Element Names

[Taknamay]

I haven't said much in a while. I was sort of taking a break from socionics, but now I am interested in it again. So, I've decided to stop thinking about types so much and start getting back to the elements again. I figure this is detached enough for me to not go crazy over it

I made some names for the information elements, tell me why they are good or bad, or if you have a better alternative. I named them after latin verbs. They're all a bit abstract; let me say that myself. I suppose the question is whether they are excessively abstract.

- clamare (to shout)

- amare (to love)

- ducere (to lead)

- struere (to build)

- lucem (to light)

- trahere (to drag)

- velle (to will)

- curare (to cure)

Some of the decisions were arbitrary just so they could start with different letters.

There isn't that much reason for me making these. I just want to explore the information elements more. I feel like a deep understanding of each one should be fundamental to understanding socionics, but they aren't explored in that much depth from the resources I have read.

[Ave]

Perhaps you would be intersted in Gulenko's nomeclature of the functions in his science, socioanalysis.

Profiteor(profit, process)

Lex(law)

Emeovo(emotion)

Relatio(relation)

Factor(I act)

Sensus(sensation)

Intuetor(intuition)

Tempus(time)



In yours, I liked Se, Ti, and Ne. But I think the rest you can do away with.

[Taknamay]

Perhaps you would be intersted in Gulenko's nomeclature of the functions in his science, socioanalysis.

Yes, that's where I got the idea from.

Those were a few of my favorites as well. I'm having a hard time thinking of something for Ti. I feel like the association with time is often overstated...

[Trevor]

I'm having a hard time thinking of something for Ti. I feel like the association with time is often overstated...

nah

[EyeSeeCold]

- clamare (to shout)

- amare (to love)

- ducere (to lead)

- struere (to build)

- lucem (to light)

- trahere (to drag)

- velle (to will)

- curare (to cure)

The IEs will always be abstract and vague, and can be infinitely created in new contexts, but this a pretty decent set.

[Krig the Viking]

- clamare (to shout)

- amare (to love)

- ducere (to lead)

- struere (to build)

- lucem (to light)

- trahere (to drag)

- velle (to will)

- curare (to cure)

These are pretty good! But I'm not sure I understand the thought process behind Ni being "trahere". Could you explain?

[Taknamay]

I'm not sure I understand the thought process behind Ni being "trahere".

Yeah... I know...

It relates to the concept of "making connections between the past and the future"

Although I'm pretty sure I was thinking of a different word at the time... a word that has to do with "path"

[Krig the Viking]

Yeah... I know...

It relates to the concept of "making connections between the past and the future"

Although I'm pretty sure I was thinking of a different word at the time... a word that has to do with "path"

Ah, yes, "path" would be closer. I see where you're coming from now.

[Galen]

Ne: 固定内物 / Kotei-naibutsu (Fixed Internal Object)
抽物 / Chuubutsu (Extract-object)

Ni: 持続内結 / Jizoku-naiketsu (Dynamic Internal Connection)
抽結 / Chuuketsu (Extract-connection)

Se: 固定外物 / Kotei-gaibutsu (Fixed External Object)
体物 / Taibutsu (Body-object) could be improved

Si: 持続外結 / Jizoku-gaiketsu (Dynamic External Connection)
体結 / Taiketsu (Body-connection) could be improved

Fe: 持続内物 / Jizoku-naibutsu (Dynamic Internal Object)
感物 / Kanbutsu (Feeling-object)

Fi: 固定内結 / Kotei-naiketsu (Fixed Internal Connection)
感結 / Kanketsu (Feeling-connection)

Te: 持続外物 / Jizoku-gaibutsu (Dynamic External Object)
理物 / Ributsu (Reasoning-object)

Ti: 固定外結 / Kotei-gaiketsu (Fixed External Connection)
理結 / Riketsu (Reasoning-connection)



I have no idea why I did this

[DividedsGhost]

Take this how you want/will:

Jung devised types independently of memory; he said memory was separate from the types. Associating the past to any function will force you to focus on how people can learn, but it won't tell you about someone's psychological type, because dynamic learning is a much more complex thing to explain, and perhaps ultimately dependent on the abstract idea of perspective, which is always changing.

It's the difference between understanding a person as they are in every moment as an archetype versus understanding how they have changed over time. I would be very wary of anyone that tries to explain functions as relating to the past, especially when Ni seems to be the only one in that category.

[The Ineffable]

I think those verbs are taking some stereotypical behavioral patterns found in some typed individuals who have that respective element in the Ego and make a false assumption that they are the actual IEs. But the analysis that determined the IEs did the other way around. Those behavioral patterns are the effect, not the cause, they tell what happpens but not why it happens, and obviously they tell nothing about cognition, all of them.

If I needed a mnemonic, I'd use something like:
Se: to perceive, to notice
Ne: to represent, to conceive
Te: to know
Fe: to react
Ti: to think, to reason
Fi: to relate
Si: no appropriate verb comes to my mind, but it's a generalization of empirical knowledge (Te), when you know how things work, how things happen, instead of facts (how things worked or happened).
Ni: to imagine, to extrapolate

I wouldn't use such a list too much, it makes things easier but dangerous, IMO, it can "mummify" one's understanding so to speak.

[Taknamay]

Here's another system I just made. It combines the quadra values and club skills:

- MERRY ETHICS

- SERIOUS ETHICS

- SERIOUS LOGIC

- MERRY LOGIC

------------------------------

- JUDICIOUS INTUITION

- DECISIVE INTUITION

- DECISIVE SENSING

- JUDICIOUS SENSING

[Ave]

Here's another system I just made. It combines the quadra values and club skills:

- MERRY ETHICS

- SERIOUS ETHICS

- SERIOUS LOGIC

- MERRY LOGIC

------------------------------

- JUDICIOUS INTUITION

- DECISIVE INTUITION

- DECISIVE SENSING

- JUDICIOUS SENSING

Much better, excellent!

[Ave]

Take this how you want/will:

Jung devised types independently of memory; he said memory was separate from the types. Associating the past to any function will force you to focus on how people can learn, but it won't tell you about someone's psychological type, because dynamic learning is a much more complex thing to explain, and perhaps ultimately dependent on the abstract idea of perspective, which is always changing.

It's the difference between understanding a person as they are in every moment as an archetype versus understanding how they have changed over time. I would be very wary of anyone that tries to explain functions as relating to the past, especially when Ni seems to be the only one in that category.

I agree with what you're saying in general but Id like to point out that functions are not archtypes in the Jungian sense, Jung made this very clear: "beyond the type; the archetype". Type and archtype are very distinct things in the psyche.

[Pa3s]

Si: no appropriate verb comes to my mind, but it's a generalization of empirical knowledge (Te), when you know how things work, how things happen, instead of facts (how things worked or happened).

It doesn't exactly fit your description, but I'd say "Si: to balance" would be a good verb.

[717495]

Here are some element names I've been using for some time now:

- Introverted Sensing (Si)

- Extroverted Sensing (Se)

- Introverted Intuition (Ii)

- Extroverted Intuition (Ie)

- Introverted Ethics (Ei)

- Extroverted Ethics (Ee)

- Introverted Logic (Li)

- Extroverted Logic (Le)

[717495]

Also I like Jung's 'intensity' and 'extensity' namings differentiating between introverted and extroverted styles.

[Ave]

Here are some element names I've been using for some time now:

- Introverted Sensing (Si)

- Extroverted Sensing (Se)

- Introverted Intuition (Ii)

- Extroverted Intuition (Ie)

- Introverted Ethics (Ei)

- Extroverted Ethics (Ee)

- Introverted Logic (Li)

- Extroverted Logic (Le)

You are one weird guy, you know that, right?

[717495]

no I don't know

[Taknamay]

no I don't know

I think it's just funny that you would use such a sensible system as opposed to mixing MBTI and Socionics jargon to blur the line between the two.

[Galen]

Here's another system I just made. It combines the quadra values and club skills:

- MERRY ETHICS

- SERIOUS ETHICS

- SERIOUS LOGIC

- MERRY LOGIC

------------------------------

- JUDICIOUS INTUITION

- DECISIVE INTUITION

- DECISIVE SENSING

- JUDICIOUS SENSING

Doesn't sound like you made it as much as you rehashed existing interchangeable terminology and slapped your name on it. Seems to be the alpha NT way of doing things.

