Information Element Imperatives

[Exodus]

The way I look at socionics, the main theoretical issue is the semantics of the information elements and functions. The following is part of an idea I've been kicking around, which is to split each information element into different aspects. I think Rick said he was going to do this for his book.

This came to mind when Golden mentioned that her attitude towards wasn't entirely clear if was supposed to mean something like enjoyment of the senses, for example, but that it became perfectly clear if it was really about maintaining a balanced internal state.

It's becoming more clear to me that there are at least two aspects, one for pure information, and one for a sort of imperative or goal. Trying to define semantics without something like these leads only to a loose collection of themes. Everyone has all these imperatives, but different types feel different ones more strongly, the strongest being functions 1 & 5, followed by 2 & 6. Generally, this tells us what it means to "value" an information element.

So, this is an attempt to define the imperative for each information element.

Should be read as "I need to have/achieve ____."

: balance/harmony
: purpose/meaning
: self-expression
: productive activity effectiveness
: order
: faithfulness to personal feelings
: maximizing potential novelty discovery / exploring the hidden/unknown
: mastery/dominion impact

These should be interpreted very generally. can mean mastering having an impact on the self, others, a craft, etc. Any suggestions or improvements?

For - also realization of potential?

[Jarno]

: maximizing potential
: mastery/dominion

I like your approach, less information and more of other aspects

Those 2 that I've quoted are the ones that I find not very good, or recognizable. The others are much better recognizable.

Maybe Se is something like 'attention seeking' or 'pleasure seeking' though it might be too broad...

[Creepy-]

The way I look at socionics, the main theoretical issue is the semantics of the information elements and functions. The following is part of an idea I've been kicking around, which is to split each information element into different aspects. I think Rick said he was going to do this for his book.

This came to mind when Golden mentioned that her attitude towards wasn't entirely clear if was supposed to mean something like enjoyment of the senses, for example, but that it became perfectly clear if it was really about maintaining a balanced internal state.

It's becoming more clear to me that there are at least two aspects, one for pure information, and one for a sort of imperative or goal. Trying to define semantics without something like these leads only to a loose collection of themes. Everyone has all these imperatives, but different types feel different ones more strongly, the strongest being functions 1 & 5, followed by 2 & 6. Generally, this tells us what it means to "value" an information element.

So, this is an attempt to define the imperative for each information element.

: maintaining balance/harmony
: living according to one's purpose
: unhindered expression
: productive activity
: everything having a place/role
: faithfulness?
: maximizing potential
: mastery/dominion

These should be interpreted very generally. can mean mastering the self, others, a craft, etc. Any suggestions or improvements?

For - includes having a clear logical understanding
For - connotes "faithfulness" generally to one's personal feelings (the color of the laser beams, so to speak)
For - also realization of potential?

Steps in the right direction. Identifying what the "essence" of the IE's are.

The role of blocked elements should not be underestimated. If I understand the theory of +/- correctly, two elements blocked together create an emergence in both, where they act differently than they are if abstracted. The type becomes not only the functions the elements are placed in, but the way these function relate with each other.

As for Ne... I think it is more likely that the potential which is looked into, and the realization of the potential, is determined by the rational blocked element. That is just speculatory, though.

[EyeSeeCold]

For me, = meaning > purpose

I think is closer to purpose.

However for this exercise, I'll say:
Maintaining hands-off guiding

[tcaudilllg]

The way I look at socionics, the main theoretical issue is the semantics of the information elements and functions. The following is part of an idea I've been kicking around, which is to split each information element into different aspects. I think Rick said he was going to do this for his book.

This came to mind when Golden mentioned that her attitude towards wasn't entirely clear if was supposed to mean something like enjoyment of the senses, for example, but that it became perfectly clear if it was really about maintaining a balanced internal state.

It's becoming more clear to me that there are at least two aspects, one for pure information, and one for a sort of imperative or goal. Trying to define semantics without something like these leads only to a loose collection of themes. Everyone has all these imperatives, but different types feel different ones more strongly, the strongest being functions 1 & 5, followed by 2 & 6. Generally, this tells us what it means to "value" an information element.

So, this is an attempt to define the imperative for each information element.

: maintaining balance/harmony
: living according to one's purpose
: unhindered expression
: productive activity
: everything having a place/role
: faithfulness?
: maximizing potential
: mastery/dominion

These should be interpreted very generally. can mean mastering the self, others, a craft, etc. Any suggestions or improvements?

