Are new symbols needed?

[tcaudilllg]

There is an awful lot of confusion over the IM elements and their relationship to the aspects they process. Is Ne an element, or an aspect? If you speak of -Ne, are you talking about an aspect which is processed by either an -Ne or +Ne elements, or are you talking about +Ne as an element? We need some kind of system to distinguish between aspects and elements.

[Enters Laughing]

No.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

There is an awful lot of confusion over the IM elements and their relationship to the aspects they process. Is Ne an element, or an aspect? If you speak of -Ne, are you talking about an aspect which is processed by either an -Ne or +Ne elements, or are you talking about +Ne as an element? We need some kind of system to distinguish between aspects and elements.

But then there are those who dispute the validity of plus and minus functions.

More symbols for elements and functions would just confuse the issue more, no? Considering the terms are still widely used as inter-changeable and the symbols on their own can be confusing enough to new starters.

[krieger]

I have been using the labels "Limiting" and "Empowering" to denote absolute, fixed things on one hand and random, contingent things on the other. Perhaps it would be better to name these "Necessitated" and "Contingent" instead. In any case I would consider it a good thing if some others tried to understand what they are about.

[tcaudilllg]

But then there are those who dispute the validity of plus and minus functions.

More symbols for elements and functions would just confuse the issue more, no? Considering the terms are still widely used as inter-changeable and the symbols on their own can be confusing enough to new starters.

Well now here's one for you: how many ENFjs do you know who piss people off? How many ESFjs do you know who cheer people up?

+/- explains that vital difference in no uncertain terms.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Well now here's one for you: how many ENFjs do you know who piss people off? How many ESFjs do you know who cheer people up?

+/- explains that vital difference in no uncertain terms.

OK. My thoughts are that anyone can be positive or negative, and that a function is a function regardless of wither someone else is being annoying or not- or cheering someone up or not. Thing as well, is what you find annoying, will be different to what someone else finds annoying, or what I find annoying. If you ask a bunch of ISTp's if an ESFj cheers them up, they will likely say no. Ask a bunch of INTj's about the same ESFj and they will likely say yes. So i'm skeptical of calling something a plus or minus based on what you say about ESFj's cheering people up or ENFj's pissing people off.

However, i'd be willing to read about plus and minus functions, if you can explain or can recall a link please?

[kensi]

There is an awful lot of confusion over the IM elements and their relationship to the aspects they process. Is Ne an element, or an aspect? If you speak of -Ne, are you talking about an aspect which is processed by either an -Ne or +Ne elements, or are you talking about +Ne as an element? We need some kind of system to distinguish between aspects and elements.

use @ for aspect (external reference) and ^ for function (internal bias) and your problem is solved.

[tcaudilllg]

use @ for aspect (external reference) and ^ for function (internal bias) and your problem is solved.

That's awesome. Thanks for that.

[tcaudilllg]

use @ for aspect (external reference) and ^ for function (internal bias) and your problem is solved.

That's awesome. Thanks for that.

@jxrtes: what are you talking about?

I think the problem with JRiddy is that he doesn't want to consider the consequences of what he is implying. You can't just say things are X way when you can't equate the consequences of that way with what is really going on.

[Joy]

Are any symbols needed?

[JRiddy]

Symbols are Ni.
Ni people have Se people for duals.
Se people have Ne in the super-ego.
Change and newness is Ne.
Ni people do not want to upset their duals or they will get vicitmized hard(er than normal).

Therefore there can never be new symbols.

+1 for me.

[tcaudilllg]

What are you talking about? I was arguing for symbols apart from the triangles, angles, circles and squares we use for the elements.

Kioshi: what are you talking about? Are you just saying this or do you have documents to prove your point?

[JRiddy]

Anyone that has been to elementary school is familiar with the statement y = f(x): there is a systematic relationship such that some aspect that we can identify varies as a function of another. When precisely defined, these aspects are called variables.

I've got nothing against you or your <3 for precision in logic and so forth, but I'd like to point out that anyone who has learned anything about logical reasoning has heard of "equivocation," as well as "begging the question." What makes you certain that "aspect" and "function" mean the same thing in IM as they do in lambda calculus? I actually think you might be on to something here, but I am curious how you think they relate.

I don't know how I can be any clearer about how I use these terms.

Here you're actually confusing "clear" with "precise." You could be clearer by being more accessible and more relevant.

[Rick]

I wish I hadn't introduced the term "information element," which seemed good at the time, but rather used the terms "information aspect" and "function" from the very beginning. "Extraverted sensing" is a psychic function. It perceives the "solid circle" (the forum doesn't offer me the symbols to post). The solid circle can represent both the information aspect and the function that perceives it.

Thehotelambush argues that information aspects are actually hardly ever discussed in socionics and are more or less irrelevant to the theory. I disagree, but I can see where he's coming from.

[tcaudilllg]

I wish I hadn't introduced the term "information element," which seemed good at the time, but rather used the terms "information aspect" and "function" from the very beginning. "Extraverted sensing" is a psychic function. It perceives the "solid circle" (the forum doesn't offer me the symbols to post). The solid circle can represent both the information aspect and the function that perceives it.

But isn't that part of the problem?

Let me get clarification: was "information element" your term, or Augusta's? What do the Lithuanians use?

If a psychic function is what you've called an IM element, then what are those dispositions inherent to points on the model A ring?

Thehotelambush argues that information aspects are actually hardly ever discussed in socionics and are more or less irrelevant to the theory. I disagree, but I can see where he's coming from.

Surely you agree that they are relevant to understanding how the functions work.

[JRiddy]

I wish I hadn't introduced the term "information element," which seemed good at the time, but rather used the terms "information aspect" and "function" from the very beginning. "Extraverted sensing" is a psychic function. It perceives the "solid circle" (the forum doesn't offer me the symbols to post). The solid circle can represent both the information aspect and the function that perceives it.

Thehotelambush argues that information aspects are actually hardly ever discussed in socionics and are more or less irrelevant to the theory. I disagree, but I can see where he's coming from.

Rick, I've seen some of your writings where you express something similar about information aspects being "aspects of reality," and insofar as you are using the the word "aspect" in the sense of "a perspective or way of viewing something," I can see how it is very relevant. However, I get the impression from many that these "aspects" are thought to be more or less components of reality, rather than a viewpoint. If that is the case, than we are making very speculative ontological assumptions about the nature of information itself, because we are implying that these things are not merely human viewpoints, but objective parts of reality. That is not an assumption that I want to make, and it does not seem in any way necessary to developing a model of cognition.

This can become especially dangerous when combined with a very concrete definition of the functions. I make no inference about the prevalence of these misconceptions, but I do see them, and I wonder if they are at least in part do to a concept of information aspects as objective pieces of reality. For example, I have heard some individuals ascribe all financial decisions or calculations of worth to . Of course, this, along with model A, suggests that IXFps and EXFjs would find such things taxing and uncomfortable, which does not jive with my experience or intuition (general, non-socionics-specific sense). Ultimately, we are looking for something that is valid and predictive, and not something that appears to have more explanatory power than it does. This does not require any assumption about reality, but only ways to test the validity of the models. And I like that a lot better.

Oh, and just to let you know, you can just type : Se : without the spaces to get a symbol: . Obviously, you can do this with any of the abbreviations.

[Creepy-bg]

Symbols are Ni.
Ni people have Se people for duals.
Se people have Ne in the super-ego.
Change and newness is Ni.

Therefore there can never be new symbols.

+1 for me.

+3

[1981slater]

Extroverted sensing









Extroverted logic





Introverted logic



Extroverted ethics



Introverted ethics as base function



Introverted ethics as creative



Introverted intuition

[Rubicon]

+1 for me.

+3

-4

[Creepy-bg]

-4

+5

[Rubicon]

+5

-5