information aspects: behavior

[Joy]

We've talked about which information aspect behavior is related to before, and I'd like to reopen that conversation.

In a description of Te, I'd mentioned behavior. Some people said that behavior isn't Te, it can be other information aspects as well, such as Fe, etc. If I'm not mistaken, at the time I had said that depending on how you look at it and how you define "behavior", other information aspects may involve behavior as well. I've thought about it a bit more, and I disagree.

For the sake of this thread, behavior means "the activity of something". That said...

At this point I'm willing to go as far as to say that behavior pretty much "is" Te. Keep in mind that we all use information from all of the information aspects.

[tcaudilllg]

We've talked about which information aspect behavior is related to before, and I'd like to reopen that conversation.

In a description of Te, I'd mentioned behavior. Some people said that behavior isn't Te, it can be other information aspects as well, such as Fe, etc. If I'm not mistaken, at the time I had said that depending on how you look at it and how you define "behavior", other information aspects may involve behavior as well. I've thought about it a bit more, and I disagree.

For the sake of this thread, behavior means "the activity of something". That said...

At this point I'm willing to go as far as to say that behavior pretty much "is" Te. Keep in mind that we all use information from all of the information aspects.

My has little to do with behavior....

[Joy]

There's more to Te than just behavior, but that's a very large part of it. And keep in mind we're talking about an information aspect here, not an information element.

[Logos]

We've talked about which information aspect behavior is related to before, and I'd like to reopen that conversation.

In a description of Te, I'd mentioned behavior. Some people said that behavior isn't Te, it can be other information aspects as well, such as Fe, etc. If I'm not mistaken, at the time I had said that depending on how you look at it and how you define "behavior", other information aspects may involve behavior as well. I've thought about it a bit more, and I disagree.

For the sake of this thread, behavior means "the activity of something". That said...

At this point I'm willing to go as far as to say that behavior pretty much "is" Te. Keep in mind that we all use information from all of the information aspects.

Dummkopf! ::smacks Joy's nose with a rolled up newspaper:: Behavior is more than the activity itself. When people study behavior it is not just about what is done, but also why it is done. Behavior is not just . Go in the corner and read up more on the functions.

[reyn_til_runa]

the "activity of something" is hard to define. are you referring to any kind of behavior, whether visible or not?

[Joy]

We've talked about which information aspect behavior is related to before, and I'd like to reopen that conversation.

In a description of Te, I'd mentioned behavior. Some people said that behavior isn't Te, it can be other information aspects as well, such as Fe, etc. If I'm not mistaken, at the time I had said that depending on how you look at it and how you define "behavior", other information aspects may involve behavior as well. I've thought about it a bit more, and I disagree.

For the sake of this thread, behavior means "the activity of something". That said...

At this point I'm willing to go as far as to say that behavior pretty much "is" Te. Keep in mind that we all use information from all of the information aspects.

Dummkopf! ::smacks Joy's nose with a rolled up newspaper:: Behavior is more than the activity itself. When people study behavior it is not just about what is done, but also why it is done. Behavior is not just . Go in the corner and read up more on the functions.

If you're talking about all of the possible things which the word "behavior" could mean, then yes, you're right. There are reasons for behavior, there are causes and effects, there are a lot of things related to behavior. But for the purposes of this thread, "behavior" refers to observable (to answer your question reyn) activity... what something is doing.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[FDG]

Some stuff that can somehow be applied to something, in some way or in another, in order to make some things, or some other things, by maybe some means or maybe some others. That's usually the content of your posts.

[Logos]

If you're talking about all of the possible things which the word "behavior" could mean, then yes, you're right. There are reasons for behavior, there are causes and effects, there are a lot of things related to behavior. But for the purposes of this thread, "behavior" refers to observable (to answer your question reyn) activity... what something is doing.

For the purpose of this thread, that's stupid. That is like saying "For the purpose of this thread, a triangle has four sides," or "For the purpose of his thread, God exists, so let's talk about proofs for the existence of God." You are defining the subject and premises in such a way as to ensure a certain conclusion at the outset.

[Joy]

Joy, I don't understand what you're trying to say. What do you mean "the activity of something?" Why would that be Te?

If somebody stands up, the Te aspect of reality would be the action of the person standing.

Te: the action itself from an outside perspective (the external dynamics of objects)
Si: the way standing feels to the person standing, the changing visual perspective of the room, etc. (the external dynamics of fields)

[Joy]

If you're talking about all of the possible things which the word "behavior" could mean, then yes, you're right. There are reasons for behavior, there are causes and effects, there are a lot of things related to behavior. But for the purposes of this thread, "behavior" refers to observable (to answer your question reyn) activity... what something is doing.

For the purpose of this thread, that's stupid. That is like saying "For the purpose of this thread, a triangle has four sides," or "For the purpose of his thread, God exists, so let's talk about proofs for the existence of God." You are defining the subject and premises in such a way as to ensure a certain conclusion at the outset.

Ensure? Conclusion?

Saying that one of the dictionary definitions of something applies to the idea being conveyed is not the same as reinventing the triangle. In order to communicate abstract matters, it's important to make sure people actually mean the same thing when they're using terminology.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Joy]

okay, so instead of behavior - you mean action. The action of an object. External dynamics - what something's doing.

action: dynamics (activity)
action of an object: Te or Fe
external dynamics: Te or Si
what something's doing: Te (the external dynamics of objects)

[MysticSonic]

How things behave is Te? You're pretty much stripping Fe of all its functions, then, as you've classified things Fe does as Te.

[Logos]

If you're talking about all of the possible things which the word "behavior" could mean, then yes, you're right. There are reasons for behavior, there are causes and effects, there are a lot of things related to behavior. But for the purposes of this thread, "behavior" refers to observable (to answer your question reyn) activity... what something is doing.

For the purpose of this thread, that's stupid. That is like saying "For the purpose of this thread, a triangle has four sides," or "For the purpose of his thread, God exists, so let's talk about proofs for the existence of God." You are defining the subject and premises in such a way as to ensure a certain conclusion at the outset.

Ensure? Conclusion?

Okay I will repeat myself: You are defining the subject and premises in such a way as to ensure a certain conclusion at the outset. What is so hard to understand here?

Saying that one of the dictionary definitions of something applies to the idea being conveyed is not the same as reinventing the triangle.

That was a poor analogy on my part though the spirit of the idea is the same, but the second one holds true "for the purpose of this thread."

In order to communicate abstract matters, it's important to make sure people actually mean the same thing when they're using terminology.

Indeed, but you are clearly begging the question in this case.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Joy]

If somebody stands up, the Te aspect of reality would be the action of the person standing.

Te: the action itself from an outside perspective (the external dynamics of objects)

It'd only be Te to another person watching the person stand up then, wouldn't it?

I've been pondering that... could be Se or Te. Or Si, if the person watching is physically affected (such as becoming sexually attracted to the person or something lol). At some point we have to distinguish whether we're talking about information aspects of information elements.

[reyn_til_runa]

We've talked about which information aspect behavior is related to before, and I'd like to reopen that conversation.

In a description of Te, I'd mentioned behavior. Some people said that behavior isn't Te, it can be other information aspects as well, such as Fe, etc. If I'm not mistaken, at the time I had said that depending on how you look at it and how you define "behavior", other information aspects may involve behavior as well. I've thought about it a bit more, and I disagree.

For the sake of this thread, behavior means "the activity of something". That said...

At this point I'm willing to go as far as to say that behavior pretty much "is" Te. Keep in mind that we all use information from all of the information aspects.

Dummkopf! ::smacks Joy's nose with a rolled up newspaper:: Behavior is more than the activity itself. When people study behavior it is not just about what is done, but also why it is done. Behavior is not just . Go in the corner and read up more on the functions.

If you're talking about all of the possible things which the word "behavior" could mean, then yes, you're right. There are reasons for behavior, there are causes and effects, there are a lot of things related to behavior. But for the purposes of this thread, "behavior" refers to observable (to answer your question reyn) activity... what something is doing.

in your context, can an object observe, or otherwise have awareness of, its own activity, and call the action Te?
(reflexively)

[anndelise]

i think i understand what you mean

an example: the car turned left at the corner, then right at the house before the stop sign. a man and a woman got out of the car and walked towards the front of the home. The man stood off to the side and scanned the location surrounding the front of the house. the woman knocked on the door. both people raised their weapons.

in that paragraph, all that is being told is what was actually done, the external dynamics. there is no mention of why, no sensory details, no motivations, no cause/effect, etc.

[FDG]

what something's doing: Te (the external dynamics of objects)

You can't separate this from cause and effect thinking, otherwise it wouldn't be a rational (discrete) function, but an irrational (continuous) one. The rationality is given by the fact that actions are linked by if->then causation (they do not need to be systematically organized to work, which is why it isn't )

[FDG]

i think i understand what you mean

an example: the car turned left at the corner, then right at the house before the stop sign. a man and a woman got out of the car and walked towards the front of the home. The man stood off to the side and scanned the location surrounding the front of the house. the woman knocked on the door. both people raised their weapons.

in that paragraph, all that is being told is what was actually done, the external dynamics. there is no mention of why, no sensory details, no motivations, no cause/effect, etc.

Nice example of Se.

[anndelise]

i think i understand what you mean

an example: the car turned left at the corner, then right at the house before the stop sign. a man and a woman got out of the car and walked towards the front of the home. The man stood off to the side and scanned the location surrounding the front of the house. the woman knocked on the door. both people raised their weapons.

in that paragraph, all that is being told is what was actually done, the external dynamics. there is no mention of why, no sensory details, no motivations, no cause/effect, etc.

Nice example of Se.

no, se would be describing the car, describing the house, describing the location in front of the house, describing the woman, describing the man, describing the weapons

you know...sensory details of objects.

[Joy]

How things behave is Te? You're pretty much stripping Fe of all its functions, then, as you've classified things Fe does as Te.

Fe would be more like... why the person is doing something, in a way. Te is what they're doing, Fe is what's going on internally in that person while they're doing it.

Now, I've been talking about information aspects... Once it's an information element (that is, once it's a mental process, or something being used by a person), we get into the subject of rational and irrational functions. If a person if using their own Te or Fe, it's not actually Te or Fe that they're using to observe the way someone is acting or what they're feeling. The information comes from irrational information elements... Se, Se, Ni, Ne... So basically, if I see the guy stand up, it's probably Se that I'm actually perceiving him with. I process and understand the information I'm seeing with Te, Fe, Ti, and Fi. The process in which I understand that he's standing up is Te. The process in which I understand that he's pissed off is Fe. It's Se through which I see that he's coming towards me, Te through which I process and understand that he's pissed and he's coming towards me, Ni which tells me that he may physically attack me, and when my heart jumps into my throat and my pulse rises, that's Si. At that point I may process what my options are with Ne, try to appeal to understand my relationship to him through Fi, attempt to calm him down so he's not pissed off with Fe, and then ultimately blind him with pepper spray... My knowledge that the pepper spray has the power to immobilize him is Se, the action itself of spraying him is Te... oh god, now I'm getting back into information aspects again.


[spoil:b2921b84ca]Why do I have this feeling that a person or two will try to put spins on different aspects of the above paragraph and attribute them to different information aspects/elements? [/spoil:b2921b84ca]

[Joy]

We've talked about which information aspect behavior is related to before, and I'd like to reopen that conversation.

In a description of Te, I'd mentioned behavior. Some people said that behavior isn't Te, it can be other information aspects as well, such as Fe, etc. If I'm not mistaken, at the time I had said that depending on how you look at it and how you define "behavior", other information aspects may involve behavior as well. I've thought about it a bit more, and I disagree.

For the sake of this thread, behavior means "the activity of something". That said...

At this point I'm willing to go as far as to say that behavior pretty much "is" Te. Keep in mind that we all use information from all of the information aspects.

Dummkopf! ::smacks Joy's nose with a rolled up newspaper:: Behavior is more than the activity itself. When people study behavior it is not just about what is done, but also why it is done. Behavior is not just . Go in the corner and read up more on the functions.

If you're talking about all of the possible things which the word "behavior" could mean, then yes, you're right. There are reasons for behavior, there are causes and effects, there are a lot of things related to behavior. But for the purposes of this thread, "behavior" refers to observable (to answer your question reyn) activity... what something is doing.

in your context, can an object observe, or otherwise have awareness of, its own activity, and call the action Te?
(reflexively)

See my example about the guy attacking me.

