Socionics Terminology

[JRiddy]

I can't tell exactly why, but I really don't like the Jungian terminology for the IM elements. So many of the words have such strong other meanings that it is difficult to separate the socionics meaning from the rest-of-the-world meaning.

I've thought of some other names for the functions based on greek words. I don't know if they're any good, but I just want to see what some other people think.

- thesis, "idea, theory"
- physis, "nature, objects"
- drasis, "action, emphasis"
- pathos, "feeling, emotion"
- chronos, "time"
- aesthesis, "perception, beauty"
- logos, "word, logic"
- ethos, "ethics, morals"

Feel free to critique, revise, or supply your own alternate terms

[Creepy-Cyclops]

The emphasis on T thinking and F feeling has already changed over more so to calling them Logic and Ethics.

It's a good idea, it's just that I kind of like using words that are in the language we're using ie English.

There's probably enough jargon flying around for people to make it sound as complicated as they want.

[anndelise]

I don't know if you've seen it, but gulenko created the two-letter code, using latin:

/ F / factor / force, fact
/ I / intueor / intuition, insight, idea
/ P / profiteor / profit, produce
/ E / emoveo / emotion, expression
/ S / sensus / sensation
/ T / tempus / time, temporal
/ L / lex / logic, law
/ R / relatio / relation

so basically, an IEI would be TE, an LSE would be PS, etc.

I'm curious, how well do you, as an NiFe identify with the TE above?

Oh, and does anyone know how popular/accurate this 2 letter code is? How accepted it's been in the non-english socionics communities?

[Jonathan]

I can't tell exactly why, but I really don't like the Jungian terminology for the IM elements. So many of the words have such strong other meanings that it is difficult to separate the socionics meaning from the rest-of-the-world meaning.

I've thought of some other names for the functions based on greek words. I don't know if they're any good, but I just want to see what some other people think.

- thesis, "idea, theory"
- physis, "nature, objects"
- drasis, "action, emphasis"
- pathos, "feeling, emotion"
- chronos, "time"
- aesthesis, "perception, beauty"
- logos, "word, logic"
- ethos, "ethics, morals"

Feel free to critique, revise, or supply your own alternate terms

This is very similar to a lot of posts I remember earlier on the forum. Basically, you're thinking in the tradition of a lot of people who want to "simplify" the IM elements and replace them with something less abstract.

While your interpretations are definitely based on things actually said by Augusta and other Socionists, the result is the same as when other people do this...namely, you end up with different definitions and a different system overall.

The chief problem is that it appears that these concepts which you substitute for the IM elements are different from the IM elements, and are actually things that can be approached via different IM elements.

For example, it seems to me that people perceive "beauty" in many ways. One may perceive a mathematical theorem to be "beautiful." Does that mean one is seing it from an Si perspective? Is Si confined to what's beautiful? It seems not.

Ne as "idea" or "theory" is one of those things that has been really debated a lot on this forum. It seems that a number of people believe that Ni may also involve ideas, but ideas of a different type than Ne ideas. I believe there was a post earlier about "Does Ne = theory" and I think there were some good responses about why theory is more than Ne and Ne is more than theory.

"Ni = time"....well that's been hammered to death...I won't go into it right now.

[anndelise]

I want to note that this 2 letter code is what Aushra uses in her article here...

http://209.85.135.104/translate_c?hl=en&langpair=ru|en&u=http://socioniko.net/ru/articles/aug-comment.html

here

http://209.85.135.104/translate_c?hl=en&langpair=ru|en&u=http://socioniko.net/ru/articles/aug-duality1.html

As far as I'm concerned, it is the standard...

you know, i actually feel kinda stupid
when i first came across the single letter code for each function, I couldn't for the life of me understand how they had gotten those codes. Now that I know that it's from latin words which reference the idea behind the function, it finally makes sense to me...and makes me smack my head and go "duh!".

Now i'm wondering if this code would be more useful for reminding the reader(s) the meaning behind the code as well as less mixup with mbti etc.

[Brilliand]

Now i'm wondering if this code would be more useful for reminding the reader(s) the meaning behind the code as well as less mixup with mbti etc.

If we want to do that, the three-letter codes are more commonly used in English...

[Logos]

This is very similar to a lot of posts I remember earlier on the forum. Basically, you're thinking in the tradition of a lot of people who want to "simplify" the IM elements and replace them with something less abstract.

While your interpretations are definitely based on things actually said by Augusta and other Socionists, the result is the same as when other people do this...namely, you end up with different definitions and a different system overall.

The chief problem is that it appears that these concepts which you substitute for the IM elements are different from the IM elements, and are actually things that can be approached via different IM elements.

For example, it seems to me that people perceive "beauty" in many ways. One may perceive a mathematical theorem to be "beautiful." Does that mean one is seing it from an Si perspective? Is Si confined to what's beautiful? It seems not.

Ne as "idea" or "theory" is one of those things that has been really debated a lot on this forum. It seems that a number of people believe that Ni may also involve ideas, but ideas of a different type than Ne ideas. I believe there was a post earlier about "Does Ne = theory" and I think there were some good responses about why theory is more than Ne and Ne is more than theory.

"Ni = time"....well that's been hammered to death...I won't go into it right now.

Except I think that those terms have a more specific or connotative meaning than you are giving them credit of having. Is that all there is to these functions? Of course not, but I think that these terms should probably be used as a supplementary tool but not as a replacement. For example, I think that the pathos v. ethos distinction of Fe v. Fi is perhaps not that far off the mark.

[strrrng]

Ne - thesis, "idea, theory"
Se - physis, "nature, objects"
Te - drasis, "action, emphasis"
Fe - pathos, "feeling, emotion"
Ni - chronos, "time"
Si - aesthesis, "perception, beauty"
Ti - logos, "word, logic"
Fe - ethos, "ethics, morals"

completely wrong, inaccurate

[JRiddy]

completely wrong, inaccurate

I'm open to criticism. In fact I appreciate it when I receive meaningful criticism. Please explain why you think certain things are wrong.

I'm not sold on any renamings of the functions, including my own. But the Jungian terms, in my understanding, are extremely prone to misuse not only because of their use in the MBTI and other psychometric systems, but also because they have popular connotative meanings that are very divergent from their socionic meanings.

Conceptually, in socionics, the distinction between extraversion and introversion is one of objects and relations. Colloquially, these terms mean "shy" and "outgoing." In mainstream psychology they mean "outwardly-focussed, from the self" and "inwardly-focussed, on the self." My concern is that semantic issues like this hinder the adoption and understanding of socionics tremendously.

The only ones that I really like are "pathos" for , "ethos" for , and "logos" for . These terms come from Aristotlean Rhetoric, and seem to describe things very close to the IM elements I am using them for. The others aren't that good, but I really believe it's important that the socionics community figures out better ways to explain the information elements in English, because most of the technical breakdowns are still in Russian, and machine translations do not provide the subtlety needed to understand them better.

In response to Jonathan, my goal is certainly not to make these elements out to be something less abstract, but to find ways to make them accessible instead of arcane. I do not want to replace the system at all. My fascination in socionics is grounded in the assurance that it is a highly developed theoretical model based on observation and research. Anyone can make a nice theory (Ennegram) or trait sorter (MBTI, Big 5), but what socionics offers is something greater than both. As someone with intense interest, but little exposure to the intricacies of the research, I feel it is my duty to gain as best an understanding as I can, and help interpret it for others.