For - includes having a clear logical understanding
For - connotes "faithfulness" generally to one's personal feelings (the color of the laser beams, so to speak)
For - also realization of potential?

So are you and Rick going to (try) to do this yourselves, or are you going to be cooperative for once?

And don't even think about introducing the quadra form perspective as your own invention, after we have discussed the issue back and forth on here for years.

It also seems like you are taking an Aristotelian perspective on the elements. (not unexpected) To complete your assertion, consider that the creation of a positive where there was previously only a negative, is just as meaningful a goal as are protection and exaltation.

[Krig the Viking]

I like this. I will have to ruminate on it for a while.

[EyeSeeCold]

Maintaining hands-on guidance / Making promising impacts in life
Maintaining hands-off guidance / Making visible impacts in life
Promoting worthy actions / Receiving voluntary recognition(attention?love?) for effort
Promoting influential actions / Receiving official recognition for effort

Check the duality.

[golden]

I like the direction you're going with this, and a lot of it resonates with me really well.

For the word that comes to mind is "impact." I see that ESC used that term, as well (above).

So if there is a drive with toward mastery or control or dominion or strength or force (stuff stereotypically ascribed to it), I think it has something to do with an underlying need for impactfulness, but I'll have to consider that further.

EDIT: The personal confusion that remains for me after many months of considering my own type is that I seem to value these elements in roughly the following order, though it can change depending on my mood, the context, my stage of development:

unhindered expression
living according to one's purpose
mastery/dominion
productive activity
maximizing potential
everything having a place/role
faithfulness?
maintaining balance/harmony

Which is to say that I don't think these values add up to Model A very well. :\ And I can't really account for that.

[1981slater]

being open-minded, identifying trends and developing potential

[tcaudilllg]

I like the direction you're going with this, and a lot of it resonates with me really well.

For the word that comes to mind is "impact." I see that ESC used that term, as well (above).

So if there is a drive with toward mastery or control or dominion or strength or force (stuff stereotypically ascribed to it), I think it has something to do with an underlying need for impactfulness, but I'll have to consider that further.

EDIT: The personal confusion that remains for me after many months of considering my own type is that I seem to value these elements in roughly the following order, though it can change depending on my mood, the context, my stage of development:

unhindered expression
living according to one's purpose
mastery/dominion
productive activity
maximizing potential
everything having a place/role
faithfulness?
maintaining balance/harmony

Which is to say that I don't think these values add up to Model A very well. :\ And I can't really account for that.

I see... my, power corrupts even the mind, I suppose.

Explain to me why these ruminations on an eight function model matter AT ALL.

[krieger]

I see... my, power corrupts even the mind, I suppose.

Explain to me why these ruminations on an eight function model matter AT ALL.

[tcaudilllg]

You'll be laughing when you get dismissive stares from the professionals.

[krieger]

you're projecting that the "professionals" have any business with me.

[tcaudilllg]

you're projecting that the "professionals" have any business with me.

And how the hell do you plan to make a living?

[golden]

I see... my, power corrupts even the mind, I suppose.

Explain yourself. For once.

[krieger]

And how the hell do you plan to make a living?

not spoon fed in a straight jacket.

[Creepy-male]

labcoat wins at the internet! High score!

[tcaudilllg]

Explain yourself. For once.

Nah, not with that condescending attitude.

[discojoe]

: Fuck off.
: Shine Get.
: Context.
: No clipping.
: Fine, but then go away.
: Women.
: Explanation.
: Who cares.

[Igxfl]

Maybe instead of being "maximizing potential," whatever the heck that means, it could be something like "exploring possibilities."

[golden]

Nah, not with that condescending attitude.

So my interpretation is: someone made me a mod, which is basically a little job where if someone reports (i.e., tattles) on someone else 'round here, a few people have to decide how to deal with it. That's not such a very enviable task, is it? It's potentially very uncomfortable.

But you think I see myself as having a taste of power, so whatever I say to you now will be viewed in that light.

Boo. I was joking with you in the above post, or at least trying to. So yeah. Boo.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

AFAIK every normal human is capable of considering and exploring possibilities. Perhaps you should consider a more uniquely applicable description for .

The point of is to look at and explore all possibilities, or at least as many as possible. polrs, on the other hand, want the most likely scenario, not a ton of possible results. "Exploring multiple possibilities" might fit better, if it's that much of an issue.

[Exodus]

I like the direction you're going with this, and a lot of it resonates with me really well.

For the word that comes to mind is "impact." I see that ESC used that term, as well (above).

So if there is a drive with toward mastery or control or dominion or strength or force (stuff stereotypically ascribed to it), I think it has something to do with an underlying need for impactfulness, but I'll have to consider that further.

OK, that's probably a better definition.

EDIT: The personal confusion that remains for me after many months of considering my own type is that I seem to value these elements in roughly the following order, though it can change depending on my mood, the context, my stage of development:

unhindered expression
living according to one's purpose
mastery/dominion
productive activity
maximizing potential
everything having a place/role
faithfulness?
maintaining balance/harmony
Which is to say that I don't think these values add up to Model A very well. :\ And I can't really account for that.

The only problem I see here is vs. . Maybe you value more than you realize?

So are you and Rick going to (try) to do this yourselves, or are you going to be cooperative for once?

? He's free to comment on this thread just like anyone else.

Rick also pointed out that usually novelty-seeking is a description that more types resonate with, maybe that's better.

And don't even think about introducing the quadra form perspective as your own invention, after we have discussed the issue back and forth on here for years.

Perhaps you could explain this a little more, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Creepy-Snaps]

I would agree with ananke's statement from like August of last year, that Se and Fi are still the most misunderstood elements on the forum.

[rat1]

Lol, tcaud has been saying this for over 4 years and now some of you guys who've been here hear it from another source and decide to consider it. It's just an EM type. The functions have material states, and then energy states. By the way if you want to see the function descriptions they're pretty thorough.. pretty sure tcaud has them somewhere. Tcuad post them in this thread.

[golden]

Lol, tcaud has been saying this for over 4 years and now some of you guys who've been here hear it from another source and decide to consider it. It's just an EM type. The functions have material states, and then energy states. By the way if you want to see the function descriptions they're pretty thorough.. pretty sure tcaud has them somewhere. Tcuad post them in this thread.

Cool--if different people arrive at the same conclusions, that actually makes me happy, because to me it means maybe it's a train of thought that has validity.

I'd like to see what Tcaud came up with. And I have been willing to consider what he says on EM, btw.

Regarding your statement "It's just an EM type," would you mind explaining why? And why does this notion--of an imperative or goal--have to be ascribed to EM, versus to IM? (I just don't understand the EM idea very well.)

[rat1]

I know you havent been here to see tcauds descriptions. Alot of people werent. I'm making a thread about these energy states and my thoughts on them, for whatever that's worth to people. I differ from tcaud on a few things (like the structure of the energy type, what constitutes an energy type.. your question), but one thing I definitely agree with him on is his descriptions of all the energy functions. They're worth reading for anyone interested. To answer what is an energy type I'm gona write up a thread answering that later and I'll link it here. That's actually part of something I've already been writing & planning on posting.

[tcaudilllg]

Cool--if different people arrive at the same conclusions, that actually makes me happy, because to me it means maybe it's a train of thought that has validity.

You should be more attentive to the substance of the arguments presented and the ethics which underlie them. You have an obligation to behave ethically, like as not.

Intellectual honesty is just as important as any other kind of honesty.

I'd like to see what Tcaud came up with. And I have been willing to consider what he says on EM, btw.

I thought you'd already read it. Where's the intellectual curiosity? Still if rat wants to do a write up that's swell.

[golden]

I thought you'd already read it. Where's the intellectual curiosity? Still if rat wants to do a write up that's swell.

The meaning of my above statements--I believe--was that I have open-mindedly read whatever material you have provided here on EM that I have encountered (1) since joining the forum and seeing it freshly posted, and (2) by searching the forum for information on EM. Rat seems to think I have not read the particular information he's speaking of, and he may or may not be correct. I would appreciate a link, and I would appreciate even more if he or someone else who is into EM would present it from their point of view, to add to my ability to understand it.

You should be more attentive to the substance of the arguments presented and the ethics which underlie them. You have an obligation to behave ethically, like as not.

Intellectual honesty is just as important as any other kind of honesty.

For whatever ways I have offended you or done you any harm, I offer you my sincere apology. If you would care to take the time to point to exactly what I have done that prompted these statements, I invite you to PM me (or you can post it here or elsewhere publicly, though I admit that would make me uncomfortable).