[Joy]

what something's doing: Te (the external dynamics of objects)

You can't separate this from cause and effect thinking, otherwise it wouldn't be a rational (discrete) function, but an irrational (continuous) one. The rationality is given by the fact that actions are linked by if->then causation (they do not need to be systematically organized to work, which is why it isn't )

i think i understand what you mean

an example: the car turned left at the corner, then right at the house before the stop sign. a man and a woman got out of the car and walked towards the front of the home. The man stood off to the side and scanned the location surrounding the front of the house. the woman knocked on the door. both people raised their weapons.

in that paragraph, all that is being told is what was actually done, the external dynamics. there is no mention of why, no sensory details, no motivations, no cause/effect, etc.

Nice example of Se.

FDG, you're talking about information elements.

(btw, I disagree that extroverted rational information elements in and of themselves include cause and effect relationships. Cause and effect relationships are dynamic fields, so Si and Ni. Fortunately, we don't use just one information element at a time... Te and Fe are used in combination with other information elements, particularly Ni and Si.)

[Joy]

Action is pretty much typeless.

We're talking about information aspects (and now elements as well), not types. Activity is dynamic, so it's related to the information aspects of Te, Fe, Ni, and Si.

[Joy]

I'll answer the other posts in this thread later... gotta go now.

[Logos]

Action is pretty much typeless.

We're talking about information aspects (and now elements as well), not types. Activity is dynamic, so it's related to the information aspects of Te, Fe, Ni, and Si.

So we're talking about activity now? I thought we were talking about behavior?

[Logos]

behavior is activity and vice versa, i think. at least approximately it works.

Is it?

[Logos]

behavior is activity and vice versa, i think. at least approximately it works.

Is it?

try to visualise it and it'll make sense.

Try and think about it and it'll make sense. :wink:

[Socionics Is A Cult]

behavior is activity and vice versa, i think. at least approximately it works.

Is it?

try to visualise it and it'll make sense.

[reyn_til_runa]

behavior is activity and vice versa, i think. at least approximately it works.

Is it?

try to visualise it and it'll make sense.

so in an approximate world,

behavior : "tastes like chicken" : activity : "i am eating some unknown piece of meat." therefore, all meat = chicken.

[munenori2]

Action is pretty much typeless.

What the symbols mean is concerning the functions in our brain that divides our perception reality into aspects.

Socionics is not behaviorism, it is only concerned with how humans perceive and differentiate reality into the aspects that corresponds with , , etc.

So to say that such and such a action is one is implicitly stating that such and such action is motivated by or is being perceived as .

http://socionics.us/works/dual_nature_of_man.shtml

Look at section 5 where Aushra talks about this.

What socionics says behavior is nothing, but how behavior is perceived is "E". That which percieves the various flavors of "E" are the "E' functions, that which relates ourselves to "E" are the "I" functions.

What is consistently differentiated into vs vs vs are the aspects of reality that correspond with E.

I think the whole j/p thing is a big detriment to understand socionics, because people take the idea that j <> p.

j is perception, p is perception, j is rational perception, p is irrational perception.

The language messes it up because here we have something very clear, and it is messed by the ambiguity of language.
Where socionics concerns itself with behavior is that which is consistently differentiated by the human organism into the aspects of reality being investigated in socionics, haha.. good luck trying to figure that one out.

I think this answer is best. Covers all the bases and still links up the perceptual apparatus to action in a broad holistic way (ie being the result of an interplay between all the elements). + points to hkkmr.

Not that I think this is wholly incompatible with what Joy is arguing, but, to be honest, I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly the claims that are being made here.

[Joy]

Screw it... I think I'm just going to make a thread that covers all of the information aspects and information elements (explaining the differences) in a few days. For now I'll just say that the only thing that Te, Fe, Ne, and Se have in common is that they all represent something in and of itself (as opposed to something in relation to something else, which is what Ti, Fi, Ni, and Si represent).

[Logos]

Screw it... I think I'm just going to make a thread that covers all of the information aspects and information elements (explaining the differences) in a few days. For now I'll just say that the only thing that Te, Fe, Ne, and Se have in common is that they all represent something in and of itself (as opposed to something in relation to something else, which is what Ti, Fi, Ni, and Si represent).

I'm looking forward to seeing your Te (the Alpha and Omega function) >>> Se, Ne, and Fe commentaries.

[anndelise]

It's not as if what joy is starting out with here is anything new
Even Rick's site has Te as activity and behavior, the what, how, & where
As does one of Aushra's papers
And even the wikisocion

characteristics of objects and their motion -- "extraverted" elements
* dynamic, rational elements (objects in motion)
* * Te extraverted logic
* * * algorithmic logic
* * * * external activity of objects
* * * * * external activity of objects: events (what, how, where), activity, behavior, algorithms

Translation of Aushra's 8 facets of reality: http://www.socionics.us/works/socion2.shtml#1

Te - perception of the external dynamics of an object -- it's movements in space

Te -Black (extraverted) logic
Perceives information about animate and inanimate objects' physical activity, deeds, and actions/activities.

Some themes of Te: benefit, motion, action, knowledge, method, mechanism, act, work, reason, technology, fact, expediency, economy

Note: benefit, reason, expediency, and economy all suggest a relationship between things. I don't believe that these are pure Te.

Extroverted logic (Te) is an extroverted, rational, and dynamic information element. It is also called Te, P, algorithmic logic, practical logic, or black logic.
Extroverted logic deals with the external activity of objects, the how, what and where of events, activity or work, behaviour, algorithms, movement, and actions.
The how, what and where of events would be the external activity of events, activity or work would be the external activity of a machine or individual(s) and algorithms describe the external activity of objects.

I am not going to go through every socionics related site to show that yes, elsewhere there is a constant suggestion that Te is about the external activity/behavior of an object.

[aka-kitsune]

an example: the car turned left at the corner, then right at the house before the stop sign. a man and a woman got out of the car and walked towards the front of the home. The man stood off to the side and scanned the location surrounding the front of the house. the woman knocked on the door. both people raised their weapons.

I have an inexplicable, yet irresistible urge to say "X-FILES!!!"

[tcaudilllg]

OK, I think it boils down to this:

• the activity-oriented people here (the traditionalists, the adaptists) see as the perception of behavior
• the phenomena-oreinted people (the conservatives, the liberals) see as communication and exchange

Primarily.

Behavior demands a context. When you behave a certain way, you are relating yourself to something. Invariably, your behaviors are oriented toward the insertion or extraction of energy. (e.g. communication and exchange) So the two views are not -that- different.

When I think of "external dynamics of objects" I think "objects, therefore there must be some means of relationship between them that involves change, without involving any of the other aspects." The only such relationship is exchange and transfer. As for the external dynamics of AN OBJECT? Here's the thing: for the object to be engaged with that which is external to itself at all (for it to have an external aspect), it must be relating to another object, because there is only that which is outside the object and that which is within it. Behavior is the means of the relation. The moment you notice that a man is standing, you are relating to the man via its external aspect.

I agree that behavior is perceived activity, and that (classical) socionics doesn't concern itself with activity. If you want a theory of activity, see the dual-type theory.


EDIT:
As I see it, the aspects of break down politically as follows. If you've not seen the wikisocion page on psychic domain theory, this won't make any sense.

Full list:
benefit, motion, action, knowledge, method, mechanism, act, work, reason, technology, fact, expediency, economy

Consciousness-oriented:
benefit, knowledge, expediency, economy, reason

Life-oriented:
motion, action, method, mechanism, act, work, technology

Both: fact, because facts are data.

[krieger]

I'm litterally stupefied when I see you describe functions in so much detail and expect others to know them the same way, tcaud... I tend to know what a function is only by pure induction. If ever I do try to describe one, I always describe the way it appears when it is in action, and then mostly by using adjectives.

I'd say ones interpretation of what a function is, the way you describe it, is most strongly influenced by what static exertion type functions one values... In your case these would be the utmost defined ones: Se and Ti. In mine, the most vague and abstract ones: Ne and Fi. Of course where dynamic functions are concerned the roles would be precisely opposite.

The thesis put forth in the original thread has some merit... Direct observance of occurances does seem to be strongly correlated with the extrovert judging functions. I wouldn't say that all behavior is necessarily tied to Te, even less that the simple tag "behavior" is enough to describe the function as a whole, but I've seen worse descriptions.