Results 1 to 37 of 37

Thread: I drew a picture of socionics

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default I drew a picture of socionics

    I made this up to help me better conceptualize the information elements and socionics theory in general. It's really not self-descriptive, but I kinda wanna see if this makes sense on any sort of conceptual level.




    The oval is meant to represent the self.

    I feel like the arrows are misnomers. They don't denote motion so much as they are meant to represent change in some fashion. I'll probably have to redo them somehow (suggestions?).

  2. #2
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is a perfect representation of the information elements, and I feel as though I now understand it all. I would recommend that you don't change a thing.

  3. #3
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    This is a perfect representation of the information elements, and I feel as though I now understand it all. I would recommend that you don't change a thing.
    I feel that they're good representation of the bare bones schematics of the elements, but it doesn't really give implications towards any sort of manifestations they inhabit. As such, I'd be surprised if anybody would understand everything about IEs just from this

    And thank you for the positive feedback

  4. #4
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, one big thing I see wrong about the chart, and something we probably disagree on, is the idea that "internal" functions in the tri-code nomenclature is indicative of what is more inside the self. Instead I feel that a better representation of Socionics would be to say that introverted functions, like Si for example, deal with aspects that are more "self internal" and less influenced by reading into external changes. So all the introverted functions should have little shapes inside the egg.

  5. #5
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,459
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    Well, one big thing I see wrong about the chart, and something we probably disagree on, is the idea that "internal" functions in the tri-code nomenclature is indicative of what is more inside the self. Instead I feel that a better representation of Socionics would be to say that introverted functions, like Si for example, deal with aspects that are more "self internal" and less influenced by external changes.
    Well the thing is that in the case of Si, it's very nature is that it's prone to external changes, which is why I keep it on the outside of the self in this representation. As is the case with all field functions, the point of focus is the connection to the self and not the separate node. So with Si the point isn't the changes in the thing itself (which would make it an object function), rather it's how those perceived changes affect the thing's connection to the self. I kinda think of Si as viewing something "about" the thing, and not so much an object as a physical entity.

    In case this is what's causing the disconnect, internal != introverted


    EDIT: maybe I should try to come up with some diagram denoting temperament too

  6. #6
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,313
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ah well, I made an edit a few minutes ago, I reworded as "influenced by reading into external changes," where I believe that Si is similar to Jungian Si in that it reads into the internal representation of the external changes, and more so gets information from the body and its reactive state, the biology more than the physics, more than the external spectrum of matter. I don't believe that any introverted function has more of a focus on what is external or reading into external changes, as well as the extroverted functions do.

  7. #7
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arctures View Post
    I made this up to help me better conceptualize the information elements and socionics theory in general. It's really not self-descriptive, but I kinda wanna see if this makes sense on any sort of conceptual level.




    The oval is meant to represent the self.

    I feel like the arrows are misnomers. They don't denote motion so much as they are meant to represent change in some fashion. I'll probably have to redo them somehow (suggestions?).
    Good idea but it needs some work, right now its a bit weak. I mean theres the issue of it being a mere pneumonic device or something that actually tells us about cognition and psychology. Theres also the issue of what each of the three terms mean, I've always pictured some of the concepts like "static" and "dynamic" and "fields" like physics. Electrostatics, Electrodynamics, and Electric Field. I've always asked how those differ and then used that to think about how the elements differ in socionics.

    I'm not an expert on Info Elements, though, but instinctively when I first looked at this I was like !!!!!!! (cool idea), but then after inspecting it, I felt kind of let down, which probably means you need to fashion it a little more if you really want to come up with something great/profound, give it some time and work in the details.

  8. #8
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,009
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I also think it should be introverded (field) elements that should be inside, although that would spoil the variety of your graph a bit. The internal/external dichotomy refers to what is or isn't directly perceivable, so you might have a point in putting it inside (as "imagination" more than "reality"). Si/Se is a good example why at least perception works the other way, though. I'm less sure about rational functions, although it makes sense there as well, I think.

    From statics/dynamics dichotomy on wiki (while far from exhausting the subject, there are some good points there):

    * (static) perceives outward sensory data projected by objects. Unless objects change their appearance significantly, the impression will not change.
    * (dynamic) perceives internal reactions to sensory data. Each perception of the same thing can be different depending on the observer's changing internal state.


    * (static) perceives inherent potential in objects. Objects don't tend to change their nature much over time, though new circumstances can reveal hitherto unnoticed aspects of that potentiality.
    * (dynamic) perceives internal reactions to external potentiality. Today the possibilities might seem inviting and favorable, but tomorrow they might produce a sense of foreboding or despondency.


    * (static) perceives logical interrelations between objects, which by definition belong to a certain class or location, unless the point of reference is changed.
    * (dynamic) perceives what those objects are doing and what is being done with them. One and the same object can be used effectively or ineffectively.


    * (static) perceives connections of a subjective, emotional nature that exist between objects. These feelings arise gradually and change little until a significant disruption occurs.
    * (dynamic) perceives how objects are interacting on an emotional level. One and the same object can interact very different with a stable set of other objects depending on a variety of factors.

  9. #9
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  10. #10
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I attempted something similar a year ago. New Element Symbols -

    I will attempt to post some of that info to here, but it's been a while since I've done something on a forum, it may not come out quite right format wise. For the full story, see that thread.

    Post #4: Ok, so the elements are made up of the following aspects:


    Involvement (the self is contained in the information; F/S; notice the dot (self) is within the info) (Note: by 'self' I mean if you placed yourself in the position of the dot, and looked at the information, it would suggest how you view that information in relation to your own 'self'/position)
    Fe Fi
    Se Si


    Abstract (the self appears separated from the information; T/N; notice the dot (self) is outside the info)
    Te Ti
    Ne Ni



    External (explicit information; S/T; notice the info has a solid line that only lets you see the exterior)
    Se Si
    Te Ti


    Internal (implicit information; N/F; notice the info has a dashed line, allowing you to see past the exterior and into the interior)
    Ne Ni
    Fe Fi



    Object (content, object, person, idea; Xe; notice the "node" (the large main circle))
    Ne Te
    Se Fe


    Field (context, connections, relationships; Xi; notice the lines that would be connecting the nodes together)
    Si Fi
    Ni Ti


    Static
    Dynamic

    (These had to be done separately into gif symbols, post in #18 and #19. If they don't show up here, and you can't seem them moving there, then message me with an email and I'll email them to you. I have no idea where to go to to host gif images.)


    Ne
    Ni Fe Fi

    Se Si Te Ti
    post #20 shows them in action as icon alternatives to the typical symbols used. Ashton was nice enough to offer them as an option on his site, for me.

    and post #26 regarding my thoughts on "subjective" vs "objective" and how I don't see it as being related to the Xi/Xe thing (which is where most of the criticism keep coming in on the object/field and internal/external thing come in)
    post #26 regarding "subjective" vs "objective"

    Honestly, I don't use 'objective/subjective'. I have seen how often those terms are used in the 16t as well as in regular life, and I've yet to figure out what a person actually means when they are using the term.

    I am also of the mind that, in essence, all information is subjective at heart, meaning that no matter how 'objective' we think the information is...in order to make sense of it it still has to pass through our own brain..it still has to be interpreted and/or experienced. Now, a computer may obtain data. But the moment it gets put into our hands, and we read the data, it's the individual who has to interpret it into himself and process it in himself. No matter how 'objective' he may think he is, he is still human and thus subject to the limitations of being human.

    There is, however, a perception of being objective. This is the perception of being detached from our processing/interpreting of the information. It is also often combined with the external. For example, we can both be looking at the elephant, and talking about. But it's still MY senses and MY experiences that I'm drawing from to come up with the words I'm using to represent what I'm seeing of the elephant. Just as in order for you to make sense of it, you have to draw from your own senses/experiences. For example, I start talking about the trunk and that the trunk is spraying water onto the baby elephant. You'll use your senses to either see the trunk yourself...or what you remember about an elephant's trunk, as well as senses/memory to access "baby elephant" and "water" and "water spraying out of trunk" and "water spraying onto baby elephant". During our discussion we perceive ourselves as talking about something 'objective', yet we are still having to access data from our own minds/experience to decode and encode the information.

    As for the object/field thing where in one definition field is defined as being 'through the subject', and right next to it field is defined as the link between objects (without necessarily being through the subject), it's easy to get confused. But when you look at "object" as a "node" and "field" as a "link" then it makes more sense that we can discuss nodes and the links between nodes without necessarily being the other node.

    An example:
    * = node; Xe
    -- = link; Xi

    The subjective interpretation says that *--*Me (the node is connected to me). That if I deal with a node, then I must necessarily be the other node to which it is being linked to.

    The other interpretation says that *--* (the node is connected to another node) That I can deal with two nodes, and the links between them, without myself necessarily being that other node.

    In my experience, and I'm sure yours as well, I am fully capable of talking about *dog--runs after--*cat, without having to reference myself at all. I can however say *I--see--*(*dog--runs after--*cat). In this example 'dog runs after cat' is a node, and I also am a node.

    In english, we have two kinds of sentences that technically mean the same thing...but one is perceived as being 'subjective' and the other as 'objective' just because a certain phrase was dropped off.
    Example situation: Two people are watching a dog running after a cat.
    "subjective" statement: I see the dog running after the cat.
    "objective" statement: The dog is running after the cat.
    Is one somehow more truthful than the other? No.
    All that happened was that one 'dropped' himself as a node when he communicated his experience of seeing a dog running after a cat. The other kept himself as a node.

    I think that some languages make more usage out of specifying the "I see" part. Where in almost every sentence there is an implied (if not flat out stated) portion that says that whatever is being stated is being stated as perceived by the speaker. I don't know if Russia is one of those languages or not.

    In usamerican schools, we are often taught to drop ourselves as a node, (so we can become 'more objective').
    I don't know if this is done in other countries, nor do I know if Russia does this.


    On the other hand, I guess we can also be perceived as the link between two nodes. If this is the case, however, every type is Subjective since every single type deals with links between nodes. Which only serves to prove part of my previous point . . . as humans, with the limitations of human beings, we are all subjective when we process information.

  11. #11
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,608
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Those are great, anndelise. Very similar to the depictions I was working on in my head, only I hadn't thought to include the Involved/Abstract dichotomy.
    Quaero Veritas.

  12. #12
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Honestly, I don't use 'objective/subjective'. I have seen how often those terms are used in the 16t as well as in regular life, and I've yet to figure out what a person actually means when they are using the term.
    I'm currently writing a small paper on this topic for a philosophy course. There is ample evidence to support the thesis that the terms are plainly ambiguous, both in colloquial and in professional usage.

  13. #13
    Nevero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    426
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    nice drawing, looks like some biological experiment with petri dishes hehehehe

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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