[Taknamay]

Doesn't sound like you made it as much as you rehashed existing interchangeable terminology and slapped your name on it. Seems to be the alpha NT way of doing things.

Ok, maybe "made" is not the right word. But I wasn't trying to say "OHOHOHO LOOK AT MY INCREDIBLE ORIGINAL IDEA" it was more intended as "Oh hey what if we used this terminology instead"

I'm not here to take credit for anything, I'm just here for constructive discussion. Everybody, anybody and nobody can take credit for these ideas for all I care.

[glam]

Doesn't sound like you made it as much as you rehashed existing interchangeable terminology and slapped your name on it. Seems to be the alpha NT way of doing things.

this made me think of ILEs. sure, they use ideas that are already in existence, but it's the way they can combine and improve upon them that makes their ideas new and original.

i don't think ILEs want to be copycats. if anything, they want to be recognized and appreciated (Fe mobilizing) for the innovative ideas and improvements that they bring to the table. if someone really is just rehashing some old idea without attempting to provide any innovative improvement to it, i might be skeptical of typing them ILE.

from http://www.socionics.com/prof/entp2.htm

Their true originality is in their ability for lateral combinatory thinking. ENTps are mostly interested in improvements, modernizations and innovations of something that already exists and is well known. James Dyson gave birth to a cyclone action vacuum cleaner. The cyclone effect is based on physics and has been known for centuries. Applying this effect to the household vacuum cleaner was an act of lateral thinking. Did Dyson invent something radical? He just made a better vacuum cleaner. In retrospect, it would probably be fair to say that ENTps are better classified as inventive-modernizers.

[Galen]

Ok, maybe "made" is not the right word. But I wasn't trying to say "OHOHOHO LOOK AT MY INCREDIBLE ORIGINAL IDEA" it was more intended as "Oh hey what if we used this terminology instead"

I'm not here to take credit for anything, I'm just here for constructive discussion. Everybody, anybody and nobody can take credit for these ideas for all I care.

Alright then, I get you. It's still a very alpha NT phenomenon to search out those permutations in terminology, it's probably an Ne-driven modus operandi.

this made me think of ILEs. sure, they use ideas that are already in existence, but it's the way they can combine and improve upon them that makes their ideas new and original.

i don't think ILEs want to be copycats. if anything, they want to be recognized and appreciated (Fe mobilizing) for the innovative ideas and improvements that they bring to the table. if someone really is just rehashing some old idea without attempting to provide any innovative improvement to it, i might be skeptical of typing them ILE.

Often times I don't get any sense of improvement from these reinterpretations of already existing theory. It usually feels like "A = B, B = C, so I can say A = C and talk about connections people could have already intuited in the first place."

[Taknamay]

I'm thinking that extroverted vs. introverted might not be an actual, basic element dichotomy. I think it may be similar to external vs. internal.

I just think that it's easier to understand that "merry ethics" is about creating a warm social environment and "serious ethics" is about creating deep personal relationship. "Extroverted ethics" does not really reveal much, and Socionic extroversion is very abstract in comparison to Socionic merriment.

It's a matter of, "Which is more basic, extroversion and introversion? Or the quadra values?" And I think the quadra values take precedent.

[Galen]

I'm thinking that extroverted vs. introverted might not be an actual, basic element dichotomy. I think it may be similar to external vs. internal.

Extroverted/introverted means the same thing as object/field, not external/internal.

I just think that it's easier to understand that "merry ethics" is about creating a warm social environment and "serious ethics" is about creating deep personal relationship. "Extroverted ethics" does not really reveal much, and Socionic extroversion is very abstract in comparison to Socionic merriment.

They don't reveal much if you don't already know what the terminology means, but if someone actually takes the time to figure out what each dichotomy means at its core then all theory after these basic parts should be more straightforward than not.

It's a matter of, "Which is more basic, extroversion and introversion? Or the quadra values?" And I think the quadra values take precedent.

E/I are by far the more basic terms, since quadra values/IEs are solely determined by the configurations of information aspects. If by basic you mean "easily intuitable" then you'd probably be right, but they still don't explain what's really happening at the core of whatever 'information metabolism' the types/quadras may have. Quadra values in and of themselves seem spawned out of stereotypes that aren't totally applicable to each member of the group. They seem more like a form of Socionics upaya: it doesn't matter how totally true they may be, they are simply an imperfect means to an end, and the further down the rabbit hole you go the more faults you find with the initial teachings that were thrust upon you just to get you interested.

[Taknamay]

Extroverted/introverted means the same thing as object/field, not external/internal.

No that's not what I mean, I'm talking about External = Sensing and Logic, Internal = Intuition and Ethics. I was making a comparison because I was suggesting that the dichotomy is invented, not fundamental.

I will respond to the other stuff later.

[Galen]

No that's not what I mean, I'm talking about External = Sensing and Logic, Internal = Intuition and Ethics. I was making a comparison because I was suggesting that the dichotomy is invented, not fundamental.

Sure you could make the argument that it isn't necessary, but it's still a good way of understanding the nature of the IEs better. To be fair though I hardly ever have it in mind, instead favoring object/field (which is in blunt terms somewhat like objective/subjective, but that's a bit too simplified of an interpretation imo), rational/irrational, and involved/abstract. You can still create the IEs through those dichotomies in the same ways, just with different points of data.

[Taknamay]

But then I suppose the only thing to call it is "Object Ethics" which is also a bit misleading to me.

Ok, well, how about making some Latin letters to represent the IM shapes?

O = introverted sensing
e = extroverted sensing
A = introverted intuition
W = extroverted intuition
L = introverted ethics
K = extroverted ethics
E = introverted logic
M = extroverted logic


It's not that good but that's all I have. >_>

Sorry for jumping around. I just want to throw as many ideas as I can out there.

[Galen]

But then I suppose the only thing to call it is "Object Ethics" which is also a bit misleading to me.

It's at least more precise of a name than Extroverted feeling since extrovert/introvert already have carry their own connotations of sociableness or gregariousness. If anything calling them Object/Field ethics would help by removing the notion of them as personality characteristics and instead as styles of cognition.

Ok, well, how about making some Latin letters to represent the IM shapes?

O = introverted sensing
e = extroverted sensing
A = introverted intuition
W = extroverted intuition
L = introverted ethics
K = extroverted ethics
E = introverted logic
M = extroverted logic


It's not that good but that's all I have. >_>

The Russians already have a nomenclature like that:


Introverted sensing = S
Extraverted intuition = I
Introverted logic = L
Extraverted ethics = E
Introverted intuition = T
Extraverted sensing = F
Introverted ethics = R
Extraverted logic = P

[Taknamay]

The Russians already have a nomenclature like that:


Introverted sensing = S
Extraverted intuition = I
Introverted logic = L
Extraverted ethics = E
Introverted intuition = T
Extraverted sensing = F
Introverted ethics = R
Extraverted logic = P

No, I'm saying resembling the actual shapes.

P is not a black square. Neither is M, but I think it may be closer.

[Galen]

No, I'm saying resembling the actual shapes.

P is not a black square. Neither is M, but I think it may be closer.

Oh. Well what purpose would that serve? There's already plenty of acronyms/shorthand forms for the IEs as it is, anything more than what we already have just sounds like clutter to me.

[Taknamay]

Yeah... I suppose.

Maybe it's better to use arbitrary jargon. That way nobody can get confused.

[EyeSeeCold]

Here's another system I just made. It combines the quadra values and club skills:

- MERRY ETHICS

- SERIOUS ETHICS

- SERIOUS LOGIC

- MERRY LOGIC

------------------------------

- JUDICIOUS INTUITION

- DECISIVE INTUITION

- DECISIVE SENSING

- JUDICIOUS SENSING

The names aren't comprehensive connotations, but it's still an interesting perspective you took.

Doesn't sound like you made it as much as you rehashed existing interchangeable terminology and slapped your name on it. Seems to be the alpha NT way of doing things.

Cute.


It could also be said to be related to Gulenko's Holographic form of thinking:

Complete panorama, which allows periodic change of perspective on the subject. Good balance between the immune and nervous systems, as well as the primary sense organs.

