Energy and Information Exchange in Benefit and Supervision Relations
According to some posts that has been shared on this forum, a socionics article suggests that supervisors get energy from their supervisee in return of giving information and benefactors give energy in return of taking information.
Do you think it is true or not according to your experience in real life?
1. Define energy
2. Define information
Isnt this Gulenkos energy model. Myresearch, haVe you studied it?
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I think that we can only refer to the essence of things when we try to define things, however, I think it is impossible to define things accurately, we either give a definition that is inadequate or that contains incorrect characteristics. I was referring to psyche energy which is released or consumed during a mental activity. Information is a filtered interpretations of things.Originally Posted by thehotelambush
I don't know if there is an information and energy exchange in asymmetric relations and if there is, I don't know why. However, I feel very energetic when I am around IEEs and IEIs, I think SLI get energetic around me. I think it is true according to model g, but I am not sure. I only read some posts about it that is suggested by an article I haven't read. Gulenko also mentioned it briefly on a youtube video.
I don't think that I understand model g very clearly. I couldn't find any article that gives a detailed explanation for all of the aspects of the model. As far as I understand, polr and ignoring function gathers information, however, person has a very low energy when s/he is exposed to this functions. So supervisee generally feels drained by supervisor because supervisor uses his/her inflation block (polr/brake and ignoring/control function). It is written that person swells information in the absence of energy about inflation block. However, supervisor gets energetic because supervisee use supervisor's creative (demonstrative in model g) function which is easy to process energy wise and it also activates seeking/manipulative function of supervisor. In addition to that seeking/manipulative function is governed outside so supervisee can do that easily, hence supervisor can feel energetic.
In benefit relations, beneficiary uses launch/mobilizing function of benefactor which activates benefactor creative (demonstrative in model g) function which is beneficiary's demonstrative (creative in model g) function so it is easy to process energy wise and it also activates seeking/manipulative function of beneficiary. Again, the seeking/manipulative function is mainly governed by outside which is governed by benefactor's creative (demonstrative in model g) function. So beneficiary feels energetic, however, beneficiary also uses benefactor's control/ignoring function which belongs to inflation block and I think that's why benefactor get information and feels a bit drained by his/her beneficiary.
In real life, I have observed that introvert supervisors get more energetic around their extrovert supervisee, however, I couldn't observe the same pattern when the supervisor is extrovert.
Okay, but what is "psyche energy"? I've never seen a good definition of this from the writers who use it.
IMO it should be defined as the generic resource inherently possessed by the living psyche and which is divided among the IM elements according to the type.
Information is less problematic. But why is information only transferred between supervision pairs? Clearly all types exchange information with all other types, otherwise communication and interaction of any kind would be impossible. My solution to this problem is to instead use the supervision element relation (ER) instead of the type relation. Then there might actually be something to the "information transfer" concept.
Note: I'm referring to when Gulenko says that benefit rings = energy transfer and supervision rings = information transfer. This is why he calls Model G the "energomodel", because it's based on benefit rings unlike Model A. The way you put it in the OP I'm not as familiar with, do you have a link?
I agree that all types exchange information and I also think all types exchange energy. I think energy and information exchange or difference of the magnitudes of the exchange is magnified in asymmetric relations. That's why energy or information transfer can be more apparent. I don't understand what you mean by supervision element (ER), could you explain or share a link?
Gulenko says that supervisor uses inflation block of the supervisee that's why supervisee is swelling information in the absence of energy according to the model, are you refering to this?
Energy model is based on rings so maybe information gathered by different signs of elements may differ, I am not sure about this. I also think it can also be explained by forms of cognition, but I am not sure if you are into it.
If you are referring to my first post, I just wrote what I read from other posts, there wasn't any additional information. I think those people may forget the article mentioned, so I think it is unnecessary to share a link.
Note: I'm referring to when Gulenko says that benefit rings = energy transfer and supervision rings = information transfer. This is why he calls Model G the "energomodel", because it's based on benefit rings unlike Model A. The way you put it in the OP I'm not as familiar with, do you have a link?
Gulenko also briefly mentions it in this video above (between 30:00-40:00), if I remember correctly:
According to video above, IEs activate or inhibit one and other. For example, role function can activate lancher/mobilizing function, however, it inhibits polr/brake function, role function can also activate polr/brake function within the limits of role function's scope. Is there an energy transfer in supervision relations according to model g in your opinion?
As someone who has studied Gulenko's model quite a bit, here are my answers:
Roughly speaking, here are Gulenko's definitions of Information and Energy:
It is true that in Model G the Supervision rings are associated with information transfer, and the Benefit rings are associated with energy transfer. It is not so black and white as the information transfer being solely confined to the supervision rings, or energy transfer being solely confined to the benefit rings. All intertype relations transfer information and energy in some manner. The associations have more to do with efficiency and relative tendencies than with exclusivity.Information is a product of the reflection of the psyche of the environment (or, if the psyche is highly developed, of itself). The result of this process is information, knowledge, skills.
Energy , in contrast to information, is the ability of the psyche to influence, change the environment (or oneself).
Thus, one can know everything (maximum information), but remain inactive (minimum energy) or, on the contrary, be very influential (maximum energy), but do not delve into anything and remember nothing (minimum information).
There are two most important manifestations of psychic energy - motivation (readiness for action) and goal achievement (action itself). A bit like the difference between potential and kinetic energy in physics.
Similar differences can be made in the information. The first kind of information is the content of the communicative object. The second kind of information is the level of organization (complexity) of the object itself.
The first kind of information is used to determine a sociotype from its texts or some other content. Information, understood as the complexity of the organization of the system, formed the basis of the concept of the dimensions of the socionic model. It is believed that the more complex an element of the model is, the greater the number of dimensions inherent in it.
Benefit rings, by their nature, catalyze energetic eruptions of a sort because of the way the type's energy flows from Launcher to Program to Creative to Role etc. This eruption of energy can be good, getting lots of work done, or bad, resulting in explosive conflicts.
Supervision Rings relate to our forms of cognition and the dichotomies from which they spring, as well as the energetic capacity and inhibitory relations of the functions of different types within the same supervision rings. This can also be good, allowing you to solve problems and access skills you wouldn't otherwise have the capacity to, and it can be bad, suppressing, patronizing and inhibiting you.
There is of course far more to say about every topic mentioned here, but it might suffice as a broad overview. I'd be happy to answer if you have any more questions.
Thanks @Varlawend ! That's a lot clearer, and I tend to agree with the basic definition. However this seems most closely linked to the IM element dichotomy Se/Ne. Has Gulenko made that connection or is it primarily about the rings for him?
I'm referring to inter-element relations (IER) which become possible in a 16-element model. They mirror the intertype relations but are more "pure" and static instead of manifesting as long-term trends like intertype relations do. I have my own 16-element model called Model A2 which is different from Model G (see the Articles link in my signature). Gulenko doesn't seem to have recognized the importance of the full group of IER.
The reason I asked for a source is because I need context to tell what the person was thinking and if they said it at all. In this case I'd chalk it up to a miscommunication since it doesn't resemble anything I've heard of from authors who use that terminology (such as Gulenko). Probably @Varlawend can address your questions better from the standpoint of Model G.If you are referring to my first post, I just wrote what I read from other posts, there wasn't any additional information. I think those people may forget the article mentioned, so I think it is unnecessary to share a link.
Gulenko also briefly mentions it in this video above (between 30:00-40:00), if I remember correctly:
According to video above, IEs activate or inhibit one and other. For example, role function can activate lancher/mobilizing function, however, it inhibits polr/brake function, role function can also activate polr/brake function within the limits of role function's scope. Is there an energy transfer in supervision relations according to model g in your opinion?
In that video that I shared, Gulenko says that benefit is one way activation, so he suggests that only one party gets activated in benefit relation. When a person flows from Launcher to Program to Creative to Role and so on, it starts a new cycle as Gulenko stated in that video, for example LII wouldn't be stuck in analysis paralysis if LII would be launched by Si. If launch-program-creative-role is an energy loop, we can say that benefactor's energy easily flow, since beneficiary's program function is benefactor's launch function. In this equation, does benefactor release energy to the beneficiary or gathers energy from beneficiary? if benefactor is gathering more energy, it doesn't make sense to me. Am I missing something, could you explain this?
How does the bottom block work in benefit relations? Beneficiary can use benefactor's control function which could make benefactor drained energy wise. Benefactor's manipulative function can't be governed by beneficiary, how this affects the energy exchange? How does information exchange occurs in benefit relations? Could we say that inflation block gathers information, if not why?
Last edited by myresearch; 01-14-2019 at 08:57 PM.
I wanted to correct myself. I think I observed that supervisors' usage of their social affirmation block when they around their supervisee. Social affirmation block of introverted supervisors contains extroverted functions, hence they seem more energetic, however, this has nothing to do with the energy that is described by model g. I still think supervisors may get more energetic around their supervisee, but extroverted supervisors will seem more introverted in those interactions if that is the case, hence they may seem less energetic on the surface.
I have never seen Gulenko make the particular connection between Ne/Se here. That connection does make sense to me, but I would also connect it (i.e. the distinction between information and energy) to a variety of dichotomies and information elements, because "energy vs. info" is a very meta and self-referencing perspective.
Dichotomies:
Extroversion (energy) vs. Introversion (info)
Asking (energy) vs. Declaring (info)
Dynamic (energy) vs. Static (info)
Negativist (energy) vs. Positivist (info)
Ethics (energy) vs. Logic (info)
Sensation (energy) vs. Intuition (info)
Ascending (energy) vs. Descending (info)
Central (energy) vs. Peripheral (info)
Some dichotomies and IME's morph based on what else they are grouped with. e.g. Process/Result, Rational/Irrational and Aristocratic/Democratic can have each of their dichotomy halves represent energy or information depending on the context.
IME's:
Fe (energy in the purest sense) vs. Ti (info in the purest sense)
to be even more specific: -Fe (energy) vs. +Ti (info)
Xe (energy) vs. Xi (info)
Fx (energy) vs. Tx (info)
Sx (energy) vs. Nx (info)
etc.: all the same dichotomies above apply inasmuch as they relate to IME's
From this, we can derive that Ne is indeed the info pole to the energy pole of Se, in the absence of more specifics.
This is very idealized and generalized; it's only meant to give an example of other correlations related to the energy/info distinction. If you choose a particular angle or situation to analyze from, the energy and information poles become clearer. It is possible to abstractly elaborate this more than I have here.
...
Gulenko has written about all 16 intertype relations in a way which attempts to address their informatic and energetic properties. I think he is trying to understand all 16 IER's, as you put it, in the sense that he has a static model explaining why all 16 relations are the way they are. The reason that they manifest as trends in practice is not because of the model per se but rather because people are not so pure (may language here may also have been imprecise, so if so then I apologize); people express more than merely their sociotype because they always have sub-sociotypical features and there are super-sociotypical features that always flow through them. That said, further developing mathematical understanding of them as you do is surely a worthwhile endeavor; Socionics is no closed case.
I will get to your question @myresearch soon; it's a good question and there is a lot of nuance to it. I have to re-read some things to answer it.
First, some assorted remarks on how the Benefit relation works. The Benefit Rings can also be called Inflation Rings, Order Rings, or Request Rings.
Mechanism of relations of social order (benefit) has a lot in common with the act of hypnosis - the act of benefactor on the subconscious of the beneficiary. Energy is transferred directly only if benefactor (sender) is able to somehow relax the beneficiary (receiver) and predispose him to the benefactor.
With consciously critical attitude on the part of the beneficiary, the energy impulse is not transmitted. It is either blocked or even reversed, bringing into effect reverse order - a destructive process when emotional get heated causing a breakdown in the system. Information in this system undergoes inflation - it is devalued if not put into circulation immediately.Beneficiary perceives the momentum of the benefactor and strives to solve the problems that were formulated by the benefactor. Revisor impedes the revisee and the benefactor from getting close, making the revisee realize this request in society rather than in dyad of request. Relations of benefit are described by Aushra as mysterious relation of hypnosis while revision - as terrible relations of psychological repression. V.V. Gulenko has formulated the essence of request and revision relations differently: social request as a transfer of the energy pulse or inclusion into work and revision as information transfer and shutdown from work, the correction by revisor of the behavior of revisee.
The essential social value of relations of benefit/request lies in activating effect that the benefactor has on beneficiary, a forced inclusion in socially meaningful activities and in informational imitation by the benefactor of the beneficiary that allows for the quadra progression to happen.
The essential social value of relations of revision/supervision lies on one hand in the correction of the fulfillment of the request by the supervisor and in suppression of inadequate behavior of the revisee, and on the other hand in assisting supervisee in resolving problems that are too difficult to him to solve.
In my opinion, the informational and energy transactions should both be considered.
Social request provides the energy transfer from the benefactor to the beneficiary, unilateral unconscious programming by the benefactor of the activities of the beneficiary, including him into work. Benefactor creatively and suggestively influences the beneficiary (transaction between functions 2 and 5), pushing on the behaviorist energy lever that works according to the principle of "stimulus-response" (transaction between 1st and 8th functions), thus activating work of the vital ring of beneficiary. Beneficiary automatically tries to realize the programming that was passed onto him by benefactor.
While energy moves from benefactor to beneficiary, information travels in the opposite direction. Benefactor inspects abilities of the beneficiary and in some time tries to imitate them. Beneficiary thus activates the benefactor (transaction from 1st to 6th function) transferring over the information about creative methods of action (transaction f2->f7) that extend and widen narrow standards of the benefactor in the aspects of 7th function, as well as give a simpler but more adequate program of behavior for benefactor's 4th function (transaction from 7th to 4th function).
Thus in the ring of benefit there is one-sided automatic unwinding of the energy on account of benefactor exerting influence on behavioral lever of beneficiary f1->f8 (in quasi-identical relations this energy unwinding is mutual, the request is sent both ways).
Revision or social control transfers information from revisor to revisee, enabling the movement of information along the mental ring. Revisor transfers information from 1st function to the weak 4th function of revisee, and receives information reinforcement of its 2nd function. At the same time the energy is switched off, which manifests as demoralization of the revisee as revisor shuts off the revisee (f1->f8). Revisee unconsciously influences the revisor (f8->f5) and offers an acceptable program (f7->f8). Revisor from one hand corrects inadequate behavior of the revisee and from the other hand offers support in revisee's inadequate 4th function.
Thus in rings of benefit and revision the energy and information are moving in different directions. In relations of request/benefit, the energy is transferred from benefactor to beneficiary, forming a chain of one-sided activation, while in relations of revision the energy moves from revisee to revisor, forming one-sided chain of protection, when revisor catches the flag that the revisee is no longer able to carry forward.
At the same time, information is moving in the opposite direction. In relations of request/benefit, information moves from beneficiary to the benefator. In this sense, what occurs is called "reverse request" (term introduced by Gulenko), the main social attribute of which is imitation, due to which the values of one quadra are transferred to the next one within society or organization. For example, an EIE benefactor will imitate an SEE beneficiary, losing its ideological angle and becoming infused by values of freedom and prosperity. LSI benefactor will imitate an ILI, become more cautious, skeptical, pragmatic.
The main part of the transaction of "reverse request" is in transfer from 2nd to 7th function. Beneficiary creatively shows the benefactor examples of new kind of behavior. 7th function is normative, it accrues the knowledge and know-how of others, adjusts values, it also possesses dual type of thinking.
