First of all, it's wrong to state that it's an IA/IE dichotomy, that it's justified by the three aspectonics primitives, while it's not. At least Wikisocion states that it is - I don't remember what Gulenko - or whoever invented it - said, if there's such thing. That is the first criterion, of course, what else? At a close analysis on the eight functions alone, it is totally unjustified, there is no aspectonical reasoning supporting for it.
I find that supposing its existence from the model combinations of the eight functions as flawed, a
post hoc Aiss, but correct me if I'm wrong. One can split the types according to certain observable type dichotomy (putting aside their theoretical emergence from Reinin), but when finding that the functions can be split into two halves by this, can we conclude that this is a property of information itself?
In fact I made a little omission in my previous post, there can possibly exist observable type dichotomies that can be associated with it that anyone could acknowledge, they're just caused by the arrangement in the Model. But these type dichotomies are already explained by other means, by the true dichotomies depending on the block positioning! To become higher-level Information Aspect dichotomies, they need proof. We do know that a type is determined by
exactly two functions, not one, don't we? We do know what a block consists in, therefore we can observe how the function dichotomies affect types, for example, the Aristocratic/Democratic is caused by the paring of Internal/External elements in a block. The same with the actual definition, N,T/S,F, to conclude that the IEs blocked in whatever types have something in common just because the types themselves have respectively things in common is a gross
fallacy of division (like "atoms of water are wet" - from Wikipedia).
---
In my opinion, the extended problems with these "element dichotomies" are:
- they can't be explained independently, as actual information properties;
- they're arbitrary choices, based on an erroneous reductionism and a conventional selection of premises;
- we don't have descriptions and names for the two second-tier dichotomies, besides Rationality, apart from my writings on the forum, which might also be inaccurate;
- people are inclined to - and do make use of - speculative combinatorics and fictional descriptions to mask their lack of understanding/explanations or apparent lack of coverage; especially the ones with authoritative and business goals;
- blind adoption and lack of what are professionally called "
analysis" and "
peer review".