In neuro-linguistic programming, this principle is used in a technique called 'reframing'. Reframing changes the perceptual framework contextualizing an event. If we mentally place a familiar object into an unfamiliar context, then significance of the whole situation changes. For example, imagine a tiger first in a jungle, then in a zoo cage, then on the balcony of your apartment. The standard Socionics type is depicted as immersed in its 'club'. But what if you shift it to quadra? What if it turns out to be among types with opposite cognitive styles? The chain can continue indefinitely.

With reframing it is possible to see the familiar with fresh eyes. The type of the psyche in one who resorts to this technique remains constant of course, only their subjective relation to the object of attention is changed. The benefit of this method is primarily in the fact that new perspectives emphasize aspects of a situation that may have been previously underestimated, allowing the possibility of discovering new avenues of growth, and expanding one's existing range of choices.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...amic_Cognition

[Ave]

The names aren't comprehensive connotations

I think it is comprehensive for most people, but not very well defined outside of the socionics merry/serious dichotomy.

Though I like the bluntness of it that speaks to the gut and not just the intellect - its one of things that you know you understand in a crystal clear fashion, you just cant menatlly masturbate over it.

[717495]

The Russians already have a nomenclature like that:


Introverted sensing = S
Extraverted intuition = I
Introverted logic = L
Extraverted ethics = E
Introverted intuition = T
Extraverted sensing = F
Introverted ethics = R
Extraverted logic = P

Apparently the Alphas get the real version of the elements (I, S, L, E) and the other quadras are left with scraps . Yeah okay emotions, not ethics. Big difference.

[The Ineffable]

Taknamay, I'd like to tell you that the fundamental element dichotomies are: Bodies/Fields, Dynamic/Static and External Internal. This is official, this is Socionis, who understands the IAs knows why they are properties of information, in opposition to emergent attitudes as other dichotomies mistakenly assigned to the IEs. I'm especially addressing Galen's post. Rational/Irrational was never determined as an IE distinction, neither by Jung, nor by Aushra, of course, there is some quality that T and F, and respectively S and N share to give the types Rational, respectively Irrational [1] attitudes when these functions are Leading, but so far there is no such IE distinction, we just group them together for convenience.

I use an easy-to-use chart in my mind to remember and understand the properties of the IEs and their relationships. First of all, I keep in mind the passive or subjective nature of Fields, Static and Internal VS the "extro-", objective nature of their counterparts (Bodies, Dynamic, External) - using blue and red conventionally. Then I start composing the IEs from the fully subjective to the fully objective as a growing binary number, I could do this any manner, especially since the dichotomies can be reordered, but I find this easier:

Fi: Fields Static Internal (000)
Ti: Fields Static External (001)
Ni: Fields Dynamic Internal (010)
Si: Fields Dynamic External (011)
Ne: Bodies Static Internal (100)
Se: Bodies Static External (101)
Fe: Bodies Dynamic Internal (110)
Te: Bodies Dynamic External (111)

Aplying the Aspektonics chart to the descriptions of the IEs and types (in the Model), one can systematically understand what and why happens. It should be note that the thing I never found explicitely stated by Aushra is that grouping into objective/subjective aspects, three by three, however this perfectly fits their descriptions, in IAs, IEs or types. The missing link I found in the theory of knowledge, all the "objective" partitions require experience or reference to it, while the others do not. Bodies require one or more objects, Dynamic require interaction, be it between real objects or just the understanding of a process, External require justification. This way, the emergent attitudes become evident, the concordance between Extroversion [2] and Dynamicity becomes Rationality, the one between Extroversion and Externality becomes Decisive and Serious, the one between the Externality of the functions in a block becomes Aristocratic.

Model A is very similar to the Standard Model of quantum physics, it is very consistent and to me it makes the most intuitive sense.
---

[1] - Socionics Schizotim and Cyclotim.
[2] - used only as a convenient placeholder for Bodies/Fields, since there's no unitary term for this dichotomy (say "Bodiness" )

[krieger]

ignore him.

[Ave]

ignore him.

You have no idea what a douchebag you are most of the time.

[krieger]

You have no idea what a douchebag you are most of the time.