In relations of revision, information flows from revisor to revisee (transfer from f2->f1 and f1->f4). This information is received well by the revisee due to common style of thinking and is transferred further down the revision chain.Direct request (benefit) – Relations of concrete assignments. If conditions that promote stability are maintained, the energy pulse gets quickly transmitted from the benefactor to the beneficiary.
Direct request (benefit) - one-sided activation, transfer of energy pulse from the benefactor to beneficiary, inclusion of the beneficiary in active work. This is the basic relation of this class - it can be used to construct other accelerating relations.
Reverse request (benefit) – Instruction and teaching, appeals, changes in values. Education occurs through emotional upheavals, introduction to another ideology and style of life.
Reverse request (benefit) - one-sided activation aimed in the opposite direction from beneficiary to benefactor. Represents beneficiary's attempt to overthrow control of the benefactor. Energy pulse instead of being passed down the benefit ring is turned the other way. Such a "breakdown" usually leads to a breakdown in communication in the dyad.
I see the following correspondences between socionics relations and social processes of Tarde:
- imitation - Request/Benefit
- antithesis - Revision/Supervision
- adaptation - Duality
- none - IdentityNow, in answer to your questions:And now let's see how it works. I distinguish two types of energy impulse transmission - inspiration and irritation.
In the first case, the receiver moves towards the transmitter in order to learn from it some important skill. In other words, he seeks to imitate his customer. The mimetic reflex has been preserved in the form of “homo sapiens” from its ancient ancestor. And since this ancestor became the ancestor not only of man, but also of great apes, the imitation effect on modern monkeys is observed without any disguise. Researchers know that monkeys begin to yawn immediately, as soon as at least one member of their pack demonstrates a yawn. In humans, an increase in the imitative “avalanche” is, for example, a reaction to the cry of “our beat!”.
In the second case, the opposite of the first, the inevitable disappointment turns into irritation and the resulting dose of arousal seeks out for itself elsewhere. The receiver must go away from the inductor and does the right thing, otherwise a short circuit will occur in the energy circuit. In a detailed review of all four chains of the order, to which I will proceed below, I will place greater emphasis on the first, positive stage of psychological induction.
Order chains at the psychological level
Let's figure out who imitates who, and also what I want to emulate. Go through all the chains, as well as along each chain.
And, at the end, the chain of involution (slow but radical changes):
1. The analyst wants to be as positive and carefree as Lyrik. TR - LT
2. And Lyric - to be as principled and ready to fight back others as the Keeper. RS - TR
3. The keeper seeks to be as agile as the Master. Quickly do everything and relax. SL - RS
4. Master - the same way to analyze complex phenomena, like the Analyst. LT - SL. Reorganization of the system in the direction of ease of maintenance. The circle closed again.
Order chains at the social level
And the involutionists complete the cycle of change .
1. The dream (Lirik) leads to the scientific development of the problem and the discovery (Analyst).
2. The completed and tested scheme (Analyst) leads to perfect tools and methods of work (Master).
3. Skill leads to the conservation of experience in the form of tradition (the Keeper).
4. The preservation of traditions leads to the fact that there is a dream of a new, which seems to others unrealizable (again Lyrik).
Your intuition is correct; the Benefactor transfer energy to the Beneficiary. Assuming appropriate conditions within the relation as outlined above, energy flows from Benefactor to Beneficiary and Information flows from Beneficiary to Benefactor. The Benefactor, with its Demonstrative function, stimulates the Suggestive function of the Beneficiary. Benefactor also pumps out its greatest energetic behavioral power in its Program function to the Creative function of the Beneficiary which offers the Beneficiary new tools of work and implementation that would ordinary be draining to it (since the Creative function is Decelerating energetically whereas the Program function is Accelerating).
The bottom block is the Internalities which come into play at closer psychological distances. This involves the methods of influence that the Benefit pair has on one another and also some ways in which the relation might break down and become explosive.
