Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: An Experiment In Describing Information Elements

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    i'll tear down the sky Mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    TIM
    NeFi
    Posts
    1,105
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default An Experiment In Describing Information Elements

    One of the things that sorta (okay, REALLY) irks me is how the forum, in general, uses the Information Elements (IE) in conversation and the strange telephone manner to the point that they lose their original intent and meaning. A lot of subjective and unrelated tags start to pop up that now the IE have more of a colloquial meaning rather than objective that we all understand exactly the same. So I figured I'd try something out to see if I'm completely off-base with this assumption or not.

    I purpose to anyone willing to define the IE that is in your creative function. I decided on the creative function position because it seems like, out of all the other functions, where most of our focus goes as we are actively using it and like to recognize it, while our leading function is more like the structure of existence that we take for granted. Plus, my own observations have noticed people being more familiar and chatty about their creative function, so let's just placate me Also, we're defining the IE in the creative function by itself, not paired along with the leading function.

    The challenge is to not use any abstract concepts (such as efficiency, logic, aggression) nor infer an innate sense of either the positive or negative, striving to obtain a universal definition that seems right to you, because, well, you're part of the universe The reason I don't go to the wiki for a definition is because of these abstract concepts being present, and how they complicate things concerning subjectivity.

    For example, I would be defining . I am NOT looking for something like this: deals with the bonds between people concerning morality and how each person makes the other feel. For me personally, there are a lot of problems with this sort of statement (this was an exaggeration for the sake of an example, of course). First, a definition like that suggests that those without in the ego have some sort of lack of morality, and morality overall differs from culture to culture, and is a hard concept to grasp as an IE since it's so ambiguous. I think that every type has a concept of morality that is most likely shaped by their IE placements and their growth as a human. Also, IEs don't relate strictly to people, they are aspects of reality, therefore spanning all sorts of information. Meaning, you should be able to view information without the involvement of another human being there (I have this issue with the colloquial definitions of as well).

    Here is my take on the definition of :

    observes the qualitative data between two objects and fits it into a system of data organized by qualitative relativity, or rejects information that does not follow the already established qualitative consistency.

    So, take a whack at it? Or am I just crazy? I figure I'd at least try while I'm interested

  2. #2
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    TIM
    Yet to be determined
    Posts
    4,411
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    observes the quantitative data between two objects and fits it into a system of data organized by quantitative relativity, or rejects information that does not follow the already established quantitative consistency.



    jk
    The end is nigh

  3. #3
    i'll tear down the sky Mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    TIM
    NeFi
    Posts
    1,105
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    observes the quantitative data between two objects and fits it into a system of data organized by quantitative relativity, or rejects information that does not follow the already established quantitative consistency.



    jk
    Well, I was thinking that! Is it too far off? Besides you just being uncreative

    ETA: Everyone make sure to put your input in on the other suggestions, but it'd be nice if you offered up your own instead of just picking apart others definitions.

  4. #4
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    TIM
    Yet to be determined
    Posts
    4,411
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ugh my internet keeps crapping out on me. I was editing my post, but I'll continue here...

    I think that Ti is sort of like that. Basically, reducing larger concepts (shit you see/think about) into quantitative data and then sorting that data is kind of what Ti does.

    It's more about an innate root way of comparing and sorting signs. Signs don't have to be numbers, though. Ti takes something complex and reduces it into discrete signs, and those signs are compared to signs previously understood and sorted, etc. Ti is not the signs, but the actual process of recognizing an object as being made up of comparable (ratio-nal) components and then knowing what to do with them.
    Last edited by ArchonAlarion; 03-24-2010 at 02:48 AM.
    The end is nigh

  5. #5
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    ESI maybe
    Posts
    6,479
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by look.to.the.sky View Post
    Here is my take on the definition of :

    observes the qualitative data between two objects and fits it into a system of data organized by qualitative relativity, or rejects information that does not follow the already established qualitative consistency.

    So, take a whack at it? Or am I just crazy? I figure I'd at least try while I'm interested
    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    observes the quantitative data between two objects and fits it into a system of data organized by quantitative relativity, or rejects information that does not follow the already established quantitative consistency.



    jk
    I REALLY appreciate a thread like this, because I am still unsure about some of my conceptual understanding of the IEs. So thank you look.to.the.sky for making this thread!

    As for the definitions above, i would change "qualitative" and "quantitative" to "relationship-oriented" for and "task-oriented" for . Because Ti can be qualitative too, no? quantitative = numbers. . .

    so:

    observes the relationship-oriented data between two objects and fits it into a system of data organized by relationship-oriented relativity, or rejects information that does not follow the already established relationship-oriented consistency.

    observes the task-oriented data between two objects and fits it into a system of data organized by task-oriented relativity, or rejects information that does not follow the already established task-oriented consistency.

    What do you guys think?
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  6. #6
    i'll tear down the sky Mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    TIM
    NeFi
    Posts
    1,105
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WorkaholicsAnon View Post
    I REALLY appreciate a thread like this, because I am still unsure about some of my conceptual understanding of the IEs. So thank you look.to.the.sky for making this thread!
    Thanks, I was hoping this would be useful and not just estranged ramblings

    Quote Originally Posted by WorkaholicsAnon View Post
    As for the definitions above, i would change "qualitative" and "quantitative" to "relationship-oriented" for and "task-oriented" for . Because Ti can be qualitative too, no? quantitative = numbers. . .
    Actually, quantitative does not have to be numbers, that's just the most common that comes to mind. AA gives a good look into it, and I implore other creatives to expand more on it. But either way, something quantitative can be measured, while qualitative is more of a description, that can't be measured.

    so:

    Quote Originally Posted by WorkaholicsAnon View Post
    observes the relationship-oriented data between two objects and fits it into a system of data organized by relationship-oriented relativity, or rejects information that does not follow the already established relationship-oriented consistency.

    observes the task-oriented data between two objects and fits it into a system of data organized by task-oriented relativity, or rejects information that does not follow the already established task-oriented consistency.

    What do you guys think?
    Relationships need people, or a living thing that you can have a relationship with, I suppose, in order for that to work. You would have to further define relationship. And I'm not sure how task orientated differs itself from relationships, or anything. It suggests those who don't have don't have a firm grasp on anything task related... And that's over generalizing, don't you think?

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    I think that Ti is sort of like that. Basically, reducing larger concepts (shit you see/think about) into quantitative data and then sorting that data is kind of what Ti does.

    It's more about an innate root way of comparing and sorting signs. Signs don't have to be numbers, though. Ti takes something complex and reduces it into discrete signs, and those signs are compared to signs previously understood and sorted, etc. Ti is not the signs, but the actual process of recognizing an object as being made up of comparable (ratio-nal) components and then knowing what to do with them.
    Fixed you. But I agree nonetheless, would you tweak either in any way or does that settle well in your brains?

  7. #7
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    ESI maybe
    Posts
    6,479
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by look.to.the.sky View Post
    Thanks, I was hoping this would be useful and not just estranged ramblings



    Actually, quantitative does not have to be numbers, that's just the most common that comes to mind. AA gives a good look into it, and I implore other creatives to expand more on it. But either way, something quantitative can be measured, while qualitative is more of a description, that can't be measured.

    so:



    Relationships need people, or a living thing that you can have a relationship with, I suppose, in order for that to work. You would have to further define relationship. And I'm not sure how task orientated differs itself from relationships, or anything. It suggests those who don't have don't have a firm grasp on anything task related... And that's over generalizing, don't you think?



    Fixed you. But I agree nonetheless, would you tweak either in any way or does that settle well in your brains?
    Well speaking for myself, i know that for me to perform a task I have to reframe it to be relationship-oriented in some way, in order to be able to proceed effectively.

    so no, i dont think that's over-generalizing, i think my generalization works. . .for me anyway, so i guess i'm not sure.

    I'm having trouble really conceptualizing your and AA's definitions.
    Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx

  8. #8
    i'll tear down the sky Mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    TIM
    NeFi
    Posts
    1,105
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WorkaholicsAnon View Post
    Well speaking for myself, i know that for me to perform a task I have to reframe it to be relationship-oriented in some way, in order to be able to proceed effectively.

    so no, i dont think that's over-generalizing, i think my generalization works. . .for me anyway, so i guess i'm not sure.

    I'm having trouble really conceptualizing your and AA's definitions.
    I think it's because it's almost minimalist as it tries to encompass a lot in a small amount of words. I basically wanted to use language that wasn't debatable in definition, that everyone who reads it will get a similar understanding because there is little room for personal interpretation. Unfortunately it sounds a little stuffy because of that, but in the end, I think it serves the purpose. Let's see if I can explain the mess of thoughts in my head

    observes the qualitative data between two objects
    Because we're talking about aspects of reality and information metabolism, we have to view the IEs as just processing info, so not something like relationships, but maybe information that pertains to relationships, as well as other things. I always found the usual logic vs relationships binary a little lopsided, I mean, you can logically go about your relationships... It's just messy and dependent on perspective. So the first step in my explanation is that sees the descriptive qualities that exist between two object. So an example would be how two people feel towards each other, because that's between them and is dependent on there being two objects. When it comes to understanding how two people feel about one another, you can't really quantify it, feelings aren't really measurable in a quantity sense. But you can describe it, and you can make logical sense by saying "They get along because they like playing video games until 3 AM in the morning."

    and fits it into a system of data organized by qualitative relativity,
    So egos, let's say, have a web of these sorts of descriptions and what they relate to. To relate back to the first example, "getting along" and "playing video games until 3 AM together" make sense and relate to one another. might have a problem with this because it doesn't apply to every instance where two people play video games together, as they might try to quantify the variables (maybe? input?) and it doesn't occur every time. But to someone with , these descriptions relate to one another.

    or rejects information that does not follow the already established qualitative consistency.
    With this part, let's add in the the factor that someone told you that these two people who played video games with each other until late at night were bitter enemies with one another and couldn't stand each other's existence. would compare the "bitter enemy" description to the other descriptions already in the system, and doubt the validity since it isn't consistent with what they already know of the qualities of people who play video games with one another until late in the night.

    I think I might have explain this well, or got too long winded Either way, I hope I didn't make things more confusing than they needed to be.

  9. #9
    Lobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    TIM
    EII 6w5
    Posts
    2,080
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Object and concepts are taken in a universal context. Groups things based on their properties, identity. Looks past apparent properties to understand the intrinsic value and function.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •