Something other than the eight basic elements that we have. It would actually be a pair of complementary elements.
This is asking a lot, I know. I personally cannot imagine it.
Can you imagine an information element that doesn't exist yet?
Something other than the eight basic elements that we have. It would actually be a pair of complementary elements.
This is asking a lot, I know. I personally cannot imagine it.
Barium.Originally Posted by Nico1e
This reminds me of when I tried to convince my science teacher that there may be an element that hasn't been discovered yet (elements lol!) and he was like 'lol no'. That's probably the response you're going to receive here too, because the model doesn't really permit the existence of additional elements - but I'm sure as time goes on we will revise the model and include anything new we discover, and if we do not create new elements I've no doubt we will revise our understanding of existing ones. But what the hell do I know, this is all Russian territory
But remember, model A is supposed to be pretty general from what I can tell. To increase in complexity, specificity and # of elements, we may risk becoming too specific and lose integrity and effectiveness altogether.
You're gunna have to think up a new jungian dichotomy if you want more IE's.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
IM elements can only be discovered by subdividing the original eight. That's where +/- and political types come from. BTW the IM elements don't really exist... they are categorical concepts relating similar characteristics. Only the characteristics exist... the Model A elements are only concepts.
Of course. They are concepts and are going to be only concepts.
But strangely, the functions DO exist. They really do. Because no function can be divided; rather, a function that contains other functions is a link between them, but it still performs the function of the link. Somewhere in the brain, the functions do exist?
Agreed. However I suppose you could also create new ones by nondualising some of the dichotomies. So you could have the basic unit of information, which could be called the Gestalt. Then from thsi you can have a nondualistic term for the state between i/e, o/f, s/d which could be called The Pregnant. i.e.
pregnant statics of objects would become a new element to cover that state between Se and Ne. I would call this cognitive state External.
Of course the Gestalt can be divided into an infinate number of conceptual circuits, socionics being just one of these. most of these circuits would clearly not be socionics, it could be argued that socionics is the only circuit that can be born from the pregnant gestalt that can be socionics. I would argue that parallel socionic circuits can exist with brand new socionic elements can exist in parallel to socionics. These Sursocionic circuits, could contain information passageways previously unconceived of, however the question is whether these socionics elements are really the same elements can exist in the same conceptual framework as the socionics that we all know and love? As you have said by dividing into eight circuits of consciousness, the key is to seperate the Holistic Gestalt for the Conceptual Gestalt. Perhaps this way we have the best opportunity to resolve this conundrum. It is however a conundrum too far for a man like me.
IEE-Ne
Yeah I already have. It's ALL just numerology. You count to eight, you count to nine, you count to twelve, you count to twenty seven. After that it's just about applying the numerological system to a specific context (this accounts for differences in MBTI, socionics, enneagram, astrology, etc.). Go look at enneagram for an example of 9.
Last edited by rat1; 10-08-2011 at 09:41 PM.
The state between Se and Ne is Ni.
i could imagine addition of new dichotomies, but adding a single new function or "IE element" would maim the system beyond basic applicability.
Since elements happen to be defined by dichotomies, you'd either need to add a new dichotomy - essentially splitting existing IEs - or break the binary pattern. Like, replace one or more dichotomies with trichotomies or something, such as bodies - fields - waves (i tried to make up something that's neither obviously body nor obviously field, the example is not meant to work). Possibly setting constraints (i.e. waves cannot be static, only dynamic), or allowing all combinations. Or just invent an element and claim it's neither static nor dynamic, neither bodies nor fields, neither internal nor external. And convince us of it.
That being said, 9th element would be a welcome addition for those who yearn for clear correlation of socionics to enneagram. We can call it "Junk Element", for example. All the boring stuff that no one wants will land there. Junk-dominant type being in Theta quadra, obviously.
How so? And what is the relationship to pregnancy?
IEE-Ne
You will never win alpha NT support for a 9th element. Over time, you'd lose all of alpha and increasing amounts of gamma.
BTW there is a ninth element: it's called "consciousness" and is what all the other elements have in common. See Model B.
Yes I have my own information elements inside my head. Sometimes others have them too, mostly not.
Phosphorus.
Dinosaurs are a stinked, silly buns.
Something interesting that I've noticed while reading all these replies is this: If I understand correctly, several people are saying that our existing eight elements completely embrace all of the information that exists in reality, and all that remains is to decide which one of those eight categories the information fits into. I might have misunderstood. So if you ever encounter a piece of information out there in the world, it inevitably must fit into one of our existing eight categories.
I'm imagining something like this. Suppose you're an organism that can only see two colors, such as red and green. Everything that they see fits into those categories. However, other organisms can see many more colors. We also have the categories of red and green, but we see extra colors that we don't put into those two categories. So 'blue,' 'yellow,' etc, etc, would be like new information elements.
Am I correct when I get the impression people are saying 'everything that's out there has already been encompassed by our eight elements?'
And, edit, I can't say the word 'pregnancy' without laughing, so I might have to skip over that one for now.
Hm, after re reading the posts above, I don't get that impression. Everyone seems to offer possible situations in which new additions to the theory can be made, the prevailing opinion being through dichotomy creation or expansion. Even if they believe that this is improbable/impossible, nobody has said or implied that all aspects of reality fit into these specific elements.
But I suppose the best method is to simply ask. Does anyone feel that way, that any aspect of reality can be fit into one of the 8 elements, or in some way into the socion?
I don't give two hoots about the support of Alpah NTs and even less hoots about the support of so called gammas. I care about the pregnant point of transition, and the multiple truths of the sursocionic models. Model B can suck my balls.
IEE-Ne
Quickly! Reject her before she destroys our precious logical system!
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.".
Uh, make up a new mode of information metabolism and you can have as many information elements as you want.
There are more I'm sure, but the more we find the more abstract and incredibly difficult it would be to describe them. We already have a hard time describing the 8 we have and picking out examples of them; I agree with Tcaud that there are states between functions like Se and Ne is Ni but I think there are states between Si and Te, etc...it's mind numbing to even think about these possibilities. It's already so hard to measure the developments of the person with the same base types. An extremely developed Se, who is way extraverted and after senses, as opposed to a less developed Se who is more introverted and leans towards Fi is an example of the varied development within a base type.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Now that I am no longer in a giggly mood, what are you talking about? As in, is there a name for the system you're referring to? And by the way I'm not currently using any other arrangement besides Model A. I read about Model X, for instance, and don't know anything about Model B. But now I want to know what this is. It just sounded like it was similar to something you had read somewhere, like it was either something in socionics, or some other system that wasn't part of socionics, but it reminded you of this or it seemed similar to this.
It actually doesn't matter. The original question was just sort of a challenge, but I think it would be really difficult to answer.
I'm gonna try, 'Ununnonium.'
The whole model would change if we added a new pair of elements.This reminds me of when I tried to convince my science teacher that there may be an element that hasn't been discovered yet (elements lol!) and he was like 'lol no'. That's probably the response you're going to receive here too, because the model doesn't really permit the existence of additional elements - but I'm sure as time goes on we will revise the model and include anything new we discover, and if we do not create new elements I've no doubt we will revise our understanding of existing ones. But what the hell do I know, this is all Russian territory
But remember, model A is supposed to be pretty general from what I can tell. To increase in complexity, specificity and # of elements, we may risk becoming too specific and lose integrity and effectiveness altogether.
However, there could be a new area of information, a new focus, which could be added in to an existing element.
Or there could be something in common that all of the elements focus on. That common base could be questioned. So you could say 'not x' and look for something outside all those elements.
And by the way, I'm totally BS'ing with all this. It's just pure speculation and I don't have any actual reason behind it or anything specific in mind. It was one of those odd questions that came to me and I thought I'd 'throw it out there.' So if it sounds like I'm just BS'ing, that's true, I am. And therefore I don't mind getting any kind of answer whatsoever, because none of it matters anyway.
What about 'non-socionic factors?' What about 'the particular content of your beliefs and cultural practices and life learnings?' What about 'your personal experiences?' Those categories of information are often said to be outside the range of socionics. Is there a way to make them fit in somehow?
I would swear I just saw a phosphasaurus the other day.
omg lol is that supposed to be Sarah Palin?
It's Peggy Hill.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
.
Who are you to accuse me of trolling? I'm an honest man, whether or not I'm teabagging Bukalov.
IEE-Ne
Oh, were you trolling? My bad. I don't normally catch on to these things unless someone explains it to me.
There I was trying to be nice and everything.
Well, look at it this way, if you ever need to tell me anything important, I'll probably listen to you and believe you without calling you a troll.
You know, I thought that looked exactly like Sarah Palin too.
Again with the accusations of troll behaviours!!! Model B is Bukalov's, I know little of it, it may be double A or A squared, I cannot say for certain, T-Dog may be able to help more.
Gestalt Sursocionics is my own pet theory of momentary non-dualistic perception, which runs in parallel to the standard model A, and is based on the idea that that there are preconscious modes of information processing that take place beneath the cognitive levels of the attentional spotlight.
Last edited by somavision; 10-12-2011 at 08:58 AM.
IEE-Ne
my friend, the problem is not that she would "destroy the system". the problem is in believing that you can preserve the system upon adding a 9th function. this notion is bogus.
Please skip to 3:27 for my response.
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.".
haha "boom bam bop, badabop boomp POW" lol
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
My answer to the question literally asked is yes, I could imagine an information element that doesn't exist, but to do so would be pointless because an imaginary IE does not exist. My answer to the question you probably intended to ask is also yes, there are information elements that already do exist but which are not accounted for under Model A. I am of course referring to the precocity dichotomy, which give rise to four IE's overlooked under Model A: introverted retardation (Ri), extroverted retardation (Re), introverted competence(Ci), and extroverted competence (Ce). Observation indicates an approximately even population split between R/C individuals. One's precocity function modulates the way in which Id and Ego coalesce into self awareness. The interaction between model A, the precocity dichotomy, self awareness and behavior is summarized below in Model Timmy.
Ce types (those with Ce in their ego ring) = Efficient, explicit communication between conscious ring and awareness (e.g. Korpsey,Galen, Ashton, Anndelise)
Ci types (those with Ci in their ego ring) = Efficient, implicit communication between conscious ring and awareness (e.g. Azzerofs, Kassie, Golden, Silverchris, Traveler)
Re types = inefficient/broken, explicit communication between conscious ring and awareness (e.g. Jarno, Effie, Tcaud)
Ri types = inefficient/broken, implicit communication between conscious ring and awareness (e.g. Gilly, Rat, "the self-conflicted type")
Last edited by Timmy; 10-13-2011 at 07:10 AM.
omg, this looks funny. I will have to reread this later.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
