Johammadeezus on Information Elements (thread split)

[Olduvai]

This, among other errors blocks you from understanding socionics' aspects, elements, quadras, etc.

lol, you've yet to demonstrate any erroneous thinking on my part

For example, your aspect set up has no meaning for N, S, T, nor F. What i mean is that your aspects cannot be used to define N, nor S, nor T, nor F.

That's only because you're coming in with preconceived ideas about N, S, T, and F, like "N is always abstract" and other vague shit like that.

You use "explicit" to refer to objects (Xe) oriented elements.
You use "implicit" to refer to fields (Xi) oriented elements.

Here is the definition of "explicit":

a: fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity

Here, again, is the definition of "implicit":

a: capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed

Here is me explaining what I use "explicit" and "implicit" to refer to:

So basically, "explicit" information originates from the "environment". It is what we immediately detect via our sensory organs. It requires no further thought or contemplation; it is "just there". "Implicit" information originates from an "operation" in the brain. It is the result of a "calculation" or a "transformation" that the function performs. It then seems reasonable to think that a person with an "explicit" primary function would seem to be "more focused on their environment" than a person with an "implicit" primary function, who would seem to be "more focused on their thought processes", and thus we have the concepts of "extroversion" and "introversion".

Your aspect defintion of Gamma is that they are only object valuing with no value of fields. (A scary thing to have for engineers.)

Gammas only value objects, yes, but they can still perceive fields. For example, here is ILI:

Strength Valued Unvalued

4 Ni Ti
3 Te Ne
2 Fi Si
1 Se Fe

(How can there be a field without at least two objects??)

Here's ILE:

Strength Valued Unvalued

4 Ne Te
3 Ti Ni
2 Fe Se
1 Si Fi

So not only is your elements off aspect-defining-wise, but your model A is f'd up too.

No, not really. Even if I'm wrong about the aspects (which I'm not), Model A still holds up, as it doesn't rely on the definitions of the aspects.

Let me know when you stop confusing 'the pointing' as 'the moon'.

Let me know when you've come up with an analogy that actually makes sense.