Just for the record, I don't claim to know anything much about Socionics, or anything else. But that is not to say that I don't try, over time and in my own manner, to learn.

[tcaudilllg]

In the past, we used the term "exertion type". However, much of that discourse was speculation that we now believe to be incorrect. As for the general supersocion theory, the basic outline is scattered amongst posts in the "other theories" forum.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I don't like your Fi and Ne descriptions. I mean, everybody is faithful to their personal feelings, and everybody likes maximizing their potential.

The rest of the descriptions are good, because they're more specific to me and something that is based on individuals. Not everybody likes 'productive work' but some do. Not everybody needs purpose or meaning in their lives, but some do. Not everybody needs self-expression, but some do. Etc.

But I do like all your other descriptions. Just change Fi & Ne to mean something else, because everybody needs/wants those things equally. The descriptions aren't specific enough.

[Exodus]

I don't like your Fi and Ne descriptions. I mean, everybody is faithful to their personal feelings, and everybody likes maximizing their potential.

The rest of the descriptions are good, because they're more specific to me and something that is based on individuals. Not everybody likes 'productive work' but some do. Not everybody needs purpose or meaning in their lives, but some do. Not everybody needs self-expression, but some do. Etc.

But I do like all your other descriptions. Just change Fi & Ne to mean something else, because everybody needs/wants those things equally. The descriptions aren't specific enough.

Interesting and valid points. I think should probably be changed to something like novelty. Not sure about , any ideas?

[Cuddly McFluffles]

What about "bonds" for ? It would need to be expanded, obviously.

Are you looking at these like a base function?

[Exodus]

What about "bonds" for ? It would need to be expanded, obviously.

Are you looking at these like a base function?

Like I said, if it's the base function it is the first priority.

I guess the striving for close relationships is important for , but I was going for something that applies to bad relationships also.

[Rick]

Like I said, if it's the base function it is the first priority.

I guess the striving for close relationships is important for , but I was going for something that applies to bad relationships also.

Maybe a leading type can contribute? What's their internal experience of ?

"Novelty" is not bad for , but it seems narrower than "balance" or "harmony" for . The thing is, no word will ever be absolutely perfect. But it's worth trying.

[ashlesha]

faithfulness to personal feelings isn't awful. i'm personally not a big fan of "bonds" because i see Fi as applying to more than just positive human relationships, but i think ryene is Fi base and as such her opinion says something.

i've heard resonance for Fi before and liked it. i suppose my choice for Fi would be something like "resonance/dissonance." but i don't know if that counts as an imperative because its not an action? maybe something like "attentiveness to resonance or dissonance?"

i wouldn't be satisfied with any sort of simple phrase descriptor, lol, but since thats the goal here you have my two cents.

[Marie84]

"resonance/dissonance" isn't bad, but yeah I have a hard time quantifying the IE's so simplistically, it makes it a bit too open-ended and easy to misconstrue

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Hmm. Yeah, this is a bit difficult. What about adding in the creative functions ( vs )?

[Azeroffs]

I don't like your Fi and Ne descriptions. I mean, everybody is faithful to their personal feelings, and everybody likes maximizing their potential.

The rest of the descriptions are good, because they're more specific to me and something that is based on individuals. Not everybody likes 'productive work' but some do. Not everybody needs purpose or meaning in their lives, but some do. Not everybody needs self-expression, but some do. Etc.

But I do like all your other descriptions. Just change Fi & Ne to mean something else, because everybody needs/wants those things equally. The descriptions aren't specific enough.

I find it strange that you think everyone is faithful to their personal feelings and wants to maximize their potential but not everyone likes productive work, meaning or self-expression.

I think there are plenty of people that are disconnected from their personal feelings and have no desire to maximize their potential. I think it's just as easy to say that everyone wants to accomplish what they set out to do effectively(people prefer convience over inconvenience), needs some purpose in their life(everything people do is for some desired effect), and needs to express themself in some way(we're not all mutes, and even mutes express themself). Really, it's a matter of emphasis or degrees of need imo, and I think these give a decent general idea of what the types emphasize.

[Azeroffs]

The only change I'd make is 'discovery' for . It pulls in 'potential' and 'novelty' in a nice way I think. They want to discover the wonders of the world and themself.

I like the one. Having a place for everything, but of course in the psychological sense, which may or may not translate into the physical sense. Everything should be in order, logically.