It's impossible to separate one information element from all of the others when one is using it, so it's extremely difficult impossible to define it in and of itself.
why information aspects are valuable in understanding information elements
It's impossible to separate one information element from all of the others when one is using it, so it's extremely difficult impossible to define it in and of itself.
What's the difference between an Information Aspect and an Information Element?
I was just thinking "maybe I should put the definitions of information element and information aspect in my sig".
Information Element: A mental process. Something someone does. Something that's either strong or weak in a person. Something valued or unvalued by a person. A person perceiving or understanding something.
Information Aspect: Something which could be perceived or understood. Conversations about of Information Aspects discuss an aspect in and of itself, free from the perspective of any individual and outside of mental processes.
For example, try to give an example of how you use an information element without using information from any other information element in your description.Originally Posted by Joy
Half understood. Examples of IM Elements (Information Elements, correct?) are Se, Te, Fi and Ni.
What is an example of an Information Aspect?
I'm not asking for a list of information elements, I'm asking for descriptions of each.
(As far as whether IM Element are information elements, I don't know for certain. I don't like to use the terms interchangeably. Translation issues make it difficult to know for certain. I think Rick said they're the same, but when I was reading translations of things Augusta wrote, it sounded like IM Element was used interchangeably with both information element and information aspect. So yeah, I don't know.)
Would these most generally be objects and fields? What is actually perceived by the person? Joy's description of it being "free from the perspective of any individual and outside of mental processes" makes me think that it might just be objects, or maybe objective fields. Where do subjective fields fit into the big picture?
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
If I understand what you're saying, this is a question that I've wondered as well. If I tried to really get into it right now, I'd just ramble a whole lot. I'll come back to this. For now I'll just say yes and no.
hmmmm so could an example for my Se be...
Aspect: Being aware of the current fads and trends in fashion.
Element: Using this awareness in creating outfits and my wardrobe thinking about what would flatter me and also what is "in" at the moment.
????
ESFp-Fi sub
6w7 sx/so/sp
hrmm
A Se aspect can't be "your" Se because it's totally separate from you or anyone else.
aspect: the ball is red and round
element: your seeing and understanding that the ball is red and round
Seconded.
sorry i guess i'm a little possessive of my first function haha. without that, is that a correct statement? I think that example's algorithm helps to generalize other types' characteristics, etc. So for example the example i posted with Se can be applicable to other ESXps. This is of course if you agree with Dee in saying that the IM elements can be separated and used independently from the others.
ESFp-Fi sub
6w7 sx/so/sp
agreed. unfortunately there won't be a definitive yes or no answer for this since some socionists think IM elements are paired up or function independent of each other. personally, i think they're paired and a lot of socionics points to that (i.e. the beneficiary benefits from the benefactor even though they're leading function is their benefactor's HA because the benefactor's dual-seeking function is the PoLR of the beneficiary; semi-duals having their hot/cold relationship because even though they're dual-seeking functions are fulfilled, they still do not have their HAs fulfilled, etc.) IME with my comparative it's even as if we perceive things differently with our Se just because of how we use the information we obtained. It kinda works into the whole 2 sides to every story thing in a way...
on top of that, the why do people take in information with the perceiving functions? in order to make decisions with the judging functions, right? so it seems to me that it would be impossible to separate the two. even me, being the crazy biatch i am takes in Se information with the means to the end of some Fi rationale.
what is your argument for the elements acting separately?
ESFp-Fi sub
6w7 sx/so/sp
Well, this thread has made one new point: there is no good example of the difference, which is because there isn't one.
fair enough. what is this c-/g+ business you speak of?
ESFp-Fi sub
6w7 sx/so/sp
Information aspects are what is perceived by psychic functions.
Maybe information aspects are irrelevant to introverts...That's why Augusta found them necessary, and Jung did not.
They are also irrelevant to most of socionics, but become relevant when applying socionics ideas to anything outside the psyche and psychology.
You can avoid them in most cases by speaking of "manifestations of psychic functions" rather than "information aspects." In many cases this is more correct.
But if you say, for instance, "he's producing lots of Fe," you can't call this "Fe" a "function." A function is a mental/psychic entity.
Maybe I'm splitting hairs from thehotelambush's perspective, but if this is the case, then please provide an alternate Ti system that is consistent and better than the existing one
Note: I am using the Jungian word "function" these days rather than "IM element." It turns out this is what is used in socionic journal publications rather than Augusta's original terminology.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
so then how can one be considered the child and one the grownup when you can be referring to the superid and ego of each one?
ESFp-Fi sub
6w7 sx/so/sp
Joy, why not just information elements the subjective form of functions, and information aspects the objective form? Seems to condense it pretty well.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Good point - except I would say it's information "elements" that are unnecessary. Aspects go in functions and produce type. It doesn't get much simpler than that. Creating another name for an aspect-in-a-function makes it seem like it's a totally different thing when it's really not.Information aspects are what is perceived by psychic functions.
Maybe information aspects are irrelevant to introverts...
I had considered that, but thought it may cause argument and confusion. I suppose everything does though in this crowd.
I agree. While information aspects are technically a consequence of information elements because they're defined by the existence of human perception, it is true that an "information element" is nothing more than an aspect-in-a-function. It's good to give it a name though. That way you can talk about it without making it specific to a certain type (though... perhaps it ought to be?).
This just makes me think it comes down to pedanticness.
pedantry*
lol
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote