In desire to save time/energy for us both, I'm only going to address a couple of items from your post.
Originally Posted by
Petter
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?
Reply With Quote
