information elements vs information aspects

[Joy]

Information elements are mental processes. They are "the psychic modules that perceive, process, and produce corresponding information aspects".

Information aspects are properties of reality that exist independent from psyche. These aspects of reality are, however, defined by the fact that humans perceive and process specific types information from a given situation or thing. (This is why the description of information elements says that they produce corresponding information aspects.)


This gets into the chicken and the egg and the tree that falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, but the simplest way to look at it for the purposes of communicating effectively is that information elements refer to mental processes and information aspects are aspects of reality that are in that moment being discussed/understood separately from mental processes or and independent of a particular human's perspective.

Interestingly, information aspects can also exist independently from other information aspects, but information elements cannot work independently of each other.

For example, if there's a car driving down the road, the outward/apparent activity is Te and the state is Se. As an information aspect, the Se of the car would be it's color and whatnot. However, as an information element, there's no way to see only Te in that situation because you have to see the Se aspects at the same time in order to know that there's even a car there. (This is why I prefer to talk about information aspects... once you start talking about examples or less abstract descriptions of an information element, it's difficult if not impossible to keep it separate from other information elements.)

Examples may follow.

[Joy]

I didn't follow all of that... but I want to stress that Je and whatnot shouldn't be used when talking about a person due to the reasons I posted in that other thread.

the whole thing is so Ni Te (at least Je) i think.

Stop with the Je and Ji! I'm not saying that because the Socionics slang annoys me, I'm saying it because this whole concept just seems to be confusing you. It's unwise to define a person's actions or reasoning in terms of "Je" or "Ji" because while Te and Fe (and Ti and Fi) are more alike than Te and Te (and Fe and Fi), they're still different enough that this practice will only serve to confuse the situation. First of all, information elements cannot work independently of each other. This is why Se + Ti apparently looks like Te to a lot of people. Ti cannot work in a vacuum. It needs Ne or Se (or whatever). When you see Ti (or Ti) working with Ne or Se (or whatever), it's not always easy to separate out each of the information elements like you're trying to do when you call behavior Je or Ji.

[Joy]

And if we're going to get into Je/Ji/Pe/Pi, it needs to be in a different thread. I can start one if you'd like.

[munenori2]

Information elements are mental processes. They are "the psychic modules that perceive, process, and produce corresponding information aspects".

Information aspects are properties of reality that exist independent from psyche. These aspects of reality are, however, defined by the fact that humans perceive and process specific types information from a given situation or thing. (This is why the description of information elements says that they produce corresponding information aspects.)


This gets into the chicken and the egg and the tree that falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, but the simplest way to look at it for the purposes of communicating effectively is that information elements refer to mental processes and information aspects are aspects of reality that are in that moment being discussed/understood separately from mental processes or and independent of a particular human's perspective.

Interestingly, information aspects can also exist independently from other information aspects, but information elements cannot work independently of each other.

For example, if there's a car driving down the road, the outward/apparent activity is Te and the state is Se. As an information aspect, the Se of the car would be it's color and whatnot. However, as an information element, there's no way to see only Te in that situation because you have to see the Se aspects at the same time in order to know that there's even a car there. (This is why I prefer to talk about information aspects... once you start talking about examples or less abstract descriptions of an information element, it's difficult if not impossible to keep it separate from other information elements.)

Examples may follow.

This is interesting. I do wonder though if we can say that the information aspects, which are differentiable from each other, are really independent of the psyche. Do you mean in the context that information aspects can be analytically separated due to the properties perceived of them by the subject? I mean, if they must be processed through the psyche (the information elements), how do they become independent of that psyche which processes them? I take care to note that you raise the problem this causes, but I'm not sure it has been addressed fully. However, maybe if we work our way through the questions, we might find ourselves closer to what it is you're saying.

For example, I think a better analogy than the tree falling without anyone to hear it would be whether or not someone's perception (by this I mean the acting of the information elements), upon experiencing a tree fall, exists independently of the psyche that processed it (specifically once that perception has produced informational aspects). I'm not sure this is really the case. It may very well be (and really I struggle to think of any alternative way) that the information elements process something that is independent of the mind, which then can be analyzed and divided into categories sharing certain properties of reality (IAs). However, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the external world is objectively characterized by these streams of information. It does in the sense that you perceive 'something' (it doesn't spring out of a void or anything), but maybe a more accurate conception of it would be that the human psyche is psychologically suited to perceive and interpret information in precisely this kind of way. Maybe as a set of inborn categories?

In fact, portions (but not all) of these information elements might be present in different psychologies (for example, the perception of animals generally or, more particularly, a bat which relies on sonar or even insects). If the independency thesis is correct, then with the advent of new life forms (evolution through time), we have the introduction of novel aspects of reality being perceived and produced by the psyche. Furthermore, if these are to exist independently of the mind apprehending them, then we are talking existence in a material way (the converse of immaterial existence being far more problematic) which is difficult for me to imagine. That would also open up empirical methods of testing for them (while noting the incompleteness of the sciences as they stand currently). Anyway, these are just some thoughts and perhaps I'm taking what you said differently than you intended (I may be overemphasizing the 'independent existence' part, for example), but I would be very curious to hear more, Joy.

[Joy]

This is interesting. I do wonder though if we can say that the information aspects, which are differentiable from each other, are really independent of the psyche. Do you mean in the context that information aspects can be analytically separated due to the properties perceived of them by the subject? I mean, if they must be processed through the psyche (the information elements), how do they become independent of that psyche which processes them? I take care to note that you raise the problem this causes, but I'm not sure it has been addressed fully. However, maybe if we work our way through the questions, we might find ourselves closer to what it is you're saying.

It's all about context. It's about limiting the ways in which we think of information elements to take the human out of it (even though the only reason information is divided into certain aspects is because we have done so through our perception/perspective of reality) so that it can be explained and discussed without dragging other information elements into it (because humans never use one at a time).

So basically, the idea is to LIMIT the possible ways a situation could be construed.

For example, I think a better analogy than the tree falling without anyone to hear it would be whether or not someone's perception (by this I mean the acting of the information elements), upon experiencing a tree fall, exists independently of the psyche that processed it (specifically once that perception has produced informational aspects). I'm not sure this is really the case.

eh?

That's pretty much the same...

If a tree falls in the forest and no one/nothing is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

The vibrations sent our due to the tree falling is the same whether there are any ear drums in the vicinity or not. The only reason, however, that it's considered "sound" is because there exist ear drums with which to hear it.

The same applies to elements vs. aspects. There are probably unlimited aspects of reality, but there are only 8 which humans can perceive/process according to the theory of Socionics. Because it's the human brain/psyche that originally set the definition of each of the information elements, the things which each of those information elements derives it's data from is 8 specific aspects of reality. Because we need a way to differentiate between those aspects and the information elements themselves, we call them "information aspects". It's for the sake of clarity in communication to make effectiveness possible.

It may very well be (and really I struggle to think of any alternative way) that the information elements process something that is independent of the mind, which then can be analyzed and divided into categories sharing certain properties of reality (IAs). However, that wouldn't necessarily mean that the external world is objectively characterized by these streams of information. It does in the sense that you perceive 'something' (it doesn't spring out of a void or anything), but maybe a more accurate conception of it would be that the human psyche is psychologically suited to perceive and interpret information in precisely this kind of way. Maybe as a set of inborn categories?

Wow, you take Adderall, too? I didn't know that!

Seriously though... I think you're talking about the thing that I was just talking about too? I'm not really sure... And I don't know what IAs are?

In fact, portions (but not all) of these information elements might be present in different psychologies (for example, the perception of animals generally or, more particularly, a bat which relies on sonar or even insects).

Absolutely. Don't know about the animal example... cause I generally think of humans in different eras, cultures, states of health, etc. when I'm talking about different psychiologies and psychological/sociological theories... but I definitely agree. There is truly nothing new under the sun. The same ideas are presented in different ways throughout the course of time and from different perspectives. Some people feel the need to generate some sort of group mentality for whatever reason, and thus religions are born. But now I'm getting off topic.

If the independency thesis is correct

The what?

then with the advent of new life forms (evolution through time), we have the introduction of novel aspects of reality being perceived and produced by the psyche.

So... reality is the result of thought processes? If that's what you're talking about, I call this the law of attraction, and yes I believe that it's correct.

Furthermore, if these are to exist independently of the mind apprehending them

If this was a typo... lol

If this wasn't a typo... LOL

then we are talking existence in a material way (the converse of immaterial existence being far more problematic) which is difficult for me to imagine. That would also open up empirical methods of testing for them (while noting the incompleteness of the sciences as they stand currently).

Well according to the theory, you're probably talking about internal vs. external (that is, N/F vs. S/T), so it's if you're NF it's understandable that what you said (if I understood you correctly) would be difficult to make sense of. Rest assured, the "external" is made up of only half of the aspects of reality, according to Socionics.

I think you may have strayed a bit far from the concept I intended to communicate when I explained information aspects in this thread... but it's all good.

Anyway, these are just some thoughts and perhaps I'm taking what you said differently than you intended (I may be overemphasizing the 'independent existence' part, for example), but I would be very curious to hear more, Joy.

My general impression is that Ne (and possibly Si) types will more often than not find the distinction between information aspects and elements pointless because they have an aversion to remaining within the context of a given thing/conversation/point/idea.

(In all fairness, perhaps "context" isn't fair when talking about Alpha NT's, as they seem to at least grasp the concept of the context. They still continue to stretch the subject in direction which it needs not be stretched, however. It's like they only think something is interesting if they can argue that it could also be this, that, and the other thing. And to that I say... Have fun with that. )

[Logos]

(In all fairness, perhaps "context" isn't fair when talking about Alpha NT's, as they seem to at least grasp the concept of the context. They still continue to stretch the subject in direction which it needs not be stretched, however. It's like they only think something is interesting if they can argue that it could also be this, that, and the other thing. And to that I say... Have fun with that. )

[MysticSonic]

(In all fairness, perhaps "context" isn't fair when talking about Alpha NT's, as they seem to at least grasp the concept of the context. They still continue to stretch the subject in direction which it needs not be stretched, however. It's like they only think something is interesting if they can argue that it could also be this, that, and the other thing. And to that I say... Have fun with that. )

[Gilly]

(In all fairness, perhaps "context" isn't fair when talking about Alpha NT's, as they seem to at least grasp the concept of the context. They still continue to stretch the subject in direction which it needs not be stretched, however. It's like they only think something is interesting if they can argue that it could also be this, that, and the other thing. And to that I say... Have fun with that. )

[Joy]

lol

I suppose there was no need to say that.

[Joy]

i think that it could be that you have different aspects of reality i.e. Je dynamics and Pe statics and you can either perceive them as they are, or at least their approximations or perhaps even just having an attunement to perceiving as real reality as possible, or you can perceive the Pi of it (in relation to Pe), sort of "perceiving-judging" of Pe. as for Je, making sense of the reasons of why things are the way they are happening, the laws, the Fi repulsions/attractions, needs (Ji ?), as well as the actual stuff itself is Ji. i think even it's better to just say Je and Ji, Pe and Pi and say F or T and S or N depending on what the stuff is leaning towards. it's hard for me to explain so sorry if it doesn't make sense.

So anyways... Dee, you remind me a little bit of myself before I understood the theory. There wasn't as much information on Socionics available then, and since I was unwilling to sit down and read Jung or machine translated articles (and it didn't help that I thought I valued Ne, Ti, and Fe at the time ), I did what you're doing... developed some of my own theories on how things work without actually understanding the basics. Fortunately now we have Rick's website, so you don't have to worry about not having good material there to help you learn the theory.

The best thing you can do to learn Socionics is to understand how the axes work and what they look like irl: Ne/Si, Ni/Se, Fe/Ti, and Fi/Te. This Je/Ji/Pe/Pi stuff is going to do your understanding of the theory a lot more harm than good until you truly understand the axes. (And personally I don't see how anyone could truly understand the axes until they understand which of them they value.)

[Blaze]

(In all fairness, perhaps "context" isn't fair when talking about Alpha NT's, as they seem to at least grasp the concept of the context. They still continue to stretch the subject in direction which it needs not be stretched, however. It's like they only think something is interesting if they can argue that it could also be this, that, and the other thing. And to that I say... Have fun with that. )

[Blaze]

hkkmr: you are a riot

[Logos]

So anyways... Dee, you remind me a little bit of myself before I understood the theory. There wasn't as much information on Socionics available then, and since I was unwilling to sit down and read Jung or machine translated articles (and it didn't help that I thought I valued Ne, Ti, and Fe at the time ), I did what you're doing... developed some of my own theories on how things work without actually understanding the basics. Fortunately now we have Rick's website, so you don't have to worry about not having good material there to help you learn the theory.

The best thing you can do to learn Socionics is to understand how the axes work and what they look like irl: Ne/Si, Ni/Se, Fe/Ti, and Fi/Te. This Je/Ji/Pe/Pi stuff is going to do your understanding of the theory a lot more harm than good until you truly understand the axes. (And personally I don't see how anyone could truly understand the axes until they understand which of them they value.)

I have to agree with Joy on this. Je/Ji/Pe/Pi should be used to supplement the material only once that the rest of the understanding of those functions comes into play. But what do I know of these things? I am just an Alpha NT who cannot grasp the concept of context and so I must bow to the superiority of the Gamma NT's and their blocked with .

[Joy]

Logos, I said Alphas NTs can grasp the concept of context.

@ Joy: i think you might be right about the whole thing with the theory (it's not mine btw, i think it's like an extract from what i've read around etc.) and perhaps it's not correct, and axes just happenned to be "filled" the way they are, but i think there is a relationship between Xe and Xi, which might simplify element recognition. i'm doing a lot of observation these days to understand it better.

The axes are the basis of Socionics. Look at it from an information elements perspective:

Te: external dynamics of objects
Fi: internal statics of fields

Ti: external statics of fields
Fe: internal dynamics of objects

Ne: internal statics of objects
Si: external dynamics of fields

Ni: internal dynamics of fields
Se: external statics of objects

See how each part of an axis is the opposite of the other? They're like two sides of the same coin.

[Logos]

Logos, I said Alphas NTs CAN grasp it.

Oh, that's right. We can grasp it, but we are the least capable of grasping it. Thanks Joy, that makes what you said so much better.

[Joy]

Uh... Is this a joke in which you're interpreting "they seem to at least grasp the concept of the context" in as many different out of context/incorrect ways as possible?

[Logos]

Uh... Is this a joke in which you're interpreting "they seem to at least grasp the concept of the context" in as many different out of context/incorrect ways as possible?

Of course not, Joy. Of course not.

[Joy]

So... that would mean that you misread my original statement.

[Logos]

So... that would mean that you misread my original statement.

Or that you misread the sarcasm in my previous post! :wink:

[Joy]

I read the tone, I just didn't know what it meant.

[Logos]

I read the tone, I just didn't know what it meant.

If you only had blocked with ,...

[Joy]

I've got it all.

[Joy]

There are probably unlimited aspects of reality, but there are only 8 which humans can perceive/process according to the theory of Socionics.

i don't see any reason for that "probability". while i'm not entirely opposed to ideas of "infinite regress" this doesn't seem like an area where it is necessary or would answer anything.

The way I see, it comes down to whether or not those unlimited aspects can still ultimately be placed into the 8 categories.

on elements vs. aspects: aren't the elements largely defined by the aspects they use? it seems to me discussions about elements necessarily regress to some discussion about aspects.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

because while there is some terminology that might apply exclusively to this element or that, it's often not understood well. so how do you illustrate such exclusive terminology?

I don't think it's difficult to understand the difference between aspects and elements. It is difficult to draw the line between them sometimes though, if you're using examples particularly. However, when people understand when they're talking about an aspect and not an element, communication about it becomes MUCH easier.

often anecdotally with examples of interacting aspects.

If they're interacting, they're elements.

This Je/Ji/Pe/Pi stuff is going to do your understanding of the theory a lot more harm than good until you truly understand the axes. (And personally I don't see how anyone could truly understand the axes until they understand which of them they value.)

maybe your own preferences for them is more exaggerated than the typical person. other users have reported being able to decide their own temperament most easily in contrast. i don't think it's my or anyone else's position to dictate which part of the theory is the best starting point when the theory involves such personal characteristics.

I'm not talking about typing oneself or others, I'm just talking about understanding information elements/aspects (which are the basis of the theory).

[Joy]