)

[EyeSeeCold]

I disagree with EyeSeeCold this time: yes bodies and fields is the most semantically correct definition, but let's be realist, it's not the easiest to explain and common mortal beings just don't understand it when using these words/concepts (and that's the reality check, I'm talking about people who don't spend 100's of hours on personality psychology forums)

What I meant was bodies and fields are the best (at least so far that I've seen) fundamental descriptions. From bodies and fields we can simplify concepts to one liners and such that make more sense than building a whole new concept to capture what's behind the scenes.

For example, Te's "external dynamics of objects". From there it's not just restricted to "objective facts". It's allowed to describe the 'changes in between a set of objects' or the 'comparison of two or more objects', which can be cars, people, money, numbers, words, maneuvers, etc. It's much more flexible than "efficiency, objectivity, factual" etc.

[tcaudilllg]

The problem with the element categories is that they aren't real categories at all. Augusta had the right idea, but she stopped at three elementary components, failing to reckon the fourth one which divides quadra forms of the elements (seeing it from her view). She misidentified similarities between the fundamental categories -- the elements of the real absolute ontology as it exists in the brain structure -- as the categories themselves, thus mistaking SIXTEEN functions for eight.

[EyeSeeCold]

Interesting, is there more of this idea?

[Beautiful sky]

The problem with the element categories is that they aren't real categories at all. Augusta had the right idea, but she stopped at three elementary components, failing to reckon the fourth one which divides quadra forms of the elements (seeing it from her view). She misidentified similarities between the fundamental categories -- the elements of the real absolute ontology as it exists in the brain structure -- as the categories themselves, thus mistaking SIXTEEN functions for eight.

That's because Ti is not her primary function. Anyway, why aren't people reading Jung?