Beneficiary Demonstrative/Benefactor Control: On the one hand, this can become very explosive since the Demonstrative function must be agreed with to establish close psychological distance. If the Benefactor tries to Control the behavior of the Beneficiary excessively or incompetently, then this will lead to a revolt of the Demonstrative function (which is the function that the type uses to make its impact on the environment) and begin the breakdown process of Reverse Request. On the other hand, because the Demonstrative function is the channel where the type gives its most hallowed advice, the Control function of the Benefactor can gain informationally from encounters with the unusual methods of the Beneficiary's Demonstrative.
Beneficiary Suggestive/Benefactor Demonstrative: This one is pretty clear; it is the main method of influence of the Benefactor over the Beneficiary. The Beneficiary will have no choice but to consider the Benefactor's influence in this area, but will not easily give up its habits, so the Benefactor must act appropriately and effectively.
Beneficiary Brake/Benefactor Suggestive: Again, pretty clear: the Beneficiary can't effectively influence the Benefactor energetically.
Beneficiary Control/Benefactor Brake: The Beneficiary can act as a coach towards the Benefactor on its inadequacies in the Brake function. It is able to pass along lots of information as long as the Benefactor does not resist it. This is also a delicate process because the Brake function is quite fragile, but it is in need of assistance.
Overall, information occurs in Benefit Rings due to the relations I just mentioned (the Benefactor collects lots of useful information in its inflation block), in addition to the fact that the Beneficiary gives the Launcher of the Benefactor higher quality material to be Launched by. As already discussed, the gains made by the Beneficiary are more energetic in nature, primarily gaining new tools and inclusion in active work from the Program function of the Benefactor.
Yet again, your intuition is mostly correct, except that it probably also applies in a similar way regardless of extroversion or introversion. The tools used by the Supervisee (the Creative function) influence the Supervisor (their suggestive function), and the Supervisor in turn has an enormously more energetic Program function than the wimpy Brake function of the Supervisee which will allow it to assist the Supervisee on problems it can't solve and correct its behavior. This process energetically activates the Supervisor and informationally saturates the Supervisee.
Sure, I'd agree with some of those correlations, in particular extroversion vs. introversion, and ethics vs. logic (or involved vs. abstract). Involved vs. abstract seems the closest to energy vs. information in the colloquial sense.
"The reason that they manifest as trends in practice is not because of the model per se but rather because people are not so pure"Gulenko has written about all 16 intertype relations in a way which attempts to address their informatic and energetic properties. I think he is trying to understand all 16 IER's, as you put it, in the sense that he has a static model explaining why all 16 relations are the way they are. The reason that they manifest as trends in practice is not because of the model per se but rather because people are not so pure (may language here may also have been imprecise, so if so then I apologize); people express more than merely their sociotype because they always have sub-sociotypical features and there are super-sociotypical features that always flow through them. That said, further developing mathematical understanding of them as you do is surely a worthwhile endeavor; Socionics is no closed case.
Yes, that's my understanding too. People use all of the IM elements so their behavior and interactions are a mix of the different IM elements and the different IERs. This is why I see the IM elements (and functions to an extent also) as the true "atoms" of the theory that need to be understood first to guide further research. Also, if you're referring to what I wrote in the pdf, my research goes far beyond that.
Ah good, then it seems that we agree well enough on this point.
I somewhat agree with you here. However, I would cast doubt on the assumption that the IM elements are the true "atoms" of the theory. It's a perfectly valid point of view from which to operate, but in truth I'm not sure I can accept any atomism for my own understanding. This different orientation we have may be in part a reflection of our different types, but as a whole though I cannot say at this point. I don't doubt that the understandings you come up with in this regard will be interesting and valuable and I'm always open to having my mind changed. I love to learn.
Cool, then I look forward to hearing more about it. I have previously seen you allude to the fact that your research extends beyond that PDF, and I meant to include that because I know you are broadly interested in the relationship between mathematics and Socionics. It may also extend to semantics that may be more or less mathematical, and more besides. Good luck on all that.
It definitely is about semantics in addition to syntax. If you want to know more then refer to the other articles on my articles site and blog.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote