Information aspects

[mfckr]

I'm not really like Divergence because it seems too related to Emergence, and I was hoping for rather independent terms, or if any seem like a pair, to pair them all, but then it seems too colored by their partner.

Here 'Divergence' refers to a particular definition used in the context of vector calculus, where taking the divergence of a vector field at a particular point yields the net magnitude value present at that point. This is an abstract analogue for how seems to process sensory information. Perceived concrete stimuli are discretely evaluated in pure terms of the magnitude value of sense impression they happen to evoke for the viewer in that moment. No more, no less. Once the the magnitude value of said stimulus has registered upon the viewer and been experienced, it is promptly discarded for a fresh incoming sense impression in the next moment. In contrast to , no subjective preconditions are placed upon any concrete stimulus with regards to how "good" or "bad" it is, nor is it important to apprehend how the quality of impressions evoked may evolve over time. If the world were perceived purely in terms of , all you'd "see" would be blips of various magnitude sizes, with no seeming interconnections, no appearance of direction, and no relationship to past or future.

Anyway. I'd be in favor of ditching it. There's far too much contextual nuance required for the definition.

As well, Colliagtion seems too verb-y, or at least, something that can be applied at a more inclusive category.

I could ditch this one as well, if only for the matter that I think its too generically applicable to all human cognition. The definition I was using for it is:

"The joining or relation of (apparently unrelated facts) into a pattern, esp. to reveal a general principle."

Obviously this is something all normal human minds do. So I wouldn't want it to be construed that (or any other fxn) is somehow inherently necessary for deriving factual patterns or coming up with general principles. There's enough awful stereotypes of this kind already.

I prefer my terms in respect to Evolution and Modularization because they don't seem specific enough, I think Evolution makes it more on the side of and Modularization doesn't give you any particular feeling or connotation if you're not completely familiar with all of its uses, and even then, seems removed.

Hmm, okay yeah. I see your points on these and I think you're right that they may be bad candidates.

[mfckr]

Part of an old post of mine I ran across:

Descriptors

Comparmentalization - The action or state of dividing or being divided into compartments or sections.
Modularization - A self-contained component (unit or item) that is used in combination with other components.
Aggregate - A whole composed of many particulars; a mass formed by the union of distinct particles; a gathering, assemblage, collection.
Atomistic - Chiefly Philos. and Psychol. A theoretical approach that regards something as interpretable through analysis into distinct, separable, and independent elementary components.
Tensor - Math. An abstract entity represented by an array of components that are functions of co-ordinates such that, under a transformation of co-ordinates, the new components are related to the transformation and to the original components in a definite way.

Descriptors

Emergent - Science. An effect produced by a combination of several causes, but not capable of being regarded as the sum of their individual effects.
Apperception - Psychol. The action or fact of becoming conscious by subsequent reflection of a perception already experienced; any act or process by which the mind unites and assimilates a particular idea (esp. one newly presented) to a larger set or mass of ideas (already possessed), so as to comprehend it as part of the whole.
Gestalt - A physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts.
Holistic - Of or pertaining to holism; characterized by the tendency to perceive or produce wholes.
Attractor - Math. A point or set of points in phase space which represents the state or states towards which a dynamic system evolves with time.

[krieger]

Divergence vs. convergence is what Accepting vs. Producing is all about, particularly when applied to Irrational functions.

In Accepting Irrational function axes, there is first a phenomenological percept (Accepting/Focal Pi) and then an explosion of hypotheses as to what kind of objects in reality might be hinted at by it (Accepting/Diffuse Pe).

In Producing Irrational function axes, there is a collection of phenomenological percepts (Producing/Diffuse Pi) that isolate a single object that can be hinted at by all of these (Producing/Focal Pe).

[Mattie]

Okay, so the most recent update would be:


= Contour
= Corollary
= Schematic
= Homeostasis
= Permutation
= Induction
= Resonance (or Affinity?)
= Emergence

Still looking for better suggestions, especially with , , , and .

[Gilly]

Why? Contour is good for Se. Corrollary for Te is pretty weak. Schematic for Ti is solid. Permutation for Ne is good. So Te needs work.

[Mattie]

Why? Contour is good for Se. Corrollary for Te is pretty weak. Schematic for Ti is solid. Permutation for Ne is good. So Te needs work.

Ashton offered alternatives, so I figured I'd at least leave the door open if other people had differing ideas as well. I personally like the ones I have, but ironing out the kinks now rather than later would be ideal. Using them in practice would be nice too, to see if it is as applicable as this exercise claims. Were there any other suggestions for that you preferred, or do you have a whole other idea?

[mfckr]

'Contour' isn't really evocative of a process. I want a word that captures the phenomenology of what its like to "be" .

[Mattie]

'Contour' isn't really evocative of a process. I want a word that captures the phenomenology of what its like to "be" .

You know, something was striking me as odd for that word, I just knew it didn't seem to match the rest in feel, and it's what you've pointed out. Makes sense now I'm going to have to rethink that.

[tcaudilllg]

= constitution. On the one hand it's the count of the constituents, and on the other their organized membership in a greater constituent body.

[strrrng]

sounds more like

[Gilly]

'Contour' isn't really evocative of a process. I want a word that captures the phenomenology of what its like to "be" .

"Contour" for Se seems equivalent to "permutation" for Ne, both being what the type/function "sees" naturally. Se types sense boundaries, pushes and pulls, the effects of collisions or interactions and such, while Ne types notice potential changes, essential abstract qualities that indicate or define room for change, etc.

[mfckr]

= constitution. On the one hand it's the count of the constituents, and on the other their organized membership in a greater constituent body.

Laymen's terms please?

[mfckr]

"Contour" for Se seems equivalent to "permutation" for Ne, both being what the type/function "sees" naturally.

Permutation is more of a process noun than contour is though, that's the distinction.

Se types sense boundaries, pushes and pulls, the effects of collisions or interactions and such, while Ne types notice potential changes, essential abstract qualities that indicate or define room for change, etc.

Sounds a bit more like to me. More specifically, of the — dyad.

[ArchonAlarion]

Ne would be more about constants, I guess, but why does it sound Ni/Se specifically?

[tcaudilllg]

Laymen's terms please?

Not even gonna bother. After all, in a few years, my ideas will be standard.

[mfckr]

Not even gonna bother. After all, in a few years, my ideas will be standard.

[silverchris9]

Hey, people! Keep working on this! It's not necessarily my thing, but it's getting to be pretty valuable.

The ones I think are awesome are Ti and Si.

The ones I don't get are Te and sort of Se, because I don't think contour is exactly right, although it does have the proper connotation of static + change.

Permutation for Ne is pretty great too.

I believe someone suggested something related to synthesis for Ni, and I personally think that captures an important part of Ni. Maybe something like synthetic. What are the implications of combinatorial? Also, I don't quite understand emergent? I don't think I'm in love with it though.

Induction for Fe is interesting, but I think the inductive method is something properly associated with both extroverted rational elements, personally.

[Aiss]

I believe someone suggested something related to synthesis for Ni, and I personally think that captures an important part of Ni. Maybe something like synthetic. What are the implications of combinatorial? Also, I don't quite understand emergent? I don't think I'm in love with it though.

I think the best two (well with emergence winning...) terms for Ni proposed were:
Strong emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homeorhesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[silverchris9]

I think the best two (well with emergence winning...) terms for Ni proposed were:
Strong emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homeorhesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmmm... homeorhesis is closer to how I see it. Strong emergence just seems to me to be saying that the whole is different than the component parts, which I suppose is something that Ni would realize. I see Ni as inclined to guess the whole from a few of the parts, to think in terms of how a series of things would interact, and I guess Ni does tend to favor properties arising from interaction over properties inherent to individual objects. But at the same time, Ni is very much interested in the component parts. Perhaps I'm especially thinking of Ni paired with Ti-superid as in beta NFs.

[mfckr]

Hmmm... homeorhesis is closer to how I see it. Strong emergence just seems to me to be saying that the whole is different than the component parts, which I suppose is something that Ni would realize. I see Ni as inclined to guess the whole from a few of the parts, to think in terms of how a series of things would interact, and I guess Ni does tend to favor properties arising from interaction over properties inherent to individual objects.

All of this is true for me too. I've made the analogy before of holographs as a way of explaining how Ni is frequently able to successfully infer a holistic perception of situations, phenomena, people, etc. from observing only a few of the component interactions or parts.

[silverchris9]

All of this is true for me too. I've made the analogy before of holographs as a way of explaining how Ni is frequently able to successfully infer a holistic perception of situations, phenomena, people, etc. from observing only a few of the component interactions or parts.

This also reminds to a property of Ni that I've been thinking about lately in that the processes that Ni jumps forward or backward in are not necessarily temporal, or can sometimes occur in such a small space of time that the temporal aspect is negligible. Time is a great example because most of the processes that Ni guesses will be temporal. But logical dependency is not temporal, and Ni can jump forwards and backwards in that, I think. Even causation is not necessarily temporal, at least in the purest theory. I think while Ne would embrace synchonicity as such, Ni tends to view synchonicity as "deep causation".

I think Ni is very much relevant to Wallace Stevens' idea of "the hum of thoughts evaded in the mind."

Ni is freaking cool. It's like magic.

[mfckr]

This also reminds to a property of Ni that I've been thinking about lately in that the processes that Ni jumps forward or backward in are not necessarily temporal, or can sometimes occur in such a small space of time that the temporal aspect is negligible. Time is a great example because most of the processes that Ni guesses will be temporal. But logical dependency is not temporal, and Ni can jump forwards and backwards in that, I think. Even causation is not necessarily temporal, at least in the purest theory.

Yes, I've always conceived and felt its behavior to be exceedingly non-lienear like this in the way you're describing.

I think while Ne would embrace synchonicity as such, Ni tends to view synchonicity as "deep causation".

Yeah, synchronicity seems something most types IME readily accept as a given feature of how reality works.

I think Ni is very much relevant to Wallace Stevens' idea of "the hum of thoughts evaded in the mind."

I've never heard of that before. What's it about?

Ni is freaking cool. It's like magic.

Yeah, I like it. I have some old posts on my other forum I can dig up on it if anyone wants.

[silverchris9]

I've never heard of that before. What's it about?

Oh, it's just poetry. It's from "Notes toward a Supreme Fiction," Wallace Stevens' first great long poem (and highly philosophical). But it has to do with anticipating what you're going to say or what you're going to think or what you're about to write, and deliberately avoiding it. It's like an "advanced" level of Ni thing. Moving temporally forward to the likeliest outcome and then deliberately, on the basis of that prediction, adding another factor to produce a different outcome. Rather than changing your mind from state one to state two, it's changing your mind from pathway one to pathway two. Based on seeing where pathway one ends. Now that I think about it "hum of thoughts evaded in the mind" is to repentance (metanoia: to think again) as homeorhesis is to homeostasis. The former is both the dynamic corollary and in some strange way dependent on (in the temporal development of consciousness) the latter. Harold Bloom's thesis, and mine, and presumably Stevens' is that everybody is constantly doing this, just unconsciously. We are consciously deciding what we are going to think, controlling what direction our thoughts are going to go in. It takes a poet or a writer or just a clever person to notice the thoughts that are being evaded, or to hear the "hum of thoughts evaded in the mind."

Yeah, I like it. I have some old posts on my other forum I can dig up on it if anyone wants.

Oh you should. The more you talk about Ni the better.

[Mattie]

This is pretty much my last attachment to this forum, so in attempt to keep it alive, let's try bringing up the list again...

= ?
= Corollary?
= Schematic
= Homeostasis
= Permutation
= Induction...
= Resonance
= Emergence...

I haven't been able to think of a word that indicates a process and represents , as I kept coming up with noun words like contour and texture. I looked back on Ashton's suggestions on the first page, and they are, from what I can tell, noun words as well, meaning there's less of an idea of what the process of is, and everyone focuses on the outcome of . So we should probably move discussion to focus on as it is the one there is the least grasp on, and finding examples of its process would be most helpful, because I'm coming to understand that might be the IA/IE that is the least understood on this forum (and no, it has little to do with type distribution). So anyone still interested in this thread, please focus on this!

Induction for Fe is interesting, but I think the inductive method is something properly associated with both extroverted rational elements, personally.

I was thinking about this, or a thought similar to this in concern to "cause and effect." This has been a catch-phrase assigned to multiple IAs, I think in this thread it's , but it is possible it's indicative of and . I believe Induction still works for because of the nature of the "cause and effect" it is aware of. The cause is the internal state, which is hidden from direct observation, but the internal state causes external effects, and because types aren't literally psychic, they have to use the external effects to understand the internal state (which, to some people, might make them seem psychic). Now, I didn't have the same ease when it came to applying "cause and effect" to , at least in the manner I did with . The complete reverse would be to look at internal effects to understand the external state, but I don't know if that really is what is, and if so, it could also be considered a sense of Induction. But I'm starting to think this isn't the case; stays completely external, the only reason uses anything external is because it is (apparently) directly associated with the internal, isn't concerned with the external effects of external states, which might be what is about. I wasn't completely confident with Corollary, but it fits with this external effects of external states ideas, because the word implies deduction and consequence, which seem to fit the theme going on at the moment. We could probably find a word with the essence of "cause and effect" for the Dynamic Object category later on, as we get better ideas of what the broader categories can be if we know what's actually in the categories...



Overall, I think the idea of Emergence covers what is being discussed above; it focuses on the fact that there are parts or information from which a link or pattern can arise from, that they are natural and self-organized, though not readily apparent as such. It realizes that the whole is not the sum of its parts, and the idea of emergence is to be aware of this fact. I would say just read through the wiki article here and see if things seem familiar. In all honesty, it sounds like a mystical or occult feeling wants be retained to , but these qualities aren't inherent, but placed on by those trying to make sense of how IAs/IEs are applicable to life. No matter what, this exercise is going to take away the conventional sense of "magic" that egos tend to apply to , but as someone who likes science, Emergence is pretty magical, though completely natural, to me.

[norph]

Does no one else find it hopelessly silly is it to attempt to describe IM elements in terms of one-word conceptual fragments?

[silverchris9]

Does no one else find it hopelessly silly is it to attempt to describe IM elements in terms of one-word conceptual fragments?

On one hand, yes, but on the other hand, no. It's not going to especially useful for beginning socionics people, 'cause you really aren't going to be able to take these one word ideas and get straight from the word to the idea it's supposed to encapsulate. That said, once you have a moderate understanding of socionics, this could help you get a little deeper in understanding, by getting the associations and whatever down. Also it's likely to help people who are confused/irritated/misled by terms like static/dynamic and subjective/objective, as it does avoid some of the negatives of using those terms.

I think the problem with emergence isn't that it cuts the magic or whatever, the problem is that it focuses too much on the whole, when Ni is really more about moving from parts to whole (in my view, it's rather analogous to how Ti likes to break wholes into their component parts; Ni likes to put parts into their "necessary" wholes). Personally, I really like thinking about Ni in terms of Platonic forms, in particular the idea that a thing is the list of overarching ideas that it participates in. Like, a brown chair is a brown chair because it participates in the form of brown and the form of chair. And by looking at lots of chairs, whatever they all have in common is chair-ness or the form of the chair. I find that this concept has a very pleasing interaction between the whole and the parts: the parts are dependent upon the whole (this relates, imo, to emergence, like the parts aren't the same parts without the whole, or can't achieve the same function independent of the totality in which they are rooted), but we learn the whole through the parts. There's not a short one or two word phrase that encapsulates this view of the forms, though.

All I can think of for Se is directive or direction. I think of direction because Se seems to me to be inherently towards something, as part of its extreme outer focus.

I think Se is poorly understood because Se is the most obviously tied to something that everyone experiences. It's literally Sensing directed outwards, so it would seem that it's basic structure must be sense perception, like seeing things. But obviously everybody sees things, whereas it seems like not everybody can tell what other people are feeling. So it's really unclear what it's basis is. It's unclear how you get from "sense perception" which everybody has, to the things we commonly associate with Se egos, like directness, bluntness, effectiveness, capacity to "get things done," surplus of will power, focus on power dynamics, force (or even negative things like "control freak," pushy, demanding, or bossy). The closest thing I can get to understanding how Se works is to think of it in terms of interpreting all information as sense perception. The things you can perceive with your senses can be easily manipulated or moved, size generally indicates power (ease or difficulty to move/cause change in).

Also, what do you think of "force" for Se? I'm thinking "force" in the physics sense. It's a noun but it also implies motion. Perhaps there's some big word in physics-lingo implying a specific kind of force that would be appropriate?

Induction is fine for Fe, I suppose, but it doesn't seem to be at the heart of it. I mean, Fe egos may be using an inductive method, but that only captures the bit where you understand internal by external. What about the bit where you use the external to affect the internal? That's as important a part of Fe as anything. I guess the real problem is that I just don't like it.

[Mattie]

Does no one else find it hopelessly silly is it to attempt to describe IM elements in terms of one-word conceptual fragments?

No, not really, if you find the way you currently describe them fine enough. Any description will be "silly" in its own right since you're describing something abstract, not really proven, and completely prone to subjective interpretation. That said, this activity is not really about a sure-fire quick and easy way to describe the IAs, but an attempt to reach a description that is the least susceptible to interpretation (it is understood that it is near impossible to completely remove subjective interpretation) so there can be a common understanding and application of IEs. So if we both were talking about , the goal is to have an association common enough that we are communicating the most similar concepts of , and the way we can all commonly agree on a "definition" or word is to remove as much material that allows us to make a subjective interpretation. Right now, people could define as possibilities, the potential of objectives, the random, the internal state of an object, ideas, etc. Besides that most of these might not be really type related, and others are manifestations but not the IE, any one person can take any of these angles and put it into relation to themselves. It also allows people to type by a trait basis, such as, if someone seems random and likes to generate lots of ideas, they are an ego (and I'd say this isn't too much of an exaggeration of what a lot of people do [and then you get into the trouble of what is really too random or what is more than usual amount of ideas]). But if you say the IA of is the process of permutation, you remove a lot of interpretation and get a distinct process that can't be easily changed by a subjective understanding (you either know the process of permutation, or you don't. The 'subjectivity' comes in with how well you grasp the process if anything), therefore allowing a common understanding when we talk to one another. As well, if we start from that abstract understanding and then apply it to people, as a thought process, you eliminate a lot of topical traits being used as typing evidence, because you can understand how anyone can come to any understanding through permutation, it's just the fact that they did through that process that is type-worthy. This is a lofty goal, and we are limited to our own minds, but I don't think it's worthless.

I think the problem with emergence isn't that it cuts the magic or whatever, the problem is that it focuses too much on the whole, when Ni is really more about moving from parts to whole

I don't see how this isn't covered by emergence. Both the parts and the whole are involved in the process and observation. Emergence is more about the idea and interaction of the parts and the whole, how they relate to one another, and the essence, so to speak, that is the gap between them. Also, what you're describing with the chair starts to leave the realm of and into the realms of and .

Also, what do you think of "force" for Se? I'm thinking "force" in the physics sense. It's a noun but it also implies motion. Perhaps there's some big word in physics-lingo implying a specific kind of force that would be appropriate?

I don't think "force" captures the process of , and I also think it reinforces a stereotype about that's not well-founded. I don't think in particular is a drive or push, that's just more of the = aggressive line that also isn't true. I think you're right, though, on why it's hard to really understand ; I think we all might be the more aware of in our daily lives, and can't detach what it is from simple observation. There has to be some word, though, to capture its essence.

Induction is fine for Fe, I suppose, but it doesn't seem to be at the heart of it. I mean, Fe egos may be using an inductive method, but that only captures the bit where you understand internal by external. What about the bit where you use the external to affect the internal? That's as important a part of Fe as anything. I guess the real problem is that I just don't like it.

The use of is different from what is, again, I don't see how what you're concerned with isn't covered, I must have not explained well enough. Describing in such a manner is doing so as an IA, meaning, it's not an IE in the leading position, it's not an IE in the creative, etc. What you seem you be asking about is how does that cover -creative, and it does because the idea of the creative function is the active use of the IE. What matters the most about defining these IAs is the awareness rather than the pratical awareness, meaning, if you're an -ego, you're aware of the process of this sort of induction and can use any part or product of that process for whatever purpose, because you're aware of it. An -vulnerable is going to be unaware of the process of , and therefore wouldn't use any information from any stage of the process.

[silverchris9]

I don't see how this isn't covered by emergence. Both the parts and the whole are involved in the process and observation. Emergence is more about the idea and interaction of the parts and the whole, how they relate to one another, and the essence, so to speak, that is the gap between them. Also, what you're describing with the chair starts to leave the realm of and into the realms of and .

The wikipedia article I read said that emergence was essentially the idea that some properties emerge from the totality and are therefore irreducible to the parts. Ni is less about the properties that emerge from totality and more about the interaction between the parts and the whole. It seems like emergence is specifically about the lack of interaction between the whole and the parts, i.e., the whole cannot Re: chair, I disagree. At least as I understand Ni, it is concerned with the interaction of the abstract and the manifestation thereof, especially in reducing the manifestation to its abstract components. In fact, it's the flip side of Se, focusing on the abstractions (forms) that sense perceptions fit into rather than the sense perceptions themselves.

I don't think "force" captures the process of , and I also think it reinforces a stereotype about that's not well-founded. I don't think in particular is a drive or push, that's just more of the = aggressive line that also isn't true. I think you're right, though, on why it's hard to really understand ; I think we all might be the more aware of in our daily lives, and can't detach what it is from simple observation. There has to be some word, though, to capture its essence.

Oh, you just don't like it because it fits with how Se is usually described, which is not really a stereotype, or at least it is no more a stereotype than anything else in socionics. . But fine, your project is your project. I shall be a dutiful member of the process. Regardless, I suppose we ought to do some work towards figuring out what the "essence" is, then.

The use of is different from what is

...but there must be some relationship, right? I mean, I understand that "essence" is different from "function" (although I think Plato disagrees with me, at least on some days), but certainly "essence" has an important relationship to "function."

I don't see how what you're concerned with isn't covered, I must have not explained well enough. Describing in such a manner is doing so as an IA, meaning, it's not an IE in the leading position, it's not an IE in the creative, etc. What you seem you be asking about is how does that cover -creative, and it does because the idea of the creative function is the active use of the IE. What matters the most about defining these IAs is the awareness rather than the pratical awareness, meaning, if you're an -ego, you're aware of the process of this sort of induction and can use any part or product of that process for whatever purpose, because you're aware of it. An -vulnerable is going to be unaware of the process of , and therefore wouldn't use any information from any stage of the process.

Um... fine. Maybe I won't get it 'til I see the result. Perhaps I think "induction" isn't the core of Fe precisely because induction doesn't explain the function of Fe.

This conversation is comically fitting for extinguishment relations. Same interests, actually very similar goals, totally different emphasis so that both feels that the other is "missing the point."

[norph]

On one hand, yes, but on the other hand, no. It's not going to especially useful for beginning socionics people, 'cause you really aren't going to be able to take these one word ideas and get straight from the word to the idea it's supposed to encapsulate. That said, once you have a moderate understanding of socionics, this could help you get a little deeper in understanding, by getting the associations and whatever down.

Right, I agree a bit -- but even then it seems to me that a breadth of simple themes is far better than one word abstractions that are complex enough to embody the entire essence of an IM element, and that practical applications or showing people visible demonstrations of obvious differences and appealing to their sense of folk psychology is far more valuable than providing them with abstract terms.

Also it's likely to help people who are confused/irritated/misled by terms like static/dynamic and subjective/objective, as it does avoid some of the negatives of using those terms.

I hardly see why, if describing Fe as "internal dynamics of objects" or something similar is too abstract, i hardly see how describing it as "induction" or whatever description you have chosen as the most appropriate is any less abstract.

[norph]

No, not really, if you find the way you currently describe them fine enough. Any description will be "silly" in its own right since you're describing something abstract, not really proven, and completely prone to subjective interpretation. That said, this activity is not really about a sure-fire quick and easy way to describe the IAs, but an attempt to reach a description that is the least susceptible to interpretation (it is understood that it is near impossible to completely remove subjective interpretation) so there can be a common understanding and application of IEs.

And what does this laudable goal have to do with the format of the way the IM elements are presented? How does it legitimize the one-word association of "Fi = essence" or whatever others?

So if we both were talking about , the goal is to have an association common enough that we are communicating the most similar concepts of , and the way we can all commonly agree on a "definition" or word is to remove as much material that allows us to make a subjective interpretation. Right now, people could define as possibilities, the potential of objectives, the random, the internal state of an object, ideas, etc. Besides that most of these might not be really type related, and others are manifestations but not the IE, any one person can take any of these angles and put it into relation to themselves. It also allows people to type by a trait basis, such as, if someone seems random and likes to generate lots of ideas, they are an ego (and I'd say this isn't too much of an exaggeration of what a lot of people do [and then you get into the trouble of what is really too random or what is more than usual amount of ideas]). But if you say the IA of is the process of permutation, you remove a lot of interpretation and get a distinct process that can't be easily changed by a subjective understanding (you either know the process of permutation, or you don't. The 'subjectivity' comes in with how well you grasp the process if anything), therefore allowing a common understanding when we talk to one another.

How is "the process of permutation" any less subjective or easy to understand than any of these other concept fragments, or at the very least any less subjective in its application to real people?

[Mattie]

This conversation is comically fitting for extinguishment relations. Same interests, actually very similar goals, totally different emphasis so that both feels that the other is "missing the point."

At the risk of sounding bitchy, looking back to past posts and current ones, I think you anticipate "extinguishment" and therefore create a self-fulfilling prophecy so-to-speak. This isn't my project, I don't need you to "get in line" and follow my train of thought, I'm not looking to force my ideas if they are honestly mislead. I am looking for an understanding, and if there are holes in what I'm saying, they should be pointed out; the reason I persisted on the points I did because I didn't see how what you were saying deviated from the idea. This process isn't about submitting to one another's idea, which your last post gave a feeling of. If you have strong suggestions, go for it, and I'm only one person, and if I'm one of the very few even interested in pursuing this, then it might not be worth the time.

And what does this laudable goal have to do with the format of the way the IM elements are presented? How does it legitimize the one-word association of "Fi = essence" or whatever others?

How is "the process of permutation" any less subjective or easy to understand than any of these other concept fragments, or at the very least any less subjective in its application to real people?

The sarcasm isn't really appreciated, you could have just as easily let me toy around in my own manner rather then bust up the party because you don't find value in it. As I said, this is an overall process to help understand something as abstract as IAs/IEs, and improve the communication of such ideas. It's not meant to replace or revamp any existing theory, maybe just the method that people use to understand parts such as the IEs. The act of choosing the word "permutation" is subjective, but the term itself is not, it would be similar to communicating the idea of addition in mathematics (which is where permutation is most used). If I said X was the process of addition like how you see it in math, there is little room to misinterpret that, which is the main point. Nothing at this stage is really meant to be less abstract, IAs are as abstract as you can get, and I don't believe I said in my post that this method would make IAs more concrete. Right now I think it's troublesome that we can only really understand IAs through dichotomies, and really, this seems to be a similar case for IEs and possibly types. Either way, it brings attention typing via thought processes, which as we know is a hard if not impossible thing to do, but it's observing this that is important; our types reflect what Socionics predicts is how our thought processes work, and our behaviors are manifestations of these processes. But that doesn't make the manifestations the type or the IE or the IA, and that's not really a widely practiced idea.

[silverchris9]

Right, I agree a bit -- but even then it seems to me that a breadth of simple themes is far better than one word abstractions that are complex enough to embody the entire essence of an IM element, and that practical applications or showing people visible demonstrations of obvious differences and appealing to their sense of folk psychology is far more valuable than providing them with abstract terms.

I hardly see why, if describing Fe as "internal dynamics of objects" or something similar is too abstract, i hardly see how describing it as "induction" or whatever description you have chosen as the most appropriate is any less abstract.

It didn't make sense to me either at first. But then I thought of it as analogous to poetry. Sometimes, especially when things are complicated, it's easier to describe them in a roundabout way than to describe them in a literal way. Like above, when I was talking about Wallace Stevens, he uses a lot of phrases, like "hum of thoughts evaded in the mind" that could probably be described using a series of philosophical terms. But boiling it down to these more abstract poetic terms, I don't know, there's just a lot of power in good wording to explain something that is difficult to understand.

[norph]

The sarcasm isn't really appreciated, you could have just as easily let me toy around in my own manner rather then bust up the party because you don't find value in it. As I said, this is an overall process to help understand something as abstract as IAs/IEs, and improve the communication of such ideas.

I meant no sarcasm at all and made an honest inquiry into what I find a completely pointless exercise, but if it helps you understand the theory I'm glad.

It's not meant to replace or revamp any existing theory, maybe just the method that people use to understand parts such as the IEs. The act of choosing the word "permutation" is subjective, but the term itself is not, it would be similar to communicating the idea of addition in mathematics (which is where permutation is most used). If I said X was the process of addition like how you see it in math, there is little room to misinterpret that, which is the main point. Nothing at this stage is really meant to be less abstract, IAs are as abstract as you can get, and I don't believe I said in my post that this method would make IAs more concrete.

Right, but you did seem to think that your definition was somehow less subjective in its interpretation than the other conceptual fragments you mentioned (like "possibilities," "novelty," etc.), presumably because the definition of permutation is rather fixed -- but I don't see how that could be so if the concepts are equally abstract as before and so still open to just as much interpretation as to what behaviors might match the abstract description.

For what it's worth, telling me that an IM element is "like the process of addition in mathematics" would be far more unclear to me than these other descriptions -- with respect to the word "permutation" I at least understand (because I have some experience with the theory) what quality of the element you're trying to convey, though as a way to convey the element itself I obviously think it fails -- when you speak of "the process of addition" that clarity is lost.

Right now I think it's troublesome that we can only really understand IAs through dichotomies, and really, this seems to be a similar case for IEs and possibly types.

Nonsense, I don't think about IM elements (or IM aspects, which I view as basically the same conceptually) using dichotomies at all.

[norph]

It didn't make sense to me either at first. But then I thought of it as analogous to poetry. Sometimes, especially when things are complicated, it's easier to describe them in a roundabout way than to describe them in a literal way. Like above, when I was talking about Wallace Stevens, he uses a lot of phrases, like "hum of thoughts evaded in the mind" that could probably be described using a series of philosophical terms. But boiling it down to these more abstract poetic terms, I don't know, there's just a lot of power in good wording to explain something that is difficult to understand.

Right, I agree with that too, while still thinking that metaphorical prose is quite different (and a better medium in which to understand the relevant concepts) than single concept-filler words.

[Mattie]

Well, I'm glad there are different ways to approach the subject so we can get a more holistic view Now, just in case someone came in late on this, I was hoping to get some discussion talking about and how we can describe it as a process rather than it's outcomes.

[anndelise]

Well, I'm glad there are different ways to approach the subject so we can get a more holistic view Now, just in case someone came in late on this, I was hoping to get some discussion talking about and how we can describe it as a process rather than it's outcomes.

Well, what does Se do?
What do you do when an actual object is placed in your hand? How do you discover its properties, what it can do, how it can be used, etc? You do things to it. You poke it, prod it, bounce it, twist it, turn it, flip the switches, push the buttons, rev it up to get a sense of how much power it has, push it to see how solid or stable it is, etc. If it's a person that you're testing or checking out, you're doing similar, with the risk of them thinking that you're being aggressive or manipulative. But you're not, not intentionally, you're just trying to find out what their properties are, pushing buttons and seeing what the responses are. (Think mercutio...or whoever that estp is in the chats that I get the name mixed up with, heh.)

And if you want it to describe a process rather than its outcomes, then maybe choose verbs?

[Mattie]

And if you want it to describe a process rather than its outcomes, then maybe choose verbs?

Yeah, I've been trying to think of some, but none has popped in my mind. I have to dedicate more time to thesaurus jumping, but I was wondering if anyone else had been thinking about it, or would have a good idea.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Mattie]

Team with Ashton, maybe? Compared to you, he has the common sense to answer when addressed even if it's not something necessary convenient. Maybe through him you'll be able to communicate your literary ideas to people with a higher IQ.

Okay, I tried ignoring you, now you're just being insulting. If you're not interested in the same topics that I'm in, go look at other threads, there's no need to start trolling me.

[anndelise]

Team with Ashton, maybe? Compared to you, he has the common sense to answer when addressed even if it's not something necessary convenient. Maybe through him you'll be able to communicate your literary ideas to people with a higher IQ.

Answering when addressed doesn't require common sense. "Common courtesy" perhaps, but not common sense.

However, it wouldn't be "common courtesy" to answer someone who so obviously lacks basic courtesy. In fact, it might actually be "common courtesy" to ignore such flagrant attempts to belittle people..by not responding to the belittler's 'forms of address'.

And when dealing with someone who habitually prefers to put people down instead of focusing on the actual topic, then perhaps it might actually be "common sense" to ignore such a person.