Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 46

Thread: An alternative view on information aspects

  1. #1
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default An alternative view on information aspects

    I think these combinations of external/internal, dynamics/statics and objects/relationships (of objects) correspond more accurately with reality. Dynamics/statics is used in a slightly different way here, and objects/relationships is used in a completely different way. Object/relationships is not related to extraversion/introversion. Instead, extroverts naturally prefer a dynamic IM element. And all judgements are comparisons (i.e. relationships) between two or more objects.

    Te = external dynamics of relationships

    Fe = internal dynamics of relationships

    Se = external dynamics of objects

    Ne = internal dynamics of objects

    Ti = external statics of relationships

    Fi = internal statics of relationships

    Si = external statics of objects

    Ni = internal statics of objects


    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...s-in-Socionics

    "Dynamics of objects. If we look at an object in dynamics we should speak about a process, about the things happening to the object. A. Augustinavichuite suggests the following division of the process features. She refers movements, objects’ actions and work done by them to outer (evident) process features. And to inner (implicit) ones – inner changes, stimulus for actions which happen in the inner world of a person, inner energy, emotional state of people. These two groups of informational signals are dynamics signals: outer (evident) and inner (implicit, hidden) ones.

    - Information aspect of the object’s evident dynamics: actions, movements is called logics of actions."

    There is a difference between perceiving motion and judging/evaluating motion. Football players (often SLE) are good at perceiving motion. Business leaders (often LIE) are good at evaluating processes.



    "And to inner (implicit) ones – inner changes, stimulus for actions which happen in the inner world of a person, inner energy, emotional state of people. These two groups of informational signals are dynamics signals: outer (evident) and inner (implicit, hidden) ones.

    [...] - Information aspect of the object’s implicit dynamics: inner energy, activation, stimulus for action and emotional state, mood is called ethics ofemotions.

    [...] The second sub-group – ethics – will sooner be interested in emotional state of these people, their energy: the vigorous mother fearlessly starts new activities, solves arising problems, the emotional child likes music, merry games, but often becomes capricious."

    Why is Fe about relationships? Because we are not evaluating the emotional states of people directly. Instead, we are evaluating our own (emotional) experiences of the emotional states of people.



    "Statics of objects. This is the information about the features of the object itself. A. Augustinavichuite has picked out the object’s inner and outer characteristics. Outer (evident) static object features are its form, size, beauty, effect. Inner (implicit, hidden) static object’s features are its inner organization, structure, abilities, capacities. All the information about objects in statics which can be analyzed in included in these two groups.
    [...]
    Information aspect about an object’s evident features, outer ones: its form, beauty, strength, will, concentration is called will sensorics."

    Aushra (Se): "Perceives information about what might be called objects' "kinetic energy" — for example, information about how organized/mobilized a person is, his physical energy and power, and his ability to make use of his willpower or position and exercise his will in opposition to others'. This perception implies the ability to tell what reserves of "kinetic energy" people have and how useful they can be in getting things done. It defines the individual's ability or inability to exercise his willpower and energy in opposition to the will and energy of other people."

    I have always been very skeptical of Se in Socionics. I don't think it is clear what Aushra was referring to here. Btw, SSS thinks form, color and beauty etc. belong to Si.



    "Information aspect about an object’s implicit features, inner ones: structure, capacities, abilities is called intuition of opportunities.
    [...]
    Observers from another group – intuits – first of all will pay attention to inner, hidden from eye features, capacities, opportunities: a talented mother has a good potential for self-actualization in life, and a child who is fast learner, can become a well-educated person."

    This is not "information about the features of the object itself". Capacities and abilities boil down to "things happening to the object". Self-actualization and 'become a well-educated person' are processes/actions.



    "The state of health is the relation with one’s body in dynamics: better – worse. Sensations, comfort are the relations with the environment, space. Aesthetics, harmony are connected with our attitude to the things we have seen, heard, sensed.
    State is not a static, but a dynamic aspect. State is always described in comparison with the previous or possible following states. For example, in medicine the state of health is spoken about as dynamics: “clinical course”, “recovery process”, “dynamics of in-between state”. State, by its semantics is the position between one and another thing. And it is not statics, this happens, continues, there are its own accelerations and turbulences. State is changeable, it flows (to compare: disease activity).
    Thus, sensations are evident dynamics of relationships. Why?
    * Sensation is dynamics: we sense taste only when it is changing, otherwise our receptors adapt themselves to it and stop responding. Our organs of sense only react to changes in taste, smell, colours etc. There is no statics of sensing, when adaptation appears, we stop sensing.
    * Sensation is relation: our perception of taste, colour, pain depends on us: everyone has his own taste, somebody likes “sweet pain” and the sensations of “pleasant fatigue” is very relative.
    * Sensation is evident: sensed.
    They characterize the state of relationships."

    They confuse our sensations (i.e. qualia) with physiological mechanisms. We either taste something or we don't. However, our sense organs only react to changes in taste, smell, colors etc.

    'I felt sick this morning. But I'm better now.' This is not a comparison. We just mention two different states, and we obviously prefer the latter.



    "It is characterized by changes occurring in time, changes in speed of the process, development of the situation in time. These changes can be accumulated latently. This is a hidden, implicit side of the relationships process. It is to be developed (like a film).
    What can be referred to the implicit, hidden dynamics of relationships? These are the things not seen with eyes and not registered with other organs of sense. This is the process “ripening”. Nothing evident has happened yet but inner changes are accumulated. These changes can not be noticed but can de anticipated. By small features, so slight that they are registered without the conscious, we foresee what will happen. Our psyche, as if solving a dynamical problem tells us the possible nest stage of the process after some time with the starting conditions and the speed of development.
    The history of the process is included here. What was previously, what will happen – it is not seen at present but it is registered by our organs of sense. Inner changes in the process, unnoticeable, occur. The process “ripens”. It is important here: the history of the process development, time and speed. This gives anticipation, foreseeing, forecasting.
    This turned to be the most mysterious aspect. It’s not for nothing that such difficult to describe categories as mystical feeling, forecast of the future, hope."

    My view is that Ni sees objects in a new context (and sometimes a series of new contexts). So it is definitely about anticipation, foreseeing, forecasting, new perspectives, development etc. But those visualizations are snapshots. Ni does not see them as a process, even though the end result may look like a process. Also, Ni is probably confused with Te or Fe at times.

    Furthermore, we cannot compare two (or more) perceptions. How does the experience of red relate to the experience of blue? How does the perception/experience of one new context relate to the perception/experience of another new context?
    Last edited by Petter; 11-30-2016 at 08:31 AM.

  2. #2
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    549
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You basically used even more abstract descriptions than Jung. ;p

    I see you working hard here and its all well and good but to get my full attention it gota be more tangible with reality and less abstract.
    if you wish to see the truth then hold no opinion for or against

    * Tigerfadder
    has reached 500 posts!* 04:52 PM




  3. #3
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerfadder View Post
    You basically used even more abstract descriptions than Jung. ;p

    I see you working hard here and its all well and good but to get my full attention it gota be more tangible with reality and less abstract.
    Those are definitions of aspects. We need abstract definitions, concrete descriptions and concrete examples. I don't have any descriptions yet.

    I think it is better to question Aushra's definitions first. And there are plenty of concrete descriptions and examples in this article by T. N. Prokofieva.

  4. #4
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    549
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    Those are definitions of aspects. We need abstract definitions, concrete descriptions and concrete examples. I don't have any descriptions yet.

    I think it is better to question Aushra's definitions first. And there are plenty of concrete descriptions and examples in this article by T. N. Prokofieva.
    Im not agreeing with ya. Si for example is a perspective element which have characteristics and focuses. If a Ne lead would jump into a Si type for a few minutes that person could maybe go insane and/or revalue their entire life. Thats why I find "external statics of objects" not cutting it.
    Last edited by Tigerfadder; 12-02-2016 at 08:27 PM.
    if you wish to see the truth then hold no opinion for or against

    * Tigerfadder
    has reached 500 posts!* 04:52 PM




  5. #5
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerfadder View Post
    Im not agreeing with ya. Si for example is a perspective element which have characteristics and focuses.
    What do you mean by "a perspective element"?

    If a Ne lead would jump into a Si type for a few minutes that person could maybe go insane and/or revalue their entire life. Thats why I find "external statics of objects" not cutting it.
    Can you explain this part a bit further?

  6. #6
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    549
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    What do you mean by "a perspective element"?
    Can you explain this part a bit further?
    Instead of focusing on "objects" and dynamic vs static I guess I find it more accurate to view the elements so which Socionics have defined them. Si for example is sensation right. It is kind of a internal body sensor sensitivity. Everything which lower the level of abstraction yet catch the element as a entity of its own I find most valuable.

    So in this scenario if one type jump into the workings of an other type the difference in how reality is seen and understood is so alien from the world the person have lived and belonged to their entire life so that we would probably not be able to make sense to it and have our memories read in this reality.
    if you wish to see the truth then hold no opinion for or against

    * Tigerfadder
    has reached 500 posts!* 04:52 PM




  7. #7
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerfadder View Post
    Instead of focusing on "objects" and dynamic vs static I guess I find it more accurate to view the elements so which Socionics have defined them. Si for example is sensation right. It is kind of a internal body sensor sensitivity. Everything which lower the level of abstraction yet catch the element as a entity of its own I find most valuable.
    External statics of objects (in this new system) is also about "internal body sensor sensitivity".

    So in this scenario if one type jump into the workings of an other type the difference in how reality is seen and understood is so alien from the world the person have lived and belonged to their entire life so that we would probably not be able to make sense to it and have our memories read in this reality.
    Why would it be easier to "jump into the workings of an other type" (whatever that means) using external dynamics of fields?

  8. #8
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    332
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I find it difficult to apply the word "statics" to anything in human information processing, which by nature is moment by moment. When one walks down the same metaphorical street every day, perception and interaction changes, perhaps ever so slightly but a change none the less. Hence, our references modify over time. A rock in the garden may not change much but how we perceive it usually does because everything in our information processing is rather transient. A lot Socionics theory seems rather old school. I think the distinction is more relative versus absolute information, which remain in those states only for an instant of processing time.

    http://www.socionics.com/articles/soc_pref_io.html

    a.k.a. I/O

  9. #9
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    I find it difficult to apply the word "statics" to anything in human information processing, which by nature is moment by moment. When one walks down the same metaphorical street every day, perception and interaction changes, perhaps ever so slightly but a change none the less. Hence, our references modify over time. A rock in the garden may not change much but how we perceive it usually does because everything in our information processing is rather transient.
    This is what we mean by static and dynamic:

    * Information aspects about the features of objects and relationships stable at the time of observation, are called static.
    * Information aspects about the processes of changes, development, movement are called dynamic.

    'Time of observation' refers to one particular moment.

    A lot Socionics theory seems rather old school. I think the distinction is more relative versus absolute information, which remain in those states only for an instant of processing time.

    http://www.socionics.com/articles/soc_pref_io.html
    Let's say you are watching an elephant at a circus. Suddenly you see an inner image of a poacher. That process is Ni. But this is not information about the relationship between the elephant and the poacher. Instead, it is "hidden"/implicit/internal information about the elephant.

    EDIT:

    "All information passing through our senses or taken from our memories, at all levels of granularity or detail, can be segmented into two fundamental components:

    1. the absolute (S) that can be quantified in self-contained packets of information, and
    2. the relative (N) that places each packet in context, in perhaps a multitude of ways, with every other related packet."

    You are saying that N is about all contexts, not just new/hidden contexts, right? For example, "the elephant seems to enjoy himself at this circus". This is
    obvious information about the elephant, and he/it is placed in a context.

    Is N involved when you are recognizing an object?


    Last edited by Petter; 12-06-2016 at 08:46 AM.

  10. #10
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    332
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Petter,

    We seem to be discussing semantics. What I mean by self-contained is an isolated information entity as opposed to something that is stable in the moment. N is information that connects entities; N is context but a context could be an entity. N is the linkage between entities and also the sum of linkages. When one recognizes an object, we are discussing the result of I/O processing and not simply N as a standalone input. I don't think N is a function although it can colour a function........

    a.k.a. I/O

  11. #11

  12. #12
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    @Petter,
    We seem to be discussing semantics. What I mean by self-contained is an isolated information entity as opposed to something that is stable in the moment. N is information that connects entities; N is context but a context could be an entity. N is the linkage between entities and also the sum of linkages.
    a.k.a. I/O
    I don't think it is semantics. Your view seems to be entirely different.

    I don't think there is information that connects entities. For example, you are watching an actual elephant and suddenly you see an inner image of a poacher. Your brain makes the connection, but there is no information between the elephant and the poacher.

    Yes, Ni (function, i.e. processing) sees the context and Ni is also the context (aspect). However, if you only consider the poacher then it is Si. So there are two different memories; elephant+poacher and (details of the) poacher.

    When one recognizes an object, we are discussing the result of I/O processing and not simply N as a standalone input.
    Okay, so you think N is involved when you are recognizing an object, right? N is only about new/hidden contexts in my view.

    I don't think N is a function although it can colour a function........
    What do you mean by this?

  13. #13
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    Some links to stuff I wrote in my blog in 2011 about the aspects and elements:
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ary-of-Aspects
    "Se - Information about the TPE is readily observable and based on information that is gathered from our direct experience of it (eg handling and manipulating the TPE itself) (mental constructs of this TPE will be rich with sensory information about it)"

    Okay, so you think 'Se=external statics of objects' is inaccurate, right?

  14. #14
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    332
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    .........I don't think there is information that connects entities.........but there is no information between the elephant and the poacher..........

    Okay, so you think N is involved when you are recognizing an object, right?

    N is only about new/hidden contexts in my view.

    What do you mean by this?
    I'm referring to how information is constructed; you seem to be focusing at a macro level - the results of information processing. There has to be information between entities or we'd be operating on white noise. One's brain with all its sensors create information that only one person uses. Everyone looking at the same object creates different information.

    N is theoretical - the sum of the linkages that input processes generate; however, input without rationalization is not recognition. Recognition is the connection of two entities, one of which is residing in your memory and the other in your input register. Both have to go through a CPU for recognition to occur.

    N is more fundamental than new/hidden contexts......

    N colors input processes in that one has a bias toward the linkages more than the entities of information at any level of granularity; however, linkages and entities can only be separated in theory not in reality.

    For more insight into my thinking on information processing, I would suggest reading more on artificial intelligence such as voice and facial recognition programs, if you haven't already done so. It is an engineering approach and at a micro level.....

    a.k.a. I/O

  15. #15
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    192 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    "Se - Information about the TPE is readily observable and based on information that is gathered from our direct experience of it (eg handling and manipulating the TPE itself) (mental constructs of this TPE will be rich with sensory information about it)"

    Okay, so you think 'Se=external statics of objects' is inaccurate, right?
    You missed this part:
    We gather Information about our World:
    • What is this TPE? What is this Thing? What is this Idea? Who is this Person? What is this Event? ........... (Xe Statics)
    • How is this TPE related to that TPE? How are they the same? How are they different? ((Should include "How are they connected?"))............ (Xi Statics)
    Edited to add: this rest of that link also says:
    Xe focuses on objects (things, people, events; aka TPE)
    Statics focuses on attributes (qualities/characteristics that are relatively stable, consistent, across time, space, and/or context, which serve to identify a TPE. ('changes' can be an attribute))
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  16. #16
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    192 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter
    Object/relationships is not related to extraversion/introversion. Instead, extroverts naturally prefer a dynamic IM element. And all judgements are comparisons (i.e. relationships) between two or more objects.
    Xe/Xi refers to Objects/Fields.

    P elements refer to taking something in as a whole, the integrity of the parts are kept together as one unit.
    J elements refer to dividing something up into its parts, each part being seen as discrete.

    When we attempt to understand our world (process information), we need both the ability to see the tree as a whole integrated entity, and we also need to be able to see its parts (branches we could climb, fruit we could eat, shelter it might provide, clues to danger, etc). We break it up, and put it back together, break it up, and put it back together.
    For example, understanding Socionics. We read descriptions of the elements, which are attempts to put together a cohesive definition from various parts (aspects) that are being included. The aspects are the lowest divided parts. From them we build up what Xe vs Xi means, what Xe Statics vs Xe Dynamics mean, What Ne vs Se vs Te vs Fe means. We add together the parts (J) to form a more cohesive picture What is NeFi? SeTi? Alpha quadra? How might each type interact information-wise? etc. All of this requires the tearing apart of information into smaller discrete parts, and rebuilding them up together into a more cohesive whole entity. This is what we do when we process information.


    Extroverts, aka Object oriented types, jump from object to object to object. Sometimes they don't even know how one object they were talking about is related to another object they are now talking about. This is part of what leads to the perception that Extroverts prefer breadth of a topic as opposed to depth.

    Introverts, aka Field oriented types, more easily stick with one subject. They bring in different parts that are related to the subject, forming a deeper understanding of the subject.

    An example, Alpha NT (Ne + Ti). Both use mental constructs of parts and how they connect to form a mental construct of the whole. Aka theorizing.
    They differ, however, in that NeTi is Xe (object oriented). Their Ne object to object jumps aren't readily apparent in how they are connected, though there is an underlying Ti structure. This structure is how the information is linked via neurons. Each types has a different structure between information, and certain clumps fire off together differently than those of other types. So with NeTi, the underlying structure is related to Ti info, while with an NeFi, the underlying structure is related to Fi info. Both Ne types jump object to object, subject to subject, person to person, thought to thought. It might seem "dynamic" to an outsider, but the information attended to isn't particularly dynamic information. (Processing information is ITSELF a dynamic process, but the information being processed isn't necessarily dynamic information. Do you understand the difference?)

    For example, when my NiFe brother and I (NeFi) started hanging out, we had a few communication difficulties. I would be talking about one thing, and the next moment talking about something else. To me, they were connected, though I never defined the connection to him. He, being Xi, would be stuck trying to figure out how I got from point C to point L. It took us a while to figure out that I needed to signal to him when something I'm about to say is fairly random (look there's a bird), vs when something I'm about to say is connected somehow...this part involved me giving a short hand series of connections (ex. the nature of N, which made me think of NTs, which made me think of [person], which made me think of something that person said/did, which made me think of how I felt, which made me think of another time I felt that way, which made me think of a different event that had the same feeling, which made me think of a different person involved, which made me think of something they did, which has me now commenting about some random action some random person did, that to me, is related to the subject at hand, though very indirectly related). ((N->NT->[person]->event->feeling->event->[different person]->event->N))

    An Xi type, has similar jumps, but the jumps are more closely connected to the subject. It doesn't range as far as an Xe's jumps. And the Xi's jumps are more easily connectable without having to define how it's connected. TiNe differs from NeTi, in part, in that Ti is the focus. They go more into depth of a theory than an NeTi would prefer. They break information down into its Ti parts, then build it up into an Ne whole, then break it back down into different Ti parts, then back up into a Ne whole. All the while forming a more in-depth understanding of the theory, or a more in-depth creation/edition of the theory. We see this happen when we get major socionics personalities that keep adding to the theory, adding new parts, adding more complexity, etc. NeTi might comment about some kind of link between socionics theory and another theory, and if the TiNe accepts that connection, they'll work to see how it all fits together. Work that the NeTi isn't likely to do, as they've likely already moved on to something else.


    And before there's further confusion, Ti/Fi are fields that are broken down into individual parts...individual field elements. Hence 'static'. The individual relationships, similarities, differences, connections which serve to further define the attributes of a thing, an idea, a person, an event.

    Ni/Si are fields that are cohesive wholes. Think of systems. If you mess with one part of a system, it will likely alter the entire system in some way. The systems can be broken down into parts (Fe/Te), but those are dynamic parts, each part representing a particular sequence/cycle within the overall system. Systems that primarily utilize Fe information to understand are generally systems that involve living creatures (human, animal, plant, etc). Hence why "ethics" is commonly listed in Fe definitions.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  17. #17
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    You missed this part:
    We gather Information about our World:
    What is this TPE? What is this Thing? What is this Idea? Who is this Person? What is this Event? ........... (Xe Statics)
    How is this TPE related to that TPE? How are they the same? How are they different? ((Should include "How are they connected?"))............ (Xi Statics)
    Edited to add: this rest of that link also says:
    Xe focuses on objects (things, people, events; aka TPE)
    Statics focuses on attributes (qualities/characteristics that are relatively stable, consistent, across time, space, and/or context, which serve to identify a TPE. ('changes' can be an attribute))
    You think Aushra's definitions are accurate, but your descriptions are somewhat different, right?

    Which IM element perceives motion in your view? For example, a football flying through the air.

    Si, Ni: "How is this TPE's actions related to that TPE's actions?" How is this related to our sensations (comfort, taste...)?

    P elements refer to taking something in as a whole, the integrity of the parts are kept together as one unit.
    J elements refer to dividing something up into its parts, each part being seen as discrete.

    When we attempt to understand our world (process information), we need both the ability to see the tree as a whole integrated entity, and we also need to be able to see its parts (branches we could climb, fruit we could eat, shelter it might provide, clues to danger, etc). We break it up, and put it back together, break it up, and put it back together.
    Are you saying that someone who is observing/seeing (i.e. perceiving) a branch, which is a part of a tree, is using a judging IM element/function?
    Last edited by Petter; 12-08-2016 at 11:03 AM.

  18. #18
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    192 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    You think Aushra's definitions are accurate, but your descriptions are somewhat different, right?
    I kept the underlying structure of Socionics, as well as the definitions and descriptions in mind as I worked through my understanding of Socionics. To completely alter the structure and/or the definition of the elements is to turn the Socionics theory into something else. That's fine, but it is no longer "Socionics" you are talking about.

    I also was keen on seeing if Socionics fit with some more modern theories on the brain and information processing. Since Socionics is a purely abstract theory (it relies on definitions and theoretical structures), without reference to anything more material (such as the nervous system, brain chemicals, etc), then it cannot be accurately tested, nor falsified. I believe(d) that if it described more material aspects of our brains, then it could eventually be tested, falsfied, proved...or at least parts of it.

    For example, I prefer to deal with the Aspects (aka "aspectonics"):
    • object/field
    • internal/external
    • abstract/involved
    • static/dynamic
    • continuity/divisible (I couldn't get anyone to translate the particular words, and I never found a sufficient set of terms for this; analog/digital was the closest.)
    And starting from the aspects I build up my definition and understandings of the IM Elements. This helps to remove certain terms (such as 'judging vs perceiving') that are used differently in other theories and in day-to-day language.

    ---

    Which IM element perceives motion in your view? For example, a football flying through the air.
    First, IM Elements don't perceive anything. IM elements are categories of information.

    I do believe that we have systems in our brains/neurosystem that handles certain categories of information, but those systems aren't "IM Elements" themselves.

    For example, our visual and auditory systems each have 2 types of information streams:
    • the Dorsal stream (aka "where" stream) handles spatial processing including location, movement, spatial transformations, spatial relations.
    • the Ventral stream (aka "what" stream) handles object processing including color, texture, pictorial detail, shape, size.
    In socionics/aspects terms, the Dorsal stream is described by "Dynamics", and the Ventral stream is described by "Statics".

    So, to answer your question, the categories of information that deals with motion are "Dynamic" ones (Ni/Si/Fe/Te).

    IOW, the Dorsal stream lets us know that something is flying at us (Dynamic).
    The Ventral stream tells us what the object is (Static).

    Note: We don't process single categories of information in isolation. Even Socionics says this via Model A, in which every Socionics Type has every IM element. We just don't all process all the categories of information to the same degree nor with the same value/priority as every other type.

    ---

    Si, Ni: "How is this TPE's actions related to that TPE's actions?" How is this related to our sensations (comfort, taste...)?
    Think of Xe as nodes, and Xi as the links between nodes.

    Xi=Field= Relationships between things, people, events (TPE)
    Dynamics= actions/motions = what the TPE does, what it puts into effect, etc.
    Xi Dynamics = How is this TPE's actions related to that TPE's action? What caused this TPE action? What effect did this TPE action initiate?

    Si/Ni deal with systems. Systems by their very nature are dynamic, cause&effect, action&reaction. These systems could be cyclical (ex ecology, seasons, business markets) and they can be sequential (A causes B causes C, or A leads to B leads to C)

    "Taste" is tricky. Are you referring to using 'taste' to identify an object? (Static, Xe, S)
    Or are you using 'taste' to help season a dish to your preference? (Dynamic, Xi, S)

    "Comfort" is a result of cause-effect (Dynamic) and orientation (Fi).
    I sit in this chair (action)...
    and the posture it puts me in (cause) makes certain muslces tense and sore (effect)...
    I don't want my muscles to feel sore (Fi)...
    so I identify this chair as having the attribute of "uncomfortable" (Static; attribute/Identity).

    I sit in this other chair (action)...
    and the posture it puts me in (cause) allows all my bones to feel supported and my muscles to relax (effect)...
    This is what I like (Fi)...
    so I identify this chair as having the attributes of "comfortable" (Static; attribute/identity)
    The cause-effect part of what sitting in a chair does to my bones/muscles is Si information.

    ---

    Are you saying that someone who is observing/seeing (i.e. perceiving) a branch, which is a part of a tree, is using a judging IM element/function?
    Yes and No.
    No, because that branch could also be considered a whole object itself, the leaf its own object, and the fruit its own object.
    But Yes, too, in that the process of establishing what is "branch" and what is "not branch", you have to set defining boundaries which distinguishes it from other things. What makes a branch different from a leaf? or a leaf from a fruit? (Static, Xi)

    A tree is also a system (Dynamic Xi). It's leaves perform a particular function (Dynamic Xe) that benefits the entire system (Dynamic Xi). Branches are formed by the leaves seeking light and heat. The fruit also performs a particular function (Dynamic Xe), and within the fruit are seeds which, when set into motion, will grow into its own system (another tree).

    The trees together help create a habitat. The habitat involves other systems that together create an ecological system, and so on.


    To process information, we have to break the information down (J) and build it back up (P).
    To understand our world, we have to break things down into individual components (J) and build them back up into a whole (P).
    Statics does this when identifying who/what and its attributes.
    Dynamics does this when dealing with where, when, and how.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  19. #19
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    I'm referring to how information is constructed; you seem to be focusing at a macro level - the results of information processing.
    Yes. This thread is about information aspects. You are referring to the functions.

    SSS: "Element is that which is processed by the psyche (part of the information flow.) Function is that which processes (apparatus of the psyche) information."

    There has to be information between entities or we'd be operating on white noise.
    But those entities are information as well. There cannot be infinitely many information entities.

    N is more fundamental than new/hidden contexts......
    No, you have a different perspective, that's all.
    Last edited by Petter; 12-09-2016 at 08:43 AM.

  20. #20
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    332
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    ............ You are referring to the functions.........

    .........There cannot be infinitely many information entities..........

    .....you have a different perspective..........
    N and S symbolize orientation differences toward the same information which affects the order of information processing - information cannot be separated from rationalization in a dynamic control system. To use a crude example, two balls are connected by a string; the balls and string each by themselves can form three entities or them combined can form one entity. N's first inclination may be toward how such a configuration would function ignoring the details of the entities as opposed to S first focusing on its physical details then moving to function; the former is top down and the latter is bottom up.

    infinite entities: I suggest that you are looking the wrong way: relativism can be infinite; its a matter of perception......

    I agree that we have been talking apples and oranges - and perhaps not that productive for either of us. However, I did appreciate your responses and found them interesting.....

    a.k.a. I/O

  21. #21
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    I kept the underlying structure of Socionics, as well as the definitions and descriptions in mind as I worked through my understanding of Socionics. To completely alter the structure and/or the definition of the elements is to turn the Socionics theory into something else. That's fine, but it is no longer "Socionics" you are talking about.
    I disagree with you. SSS defines the aspects (which they call 'information elements'... they also use the word 'aspekty') in a completely different way, and it is still considered as "Socionics".

    I also was keen on seeing if Socionics fit with some more modern theories on the brain and information processing. Since Socionics is a purely abstract theory (it relies on definitions and theoretical structures), without reference to anything more material (such as the nervous system, brain chemicals, etc), then it cannot be accurately tested, nor falsified. I believe(d) that if it described more material aspects of our brains, then it could eventually be tested, falsfied, proved...or at least parts of it.
    Good, that is my view as well.

    For example, I prefer to deal with the Aspects (aka "aspectonics"):
    object/field
    internal/external
    abstract/involved
    static/dynamic
    continuity/divisible
    (I couldn't get anyone to translate the particular words, and I never found a sufficient set of terms for this; analog/digital was the closest.)
    That is 32 different kinds of information aspects. We need exactly eight aspects.

    And starting from the aspects I build up my definition and understandings of the IM Elements. This helps to remove certain terms (such as 'judging vs perceiving') that are used differently in other theories and in day-to-day language.
    First, IM Elements don't perceive anything. IM elements are categories of information.
    I do believe that we have systems in our brains/neurosystem that handles certain categories of information, but those systems aren't "IM Elements" themselves.
    You are confusing aspects (i.e. information) with IM elements/functions (i.e. information processing).

    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...gustinaviciute

    "All eight elements of IM are located in the psyche of each individual. That is, Each of us has the same forms of perception and information processing. But in complex situations that require intellectual effort, people tend to trust only one pair of elements: one extroverted and introverted one."

    For example, our visual and auditory systems each have 2 types of information streams:
    the Dorsal stream (aka "where" stream) handles spatial processing including location, movement, spatial transformations, spatial relations.
    the Ventral stream (aka "what" stream) handles object processing including color, texture, pictorial detail, shape, size.
    In socionics/aspects terms, the Dorsal stream is described by "Dynamics", and the Ventral stream is described by "Statics".
    IOW, the Dorsal stream lets us know that something is flying at us (Dynamic).
    The Ventral stream tells us what the object is (Static).
    I have also considered the dorsal stream and the ventral stream, nice. And yes, ventral is about static information and dorsal is about dynamic information.

    So, to answer your question, the categories of information that deals with motion are "Dynamic" ones (Ni/Si/Fe/Te).
    How did you come to that conclusion?

    You still need an IM element that perceives motion. Te evaluates motion/processes.

    Note: We don't process single categories of information in isolation. Even Socionics says this via Model A, in which every Socionics Type has every IM element. We just don't all process all the categories of information to the same degree nor with the same value/priority as every other type.
    No, we can process certain information in isolation. It depends on how much we focus on a particular activity/situation. It is not as if all eight processes always are active (consciously or unconsciously).

    Si/Ni deal with systems. Systems by their very nature are dynamic, cause&effect, action&reaction. These systems could be cyclical (ex ecology, seasons, business markets) and they can be sequential (A causes B causes C, or A leads to B leads to C)
    No, Ti and Te deal with systems.

    Only Ti deals with systems according to SSS.

    "Taste" is tricky. Are you referring to using 'taste' to identify an object? (Static, Xe, S)
    No, that is inaccurate according to Aushra (and SSS).

    "Changes can be noticeable, evident. These are visible manifestations of the process. Everything that is perceived, sensed with any organs of sense, things of current importance, occurring now and here, are included here. This is the process state changing, a person’s state of health."

    "Thus, sensations are evident dynamics of relationships. Why?

    * Sensation is dynamics: we sense taste only when it is changing, otherwise our receptors adapt themselves to it and stop responding."

    Or are you using 'taste' to help season a dish to your preference? (Dynamic, Xi, S)
    And that is inaccurate according to me. We don't perceive the changes in taste, even though our sense organs react to changes in taste. Instead, we perceive two (or more) different states.

    "Comfort" is a result of cause-effect (Dynamic) and orientation (Fi).
    I sit in this chair (action)...
    and the posture it puts me in (cause) makes certain muslces tense and sore (effect)...
    I don't want my muscles to feel sore (Fi)...
    so I identify this chair as having the attribute of "uncomfortable" (Static; attribute/Identity).

    I sit in this other chair (action)...
    and the posture it puts me in (cause) allows all my bones to feel supported and my muscles to relax (effect)...
    This is what I like (Fi)...
    so I identify this chair as having the attributes of "comfortable" (Static; attribute/identity)
    The cause-effect part of what sitting in a chair does to my bones/muscles is Si information.
    We are only interested in the chair-body interaction, the sensation.

    It is about Si, yes, but it is not dynamic information. See my previous comment.

    Yes and No.
    No, because that branch could also be considered a whole object itself, the leaf its own object, and the fruit its own object.
    I agree.

    But Yes, too, in that the process of establishing what is "branch" and what is "not branch", you have to set defining boundaries which distinguishes it from other things. What makes a branch different from a leaf? or a leaf from a fruit? (Static, Xi)
    Defining those boundaries is about Ti, yes. But that is a judging IM element/function, hence you are not observing/seeing/perceiving the objects. You are evaluating the objects.

    However, there is another way to distinguish between branch and tree, which isn't about evaluation/logic. Instead, it is about perception and memory. This is how we naturally learn the difference between branch and tree. We experience an object, and thereby we get an image (and sound) of the object (often as a child), and then we try to match another similar object with that image. This process is Si, so Si is also about breaking the information down.

    Why do I claim that Si isn't about relationships? Because you are actually not comparing the objects. The object either fits the image (and sound, i.e. word) or it doesn't. As soon as you start comparing the objects, then you are using Ti.

    To process information, we have to break the information down (J) and build it back up (P).
    To understand our world, we have to break things down into individual components (J) and build them back up into a whole (P).
    Statics does this when identifying who/what and its attributes.
    Dynamics does this when dealing with where, when, and how.
    I don't fully agree with this description. See my previous comment.
    Last edited by Petter; 12-09-2016 at 04:21 PM.

  22. #22
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,264
    Mentioned
    192 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In desire to save time/energy for us both, I'm only going to address a couple of items from your post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    I kept the underlying structure of Socionics, as well as the definitions and descriptions in mind as I worked through my understanding of Socionics. To completely alter the structure and/or the definition of the elements is to turn the Socionics theory into something else. That's fine, but it is no longer "Socionics" you are talking about.
    I disagree with you. SSS defines the aspects (which they call 'information elements'... they also use the word 'aspekty') in a completely different way, and it is still considered as "Socionics".
    Regardless of the terminology one uses to refer to each level, Socionics has
    • 1) 16 Types of Information (IM Types): IEE, LII, SLE, ESI, etc
    • 2) Each IM Type is made up of IM Elements: Ne, Fi, Se, Ti, Si, Te, Ni, Fe
    • 3) Each IM Element (from 2) is placed in particular Functional slots (Model A): base, creative, demonstrative, hidden agenda, etc
    • 4) Each IM Element (from 2) is defined by IM Aspects: object/field, static/dynamic, etc

    To interchange the term used in referring to whichever level doesn't alter socionics, I agree.

    But to interchange the defining aspects (4) of each element (2) is to be talking of something that's not Socionics.
    For example:
    "external dynamics of relationships": Socionics calls this "Si", OP calls it "Te"
    "internal dynamics of relationships": Socionics calls this "Ni", OP calls it "Fe"
    So when OP talks about "Te", OP is actually talking about Socionics' Si,
    and when a Socionics person talks about "Si", OP thinks "external statics of objects" (aka Socionics "Se"). So one person is talking about Si, you're thinking Se, but calling it Si.

    Using the same label doesn't mean you are doing Socionics. MBTI uses the labels of Ne, Te, Se, Si, etc and they aren't doing "Socionics". If a person used MBTI definitions of Si when discussing Socionics Si, they're not talking Socionics, they're talking MBTI. Can you imagine the confusion these kinds of things cause?
    ----

    That is 32 different kinds of information aspects. We need exactly eight aspects.
    Again, using the following terminology:
    Type = IEE
    Element = Ne, Fi
    Aspect = internal, statics
    Then yes, Socionics needs exactly 8 elements (Ne, Fi, Se, Ti, Si, Te, Ni, Fe).

    Each element (Ne, Fi, etc) needs a minimum of 3 aspects to define it. For example, Se = {object, external ("explicit"), involved, static, continuity}.
    Take any 3 of those 5 terms and you have defined Se...in part.

    But combining different aspects helps us talk about different parts of Socionics. For example:
    Alpha Quadra values {explicit fields (Ti,Si)}, {implicit objects {Ne,Fe)}, {abstract statics (Ne,Ti)}, and {involved dynamics (Fe,Si)}.
    Gamma Quadra values the opposite.
    Delta Quadra values {abstract objects (Ne, Te)}, {involved fields (Fi,Si)}, {implicit statics (Ne,Fi)}, and {explicit dynamics (Si,Te)}
    Beta Quadra values the opposite.
    We can also talk about:
    clubs: explicit (ST), implicit (NF), abstract (NT), involved (SF)
    compare/contrast "perceiving" elements:
    Ne/Se vs Ni/Si = {continuity, static, objects} vs {continuity, dynamic, fields}
    Ne/Ni vs Se/Si = {continuity, implicit, abstract} vs {continuity, explicit, involved}
    compare/contrast object oriented elements:
    Ne/Se vs Fe/Te = {static, continuity} vs {dynamic, divisible}
    Se/Te vs Ne/Fe = {explicit, objects} vs {implicit, objects}
    Te/Fe vs Ti/Fi = {dynamic objects} vs {static fields}
    N vs S = {implicit, abstract} vs {explicit, involved}
    T vs F = {explicit, abstract} vs {implicit, Involved}
    S vs F = {explicit, involved} vs {implicit, involved}
    Si vs Se = both are {continuity, explicit, involved} but {dynamic field} vs {static object}
    etc
    -----

    First, IM Elements don't perceive anything. IM elements are categories of information.
    I do believe that we have systems in our brains/neurosystem that handles certain categories of information, but those systems aren't "IM Elements" themselves.
    "All eight elements of IM are located in the psyche of each individual. That is, Each of us has the same forms of perception and information processing. But in complex situations that require intellectual effort, people tend to trust only one pair of elements: one extroverted and introverted one."
    As for whether or not IM Elements, themselves, directly "perceive information", please keep in mind that Socionics is an abstract theory made up of abstract parts and put into an abstract functional order. None of Socionics is (currently) directly connected to any human structure/system. It is human systems that process information, not an abstract theory of an abstract structure that doesn't correlate (yet) with actual human structure/systems.

    I think Augusta may have linked Te to the gallbladder and liver somehow, but I don't believe that my neurosystem uses my gallbladder and liver as its tools to perceive motion. Do you?
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  23. #23
    Arete GuavaDrunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Now in stores near you.
    TIM
    EIE 9w8-5-4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,433
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    Xe/Xi refers to Objects/Fields.

    P elements refer to taking something in as a whole, the integrity of the parts are kept together as one unit.
    J elements refer to dividing something up into its parts, each part being seen as discrete.

    (...)

    Each types has a different structure between information, and certain clumps fire off together differently than those of other types. So with NeTi, the underlying structure is related to Ti info, while with an NeFi, the underlying structure is related to Fi info. Both Ne types jump object to object, subject to subject, person to person, thought to thought. It might seem "dynamic" to an outsider, but the information attended to isn't particularly dynamic information. (Processing information is ITSELF a dynamic process, but the information being processed isn't necessarily dynamic information. Do you understand the difference?)

    (...)

    And before there's further confusion, Ti/Fi are fields that are broken down into individual parts...individual field elements. Hence 'static'. The individual relationships, similarities, differences, connections which serve to further define the attributes of a thing, an idea, a person, an event.

    Ni/Si are fields that are cohesive wholes. Think of systems. If you mess with one part of a system, it will likely alter the entire system in some way. The systems can be broken down into parts (Fe/Te), but those are dynamic parts, each part representing a particular sequence/cycle within the overall system. Systems that primarily utilize Fe information to understand are generally systems that involve living creatures (human, animal, plant, etc). Hence why "ethics" is commonly listed in Fe definitions.
    Reason is a whore.

  24. #24
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    I agree that we have been talking apples and oranges - and perhaps not that productive for either of us. However, I did appreciate your responses and found them interesting.....
    Well, it is not that simple. Our goal is to match eight information aspects with eight cognitive processes, so we need to consider both. How do we describe/define a cognitive process? There are (at least) three ways. We can describe the effects of a process (Te dominant types like to organize etc.), we can describe our experiences of a process (i.e. a phenomenological approach...this is my method) and we can try to define a process (which is your method).

    The problem with Socionics is that it focused too much on defining the information aspects, and too little on matching aspects with cognitive processes.

    N colors input processes in that one has a bias toward the linkages more than the entities of information at any level of granularity; however, linkages and entities can only be separated in theory not in reality.
    N and S symbolize orientation differences toward the same information which affects the order of information processing - information cannot be separated from rationalization in a dynamic control system.
    To use a crude example, two balls are connected by a string; the balls and string each by themselves can form three entities or them combined can form one entity. N's first inclination may be toward how such a configuration would function ignoring the details of the entities as opposed to S first focusing on its physical details then moving to function; the former is top down and the latter is bottom up.
    Okay, so you are saying that N is more than the linkage. But what exactly do you mean by "ignoring the details of the entities" in this example?

    N is theoretical - the sum of the linkages that input processes generate; however, input without rationalization is not recognition. Recognition is the connection of two entities, one of which is residing in your memory and the other in your input register. Both have to go through a CPU for recognition to occur.
    Does N connect the two entities (i.e. information in memory and input register) in your view?

  25. #25
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    332
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    .........eight information aspects with eight cognitive processes........

    The problem with Socionics is that it focused too much on defining the information aspects, and too little on matching aspects with cognitive processes.

    ....."ignoring the details of the entities"......Does N connect the two entities........
    ref. line 1 Overall, there are really only two controlling processes: input and output, where rationalization is part of and integral to the latter. Type reflects an operating system, on which all the apps are based. The resulting influences of this controlling kernel are what Socionics has observed. However, Socionics has yet to discover its "string theory".

    ref. line 2 I do not expect much more from a classification system based on early 20th century thinking. One cannot define an operating system from informational aspects; Socionics is only a behavioural classification system. The classification information would likely be valid when verifying the true system. However, most seem content wallowing in their information elements, which is likely sufficient for some applications.....

    rf. line 3 Top-down (N, which is relativistic in the general sense) is a perspective of the exact same information that bottom-up processor (S) would see. Does one look out upon a forest or a bunch of trees. How does a type absorb information for processing? As INTj, I see integrated systems or vistas but I have to force myself to focus on the constituent parts or detail; ISTjs would likely have to force themselves to focus at a system level but they'd let no detail escape. S and N are ways of limiting information because the brain cannot process it all. N is the sum, connection and or integration of entities - the system perspective........

    a.k.a. I/O

  26. #26
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    In desire to save time/energy for us both, I'm only going to address a couple of items from your post.
    Regardless of the terminology one uses to refer to each level, Socionics has
    1) 16 Types of Information (IM Types): IEE, LII, SLE, ESI, etc
    2) Each IM Type is made up of IM Elements: Ne, Fi, Se, Ti, Si, Te, Ni, Fe
    3) Each IM Element (from 2) is placed in particular Functional slots (Model A): base, creative, demonstrative, hidden agenda, etc
    Yes

    4) Each IM Element (from 2) is defined by IM Aspects: object/field, static/dynamic, etc
    Yes and no. Aspects must match IM elements. The former is (defined) information and the latter is (eight different types of) information processing.

    But to interchange the defining aspects (4) of each element (2) is to be talking of something that's not Socionics.
    Is SSS theory "Socionics" in your view? They partially contradict Aushra's definitions.

    For example:
    "external dynamics of relationships": Socionics calls this "Si", OP calls it "Te"
    "internal dynamics of relationships": Socionics calls this "Ni", OP calls it "Fe"
    So when OP talks about "Te", OP is actually talking about Socionics' Si,
    and when a Socionics person talks about "Si", OP thinks "external statics of objects" (aka Socionics "Se").
    So one person is talking about Si, you're thinking Se, but calling it Si.
    The headline is "An alternative view on information aspects". I am challenging Aushra's definitions. And Te in OP is not the same as Aushra's definition of Si. One definition of Te is right and the other is wrong (or both are wrong).

    Using the same label doesn't mean you are doing Socionics.
    Can you define "doing Socionics"?

    MBTI uses the labels of Ne, Te, Se, Si, etc and they aren't doing "Socionics". If a person used MBTI definitions of Si when discussing Socionics Si, they're not talking Socionics, they're talking MBTI.
    First of all, there are no MBTI definitions of the functions, only descriptions. Secondly, there are many different models in Socionics: Model A, Model A systemic, Model A2, Model B, Model T, Model J, Model M etc. So we have to distinguish between classical Socionics/mainstream Socionics and other versions of Socionics.

    Can you imagine the confusion these kinds of things cause?
    I don't think it is that hard to keep them separated.

    Again, using the following terminology:
    Type = IEE
    Element = Ne, Fi
    Aspect = internal, statics
    Then yes, Socionics needs exactly 8 elements (Ne, Fi, Se, Ti, Si, Te, Ni, Fe).
    Each element (Ne, Fi, etc) needs a minimum of 3 aspects to define it. For example, Se = {object, external ("explicit"), involved, static, continuity}.
    Take any 3 of those 5 terms and you have defined Se...in part.
    Are you "doing Socionics"?

    The problem is that the eight IM elements must process ALL information, so if you are using more than three dichotomies (i.e. 2x2x2 aspects) then it won't work.

    But combining different aspects helps us talk about different parts of Socionics. For example:
    Alpha Quadra values {explicit fields (Ti,Si)}, {implicit objects {Ne,Fe)}, {abstract statics (Ne,Ti)}, and {involved dynamics (Fe,Si)}.
    Gamma Quadra values the opposite.
    Delta Quadra values {abstract objects (Ne, Te)}, {involved fields (Fi,Si)}, {implicit statics (Ne,Fi)}, and {explicit dynamics (Si,Te)}
    Beta Quadra values the opposite.
    I don't think the so-called Quadra values are accurate.

    We can also talk about:
    clubs: explicit (ST), implicit (NF), abstract (NT), involved (SF)
    compare/contrast "perceiving" elements:
    Ne/Se vs Ni/Si = {continuity, static, objects} vs {continuity, dynamic, fields}
    Ne/Ni vs Se/Si = {continuity, implicit, abstract} vs {continuity, explicit, involved}
    compare/contrast object oriented elements:
    Ne/Se vs Fe/Te = {static, continuity} vs {dynamic, divisible}
    Se/Te vs Ne/Fe = {explicit, objects} vs {implicit, objects}
    Te/Fe vs Ti/Fi = {dynamic objects} vs {static fields}
    N vs S = {implicit, abstract} vs {explicit, involved}
    T vs F = {explicit, abstract} vs {implicit, Involved}
    S vs F = {explicit, involved} vs {implicit, involved}
    Si vs Se = both are {continuity, explicit, involved} but {dynamic field} vs {static object}
    etc
    I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

    As for whether or not IM Elements, themselves, directly "perceive information", please keep in mind that Socionics is an abstract theory made up of abstract parts and put into an abstract functional order.
    None of Socionics is (currently) directly connected to any human structure/system. It is human systems that process information, not an abstract theory of an abstract structure that doesn't correlate (yet) with actual human structure/systems.
    http://en.socionicasys.org/teorija/dlja-novichkov/model

    "Function is that which processes (apparatus of the psyche) information."

    Again, Aushra: "All eight elements of IM are located in the psyche of each individual. That is, Each of us has the same forms of perception and information processing. But in complex situations that require intellectual effort, people tend to trust only one pair of elements: one extroverted and introverted one."

    I think Augusta may have linked Te to the gallbladder and liver somehow, but I don't believe that my neurosystem uses my gallbladder and liver as its tools to perceive motion. Do you?
    What is your point?
    Last edited by Petter; 12-13-2016 at 05:34 PM.

  27. #27
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    ref. line 1 Overall, there are really only two controlling processes: input and output, where rationalization is part of and integral to the latter. Type reflects an operating system, on which all the apps are based. The resulting influences of this controlling kernel are what Socionics has observed. However, Socionics has yet to discover its "string theory".
    Jung, Isabel Briggs Myers, Keirsey and other typologists have observed and decribed people's behavior, and then they have concluded that certain behaviors are caused by certain processes in our brains. Socionists, on the other hand, have tried to define different kinds of information that fits each process/behavior.

    One cannot define an operating system from informational aspects
    But that is not what we are trying to do. We observe behavior, study descriptions of behavior (Jung etc.) and observe cognitive processes. Then we try to define information aspects. I think it is very hard to define the actual processes (i.e. your method).

    ; Socionics is only a behavioural classification system. The classification information would likely be valid when verifying the true system. However, most seem content wallowing in their information elements, which is likely sufficient for some applications.....
    We either define the operating system/cognitive processes, or we try to describe them as accurately as possible.

    rf. line 3 Top-down (N, which is relativistic in the general sense) is a perspective of the exact same information that bottom-up processor (S) would see. Does one look out upon a forest or a bunch of trees. How does a type absorb information for processing? As INTj, I see integrated systems or vistas but I have to force myself to focus on the constituent parts or detail; ISTjs would likely have to force themselves to focus at a system level but they'd let no detail escape. S and N are ways of limiting information because the brain cannot process it all. N is the sum, connection and or integration of entities - the system perspective........
    This is your example:

    "To use a crude example, two balls are connected by a string; the balls and string each by themselves can form three entities or them combined can form one entity. N's first inclination may be toward how such a configuration would function ignoring the details of the entities as opposed to S first focusing on its physical details then moving to function; the former is top down and the latter is bottom up."

    What do you mean by "function" in this example?

    "the relative (N) that places each packet in context, in perhaps a multitude of ways, with every other related packet."

    Are you saying that N deals with details or not?

  28. #28
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    332
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    Socionists, on the other hand, have tried to define different kinds of information that fits each process/behavior.

    I think it is very hard to define the actual processes (i.e. your method).

    We either define the operating system/cognitive processes, or we try to describe them as accurately as possible.

    What do you mean by "function" in this example?

    Are you saying that N deals with details or not?
    Lines 1&3: The disconnect I see is that 8 independent elements (and also invented sub-elements?) are defined without considering that there is a control system on which everything rides.
    Line 2: Control process structures have been studied for decades. They're more straight forward to define than information elements, which takes a lot of observation time; control system configurations are mathematically based; it's just that the theory resides in the hard science world. I think its so intuitively obvious, I wonder why it hasn't already been studied.
    Line 4: Function in that example could refer to aerodynamics, limitations of the two balls, stress factors in the string, what fun could be had, etc.. The first inclination of N is to not necessarily focus on the component elements; it is to look at the system or its potential uses or its oddity.
    Line 5: N can be as detailed as S but the details are relativistic. S is quantitative while N is qualitative. N may not focus on the colour of a car but would notice that all the cars in this section of the parking lot are the same colour. I find that I easily recognize individuals and know how s/he generally behaves in detail and whether or not I liked the person but I cannot easily remember things like names, where or when we met, the topics we discussed, the clothes worn, etc..

    a.k.a. I/O

  29. #29
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    Lines 1&3: The disconnect I see is that 8 independent elements (and also invented sub-elements?) are defined without considering that there is a control system on which everything rides.
    Line 2: Control process structures have been studied for decades. They're more straight forward to define than information elements, which takes a lot of observation time; control system configurations are mathematically based; it's just that the theory resides in the hard science world. I think its so intuitively obvious, I wonder why it hasn't already been studied.
    Which control system/process are you referring to?

    Line 4: Function in that example could refer to aerodynamics, stress factors in the string,
    This is Thinking, mainly Ti.

    what fun could be had, etc..
    This is Feeling, mainly Fe.

    limitations of the two balls,.... The first inclination of N is to not necessarily focus on the component elements; .....it is to look at the system or its potential uses or its oddity.
    This is Ne.

    Line 5: N can be as detailed as S but the details are relativistic.
    I both agree and disagree with you here. Yes, N is relativistic and there are some details, but those are abstractions, i.e. minimum of details that is needed in order to distinguish one object from another object. As soon as you go beyond those abstractions, then you are using Sensing, S.

    S is quantitative while N is qualitative. N may not focus on the colour of a car but would notice that all the cars in this section of the parking lot are the same colour.
    No, that is not N in my view. It is obvious information... first Sensing, and then more Sensing.

  30. #30
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    332
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The general control system configurations are open-loop (Ij and Ep) and closed-loop (Ej and Ip).
    "This is Thinking, mainly Ti." This is why I used the word "refer" because I find it easier to explain input by showing results whether it be via T or F. If I recall the joke: I'm an Injeneer but I donno how to spel it.
    Potential uses and oddity can also be a result of rationalization if one wants to split hairs.
    I'm at a loss as how to respond to your last statement because I'm obviously not being clear enough. Human sensing (the dictionary meaning) is comprised of S and N. I can say no more.

    a.k.a. I/O

  31. #31
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    1,547
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hi, Rebel.
    I can easily relate to the information elements as being subsets of a larger input/output control loop with multiple and hierarchical feedback loops, which living organisms use to navigate in and operate on their environment. I've even thought it might be interesting to try to diagram this system, but between having a fairly sketchy understanding of socionics, being pretty busy, and not seeing any way to monetize this, I haven't pursued it.
    I have thought about it, though, and one thing I'm unclear on is why you (and others, apparently) think that iNtuition is an input (sensing. or perceiving) function?

    I mean, let's say I've built an op-amp circuit that accepts information from the environment and does something with it. Sensing is obviously an input. Information about the environment comes in directly from the detectors, or the five senses. What environmental stimulus is called iNtuition?

    I see iNtuition as an analysis of the data, not the data itself.

    One big problem I see with Socionics is some of it's practitioner's attempts to emulate the hard sciences, perhaps as a clumsy way to attain instant respectability. The original writings on function dimensionality most clearly reflect this, with their relating them to space and time dimensions. I mean, what the heck is this about? This is really misleading, when you are trying to think about how living organisms operate. It is much more likely that function dimensionalities are really gain coefficients.

    Clearly, our senses have a time element built into them. I've designed and built control systems before, and it is very useful to be able to keep a record of the last input state. In organisms, that would be the equivalent of noticing that the "rock" that was always over there in the grass just vanished, as the wolf ducks and moves closer. How would a state-control system operate without access to previous states, to which the present state can be compared? It wouldn't, for very long. This constitutes the most basic element of a "time" dimension, and this process may relate to intuition, but it is not limited to intuition.

    A second problem I see with Socionics is it's constant attraction to symmetries. "If there are four functions, and there are input and output classifications, then there must be two input functions and two output functions", when it seems clear to me that sensing is the input to the system, and thinking, feeling, and intuition are all internal control loops which operate on the data received from sensing. Honestly, trying to understand an organism's control scheme by the above approach is like trying to derive thermodynamics by disassembling a jet engine.

    In any case, why do you think intuition is a sensing function?
    Last edited by Adam Strange; 12-20-2016 at 04:33 PM.

  32. #32
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    332
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Adam Strange

    I don't look upon N as intuitive or intuition as the dictionary would define these words. I view all information at all levels of granularity as having relative (N) and absolute (S) components. Pixels on a screen mean nothing without each having coherence to the neighbours and combined form a picture sequenced in time with others, which can be inputted to my brain differently than yours. We each get different facsimiles of the same set of pictures because we select different sets of pixels which have to be connected differently as well; this reduces the data set for processing. Intuition in the dictionary sense has to involve rationalization in perhaps our background (likely closed-loop) processors that control automatic response; I doubt that intuition has anything to do with Socionics classifications. In a sense, I look upon N as the set of connections among facts with the set of facts being S.


    a.k.a. I/O

  33. #33
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    332
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Adam Strange

    In engineering, I have always has an innate ability to connect the dots, and to foresee problems and consequence in my design projects and contracts; I built a very successful career on it. Was I more intuitive than some S-types that I knew? I don't think so although I seemed more adept at seeing the big picture but that's just one variation of an NT skill set. I have been betrayed in my personal life many times; if I had so much intuition, I would have foreseen potential problems there as well but I didn't (perhaps this is typical of INTj). A direct perception of the truth or fact without apparent reasoning sounds very much like unconscious, background processing like when riding a bicycle. Occasionally I get this gut feeling that I could link to intuition but an ISTp friend of mine is much better at unconsciously divining the truth. I think that Socionics should have used their symbols (or possibly I, E, T, F, S, N, j and p) without attaching words that can be misinterpreted. N-types don't have superior intuition to S-Types but there are certain individuals that have better intuition.

    a.k.a. I/O

  34. #34
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    ...
    I apologize for a delayed reply.

    The general control system configurations are open-loop (Ij and Ep) and closed-loop (Ej and Ip).
    Can you explain this part a bit further?

    "This is Thinking, mainly Ti." This is why I used the word "refer" because I find it easier to explain input by showing results whether it be via T or F. If I recall the joke: I'm an Injeneer but I donno how to spel it.
    What do you mean by 'input' here?

  35. #35
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    332
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    .......Can you explain this part a bit further?....What do you mean by 'input' here?
    @Petter I can refer you to my comments C3 and C5 on my first article below. To better answer your second question, would the second article add anything to the first?

    http://www.socionics.com/articles/mytake.html

    http://www.socionics.com/articles/int_ext.html

    a.k.a. I/O

  36. #36
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    332
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Petter Note that like many of my early articles, the first article is rather clumsy because I was attempting to use Socionics-speak to describe my concepts; I was not pleased with the result but it may get the point accross.

  37. #37
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have changed my mind. I don't think dynamic ('e') vs. static ('i') works. It is (now) obvious to me that our sensations are dynamic and static. For example, your knee hurts. That sensation/information is both continuous and in constant fluctuation (i.e. dynamic). But a light touch on the arm can be static (like a snapshot).
    Last edited by Petter; 03-18-2017 at 11:39 AM.

  38. #38
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    @Petter I can refer you to my comments C3 and C5 on my first article below. To better answer your second question, would the second article add anything to the first?

    http://www.socionics.com/articles/mytake.html

    http://www.socionics.com/articles/int_ext.html

    a.k.a. I/O
    "Extroverted output rationalizes data in real-time; Te and Fe seek to control or deal with external environments, circumstances and issues as they happen by producing immediate responses."

    This is problematic since an ILI chess player would use both Ni and Te in order to visualize and
    calculate future moves.

  39. #39
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    332
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    "Extroverted output rationalizes data in real-time; Te and Fe seek to control or deal with external environments, circumstances and issues as they happen by producing immediate responses."

    This is problematic since an ILI chess player would use both Ni and Te in order to visualize and
    calculate future moves.
    You seem to be assuming that information elements are correct;one shouldn't employ them or any related model to explain a different model, which is a closed loop control system that has N and T limits. Visualizations and future projections are irrelevant at this level; one has to think of the transfer and handling of data at a CPU-like level. Information elements are higher-order observations mixed in with lower order with no particular view of actual process structure or flow.

    a.k.a. I/O
    Last edited by Rebelondeck; 03-18-2017 at 10:34 AM.

  40. #40
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    179
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    You seem to be assuming that information elements are correct;one shouldn't employ them or any related model to explain a different model, which is a closed loop control system that has N and T limits. Visualizations and future projections are irrelevant at this level; one has to think of the transfer and handling of data at a CPU-like level. Information elements are higher-order observations mixed in with lower order with no particular view of actual process structure or flow.

    a.k.a. I/O
    I have discarded the information aspects in OP, Aushra's information aspects and SSS's information aspects/elements. They don't work. See my new thread: "Definitions of the Cognitive Functions (or IM elements)". And yes, I think they are correct.

    My current view is that we should define IM elements/functions via eight different kinds of information. This is essentially what SSS have done, but they have presented inaccurate definitions. For example, their distinction between extroverted and introverted elements does not work, especially Te vs. Ti.

    However, there is another way to define IM elements/functions (i.e. your method?). You have tried to define how the functions process information, right? Or, have you tried to define both how and what (kinds of information each function processes)?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •