Discussion of underlying cognitive mechanics

[mu4]

This is a thread for the discussion of cognitive mechanics between Point and chemical, please do not flame or insert a unrelated tangent into this thread. Please pose questions in a clear manner, some questions may be moved or removed from this thread and address in this opening post due to some reference knowledge necessity. Any reference knowledge or necessary knowledge will be linked in this thread along with the question which prompted it.

 

Exactly; my view is that it's possible that this assumption is a product of the need for maintaining a study of a system of typology at all. After all, you can't describe the infinitely many ways development can happen, but you can try to describe and build on the likely foundations/innateness behind that development. Jung's type diagnosis was subjective enough and allowing enough for changes of type pattern that he probably never was motivated to write down a full on static classification system (nor was that his kind of thing).

Unfortunately I think it's hardly reality that there's a clear, obvious reason why someone's IE remain solely explainable from the standpoint of one block or function. You can argue it and argue it and spin it so it works, but I happen to think with development comes not just more nuance and more experience, but also a potential opening up of the person to employ functions from the mindset of a different block, i.e. develop new fundamental patterns resembling other TIM. It's possible some of this is speculated about in the Gulenko multiple types theory, which never seems to have been resolved entirely (?!). As the persona type represents the individual's concrete adaptations to reality's conditions, and as in the original Jungian standpoint, the ego would likely identify at least in part with a healthy persona, with the difference not being between persona=mask and ego=real but rather ego=conscious sense of self vs Self=full sense of self, including the iceberg beneath the ego, it's actually quite likely one develops pretty clear, well-defined type patterns over time.

I think Gulenko's multiple types theory is ok, but what's happens is a terminological mess which can confuse people.

As far as why someone's IE remain solely predictable from just one block, it's quite simple. Think of human cognition as a very complex wave, where as if you know one point of the wave you can predict another point. If you think of it that way, you can see personality as a very complex signal which we express thru time.

The various blocks are just different points on the wave. This is the same reason we can predict the helical form of DNA and various other natural phenomena. I'm not a physicist or a mathematician, I simply assume that the mind behaves the same way as the rest of the universe. I leave the details of this to scientists, but I assume truth here since I have no choice but to.

[chemical]

Let me continue adding questions/thoughts as I get to them. All this I'm saying is just experimental in the sense of trying to speculate what this second type business is about. Basically the summary of my understanding is it's indeed a trunk of an elephant but possibly one worth classifying nonetheless.

Something occurred to me, which is related to this Krig the Viking post from earlier:

It should be pretty apparent by now, JohnDo, that tcaudilllgian Energy Metabolism types are different from Gulenko's DCNH subtypes/energy types.

From what I can tell, tcaud, your EM types have more to do with one's interests and social role, while Gulenko's energy types describe a more immediate, personal behavioural energy

He seems to be suggesting that the DCNH system and the energy type are far from unrelated in purpose. What occurred to me is that I think a lot of someone's "personal energy" vaguely should be related directly to temperament. And what occurred to me is the interesting fact that I think of the 4 Jungian dichotomies, two fit much better into correlations with temperament than the others, namely rational/irrational and introversion/extraversion. The other two somehow seem to be very different, because they really represent types of information. For instance, the difference between intuition and thinking arises in that the more an idea is translated into thinking, the more it is amenable to intellectual criticism - it is a fundamentally different form of information.
The way I see Jung's ideas on rational/irrational and introversion/extraversion is he translated them into more cognitive terms, meaning terms directly related to the nature of the information someone produces as part of seeking understanding. I see the MBTI's versions of judgment/perception as essentially the more lifestyle and temperament oriented traits, and ditto with their introversion/extraversion. DCNH seems to use the 4 temperaments sort of similarly (look at IJ - it's basically the rule-making, rigidity, conscience-enforcing type, and EP is the impulsive, active, creative type, etc).

Perhaps the way to represent the behavioral/personal energy of a person is to assign them a DCNH-like thing, basically a temperament type as the basic foundation, together with some additional somewhat more cognitive descriptors optionally, essentially based on the intelligence behind their energy prioritizations as I described above, and of course all this separate to their main information type, which represents how they assemble and understand reality cognitively.

I think funnily, almost anyone has a pretty well-defined temperament type, but people might be a lot less developed into a definitive cognitive priority pattern.

Also I realize this has been free flow, so feel free to suggest certain definite points of terminology to start working on clarifying or format that you think would be good to work through in a more organized way if things come to mind!

[chemical]

I thought more on this topic, and I think the biggest problem with the "Man as a System of Types" article to me is that, as I've stated before but perhaps not emphasized enough, the ego and persona, which are Gulenko's terms for the regular sociotype and energy type, as derived from the Jung terminology, are not in reality separate psychological entites. The ego is sort of nested inside the persona, rather than the persona's function-ordering being quite entirely distinct from that of the ego. In short, Jung's ideas here say that the ego represents the natural disposition in terms of information of the individual, and the persona is an outgrowth as to how they function, based on adaptation to the environment. This can be somewhat fluid, meaning this is why you don't talk to your parents the same as you do to your friends (if indeed that's true of you).

The persona isn't a forgery or a total fake, unless it is unsuccessful at its means. It is meant to provide a protective coating that both suits you and controls the way your natural dispositions actually come to play. In other words, the practicalities of how you function as opposed to your theoretical function-type, depend on circumstances, but generally should take the ego into account greatly, merely flexing to ensure the ego and the environment aren't getting in each others' way. An armor isn't great if it doesn't fit your body, because however strong, it will not then cover you.

Just to ensure that all I'm saying is not only true to Jung but also to Gulenko, let's note what Gulenko says:

The second type, the type of output - this is the behavioral, living, vital type. It performs the role of adaptation to the concrete conditions of reality. Using the archetypal language of Jung, let us call this the Persona type.

Now, why does he call persona type the energy type? Here we can only speculate, but based on Jung the main thing which comes to mind is Gulenko's statement that the information type is one corresponding to a state of homeostasis, the persona one of disturbance of it. This I read to correspond to the idea that the ego's function-type is more a question of natural disposition, hence the theoretical path of least resistance, than the persona is, since the persona forms around the ego to regulate the ego's interaction with the present environment. Thus, it would seem, is the link to energy, in that expenditure of energy is needed to mediate between the path-of-least-resistance and the existing conditions.

This is still a sort of "intelligent" system/pattern of energy distribution. Except it's likely that, much as DCNH is dependent on outer circumstances, this version of persona is, too. It also means that it's somewhat more difficult to imagine a persona type which is of the opposite sort to the ego. This may need to involve certain extenuating circumstances.

[mu4]

I thought more on this topic, and I think the biggest problem with the "Man as a System of Types" article to me is that, as I've stated before but perhaps not emphasized enough, the ego and persona, which are Gulenko's terms for the regular sociotype and energy type, as derived from the Jung terminology, are not in reality separate psychological entites. The ego is sort of nested inside the persona, rather than the persona's function-ordering being quite entirely distinct from that of the ego. In short, Jung's ideas here say that the ego represents the natural disposition in terms of information of the individual, and the persona is an outgrowth as to how they function, based on adaptation to the environment. This can be somewhat fluid, meaning this is why you don't talk to your parents the same as you do to your friends (if indeed that's true of you).

The persona isn't a forgery or a total fake, unless it is unsuccessful at its means. It is meant to provide a protective coating that both suits you and controls the way your natural dispositions actually come to play. In other words, the practicalities of how you function as opposed to your theoretical function-type, depend on circumstances, but generally should take the ego into account greatly, merely flexing to ensure the ego and the environment aren't getting in each others' way. An armor isn't great if it doesn't fit your body, because however strong, it will not then cover you.

Just to ensure that all I'm saying is not only true to Jung but also to Gulenko, let's note what Gulenko says:



Now, why does he call persona type the energy type? Here we can only speculate, but based on Jung the main thing which comes to mind is Gulenko's statement that the information type is one corresponding to a state of homeostasis, the persona one of disturbance of it. This I read to correspond to the idea that the ego's function-type is more a question of natural disposition, hence the theoretical path of least resistance, than the persona is, since the persona forms around the ego to regulate the ego's interaction with the present environment. Thus, it would seem, is the link to energy, in that expenditure of energy is needed to mediate between the path-of-least-resistance and the existing conditions.

This is still a sort of "intelligent" system/pattern of energy distribution. Except it's likely that, much as DCNH is dependent on outer circumstances, this version of persona is, too. It also means that it's somewhat more difficult to imagine a persona type which is of the opposite sort to the ego. This may need to involve certain extenuating circumstances.

Ok Gulenko is a genius.

I think I can sort of explain energy type/tim from a bipolarity perspective.

Energy Type = manic mode
TIM = normal/depressed mode

Even the words he uses supports it.

[Olly From Wally World]

You guys are such geeks, haha.

[chemical]

A good rule of thumb is that there are two ways the ego and persona can no longer synchronize. One is when the persona is resisted and underdeveloped. That is, the inherent disposition versus the manner of practical functioning are at odds and the first prevails leading to your classic frustrated individual. The second option is when the ego becomes entirely identified with the persona, simply because it makes things easier to adapt to. This leads to the type losing the sense of identity and merging with the outside.

There are a lot of standard ways the ego-persona can form. Take an intuitive-ethics (intuitive-feeling) type. Their inherent drive is governed by a certain highly nuanced ethical valuation system. However, they may function against the environment largely as a thinking type, meaning, using their thinking function in much of their activities, because that way of functioning best mediates the understanding and outlook of the ego and the environmental conditions to produce a desired "output."

Another note: one sense in which "energy" is not separate from the ego is in the attitudinal type (introversion/extraversion), in the sense that this is one of the most innate of the typological features, being descriptive of how the energy tends to flow. Energy here means psychic energy. But most certainly some manner of regulation is needed when energy flow must adapt to existing conditions (basically thinking of the ego type as dammed up water that would naturally flow a certain way, and the persona as an intelligent channel).

All this seems to fit in reasonably well with point's ideas about there being a general sense of self (corresponding to the ego type) and a more mechanical one that this general sense of self is projected into, and this latter one is more dependent on the existing conditions of reality. Also his overall philosophical idea is there in a different form in Jung I think, namely that the formation of this mechanical side is based on a need for the self to project itself into things and see itself (I think why he explains we put more and more into computers). The persona is a mask in the sense of acting, but acting as we know is half about filling a role existing outside you and the other half is your desire to project yourself into the role. Same sort of thing going on as with computers - half is that we want them to take up a functional role, the other half is we simply want to express/project ourselves in them.

[mu4]

I never get to this and I should... I'll try to get to it tonight...

[chemical]

@point interesting where do you get those interpretations? It sounds like disturbing homeostasis vs preserving, which is how he presents in Man as a System of Types

[mu4]

@point interesting where do you get those interpretations? It sounds like disturbing homeostasis vs preserving, which is how he presents in Man as a System of Types

I'm getting this interpretation right now because I'm manic, and my cog style isn't totally CD at the moment. I sort of had a eureka moment. Not sure this is valid since I know in my manic states I can get some bad ideas but also many very creative ones. I think I'm a VS thinker in mania.

[mu4]

Question
During periods of high energy, I find my mind is working more vortical synergistic vs my typical causal deterministic thinking style. Is this perhaps a expression of Energy type? I have started a discussion about this with Chemical on the forum. I would love your commentary.

I asked gulenko this question and I got this response.

On energy and information types
Abstracts of the report at a meeting Gulenko ShGS November 3, 2010
1 By way of reminder. There are two organizations Socion.
Temperamentally-installation and custom-quadra. one
group in each organization energy, the other -
information.

2 Practice indicates that the binary system of one of the
parties is leading and the other slave. Do
energy types leading side is
temperament (including temperamental offset), and in
Information - installation (also given its offset).
When the second organization Socion: energotipov in the first
place there is the order side, and at the information - squares.

3 Through the functional profile of the person we are judging the case. If
strong functions of the profile is dominated by a combination of
one vertness man as the bearer type belongs
to the energy socion. If different vertnosti, by
Information.

?????? ? ???????? ?????? ?. ??????? 03.11.2010.pdf

#stillridinghiscoattails

[mu4]

Thoughts are massive
Energy is needed to move mass

[mu4]

Gulenko
Carl Jung as author of typology also developed the energy paradigm.

Point

Yes, is this related to "Persona"?

Gulenko
Not directly. Person is an image we demonstrate to the outside. It is based on role function, which requires more energy to maintain itself.

Point
http://outlawpsych.com/outlawpsych/t...sychic-energy/

Carl Jung’s theory of psychic energy | outlawpsych
outlawpsych.com

Gulenko
Energy field around us is produced by the most powerful function. Surrounding people perceive it and talk about strong or weak person.

Point
Not exactly in the same vein but one of the things I've been reading states that thoughts have "mass" and that they push other thoughts around like matter in the mind. But it's neccessarily true in that situation energy be provided to move mass. It seems likely that there is a dual mechanism of "mass" interacting with "energy" conversions occuring in the mind. Is it something like this?

Gulenko
The heaviest and massive function is the extraverted force sensing (Se if MBTI and F by my symbols).

Point
trying to find the word to describe this. Thoughts are massive, Energy is required to move mass, the brain is nuclear

Gulenko
I think that not only thoughts, but state of the entire psyche.

Point
yes yes I agree
requires energy to move, the brain as engine is transforming thoughts/mass into energy and back and forth mechanically

[chemical]

Continuing here: I believe if you look at Man as a System of Types article, the energy type is related to what Gulenko calls 1 of 4 sides of a person - the logical is associated to the TIM, the intuitive/sensory less clear, the EM type seems to relate most to "ethical"...or at least, even if this isn't right, there's an association of thinking/logic to mass (Jung said thinking tells you what something is - that is, matter), and Gulenko associates the "logical" side of man to his TIM, that is, his cognition, and it sort of tells you the "what" and substance of what a man knows/has accumulated in the brain.
Energy is generally associated with "feeling" by the socionics analogy, in that it relates to what arouses the man from a stable condition. So the sense in which EM type can build on the usual vital block/sit on top of it like point has been saying might just be describing theoretical foundations to how this arousal occurs.

What would be really great is if Gulenko could give a description of the energy-elements, analogous to descriptions of information elements. I think he begins to hint though in Man as a System, in that he gives examples like how Te for the second type might relate to how long someone can be without hard work, which goes with the socionics analogy of Te=work. But here it's more describing exerting energy to do work than information about work itself (that is, information about efficiency and so forth). It is possible for instance to have an exceptional amount of information on what is profitable, what is efficient, what algorithms function in an implementable way (that is, a lot of matter) but lack the arousal and attraction/repulsion energies for it to remain anything but stationary in your mind. I think that's what he's getting at here in this article

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...y-V-Gulenko%29

Creative people are capable of generating new information, if they are not energetic or if they do not support controlling energy sponsors, in most cases, remain out of work, are in a trance. Remember the perennial question: "If you're so smart, why are you so poor?"

In any successful business share information - about 20-30%, the rest - energy, efforts to implement the application and promotion. Naked enthusiasm dries quickly, it is necessary to pump in a lot of energy to "the process has begun," and is not stalled in the future.

'll Conclude. The focus of modern socionics should stand modeling of energy and information processes as energy generates information - new order, valuable experience, proven knowledge. After all, knowledge (information arms) even the most trusted in themselves, without, worthless. And in order to begin to apply them, need energy. How to get it or save?

[Jeremy8419]

@mu4 @chemical @woofwoofl

Thread Necromancy: +1.

Helllllooooooo…. I bring tidings and salutations from Delta. Huzzah!

I previously did computer science stuff some, so using computing concepts is something I can do moderately (don’t expect it to be right, just “translatable”). Anyways, I have some information that I have compiled in my head from various sources.

Mental/Vital:

The Mental track is how we process new information. Sometimes, the information is not “so new or different” that we will even use the Mental much. Other times, it will be so radically different that we are forced to place tons of conscious thought into it (ala, sp/so and so/sp facial expressions, which correlate to super-ego/ego and ego/super-ego). As this information is processed and “solved” in the Mental conscious thought, it is then transferred into the Vital automatic processes. Within the Vital, all previously acquired information is used on an automatic basis, and forms the overall basis of the individual’s displayed personality. As the Vital processes incur new information, which it knows not where nor how to store such, the Mental is activated to “solve,” “debug,” what-have-you this new information for proper filing into the individual.

Information received within the Social sphere may have varying degrees of “new” to it. In example: Information Received = 93% Existing, 7% New = 93% Vital, 7% Mental. The greater the degree of new information, the greater the strain put on the Mental.

In computing concepts, we can correlate such to the following:
Run Vital
v_Information Received
Find v_Information In Vital
If v_Information Not In Vital
Run Mental.v_Information
n_Information = Mental.v_Information
Insert n_Information Into Vital
Else
Nothing. You got dis, dawg.
EndIf

Some concepts for consideration:
Mental Super-block: Conscious thought in Social (new information outside the self)
Vital Super-block: Existing information for automatic processing
Information: Must be checked for existence within Vital
New Information: Must be consciously filed by Mental Super-block into Vital Super-Block
Judging: Dichotomous descriptions most similar to Mental
Perceiving: Dichotomous descriptions most similar to Vital
So: Description most similar to Ego
Sp: Description near identical to Super-Ego
Sx: Description most similar to Super-Id

Insert random Yermak quote:

Some socionists suppose that the functioning of the superblock of personal life is unconscious. It is incorrect. Founders of psychoanalysis differently considered the concept of the "unconscious". The term "preconscious" is appropriate to the content of processes, which take place in the superblock of personal life. In normal conditions, the preconscious processes function out of consciousness, automatically. But these processes can become conscious, if there is a need. In turn, functioning of the superblock of social life is obviously conscious.

Routines and Sub-Routines:

When considering the models and TIM’s, it is important to recognize that not only does the individual contain a Routine that is his TIM and contains the information processing, but it also contains sub-routines. As seen in the this link, each element within the TIM is actually equally a sub-routine. When using an element, what will be displayed is actually the Routine of another TIM residing within the TIM of the individual. Some of these happen so quickly that they are not perceived by the self nor others.

Bukalov maintains that Signs of elements are by functional blocking; e.g., +Fi is always blocked with –Ne. When crossing blocks, the element pairing is changed, thus changing the Signs; e.g, Leading +Fi becomes –Fi when PoLR and Leading are processing information. Due to such, all 16 TIM’s are used as sub-routines within the base TIM as information processing takes place.

In example, the OP mentioned cognition styles. I am EII/CD. However, CD only applies on the macro-level that is the Base Routine: +Fi. As the Base Routine operates, it runs sub-routines as the information is processed. In this way, when utilizing Role + Creative (-Ti/+Ne), my cognition will be using the Holographic Cognition Style.

Going from Leading to PoLR and back, we thus have…
CD (+Fi/-Ne) (EII)
HG (-Ne/+Fi) (IEE)
CD (+Ne/-Ti) (ILE)
HG (-Ti/+Ne) (LII)
CD (+Ti/-Se) (LSI)
HG (-Se/+Ti) (SLE)
CD (+Se/-Fi) (SEE)
HG (-Fi/+Se) (ESI)
CD (+Fi/-Ne) (EII)

And the Vital follows suit.

”Intelligence”

In context of the TIM being the Routine composed of the various Sub-Routines, it is important to note that the Routine, that is, the Individual, is himself a Sub-Routine.

Distinctive peculiarities, characteristics and parameters of a person are defined by society, which in turn performs a certain task, mission inside the macro system of "humanity".

So, what does this mean? This means that the activation of the Mental is actually the macro-system passing us new information for us to “solve” and integrate into the Vital, to automatously use in the greater macro system / organism of ‘humanity’. I am not “Jeremy” because of preference, sheer genetics, or chance… but rather, humanity required for the “Jeremy” that currently exists to come into being. “Humanity” needed information “solved”, and created/ran a sub-routine, “Jeremy,” to accomplish such.

Although, the concept of biologically having greater processing capacity than others, or a norm/average, is most certainly true, this does not explain “Intelligence.” Individuals such as Plato, Newton, some random other people I don’t bother thinking of, are seen as highly intelligent people from human history. On another end of the spectrum, individuals such as Nero, ******, some ancient evil people, also had a major impact on the events of human history. Why? Because, for whatever the reason, the macro-system of “humanity” required information be processed through them. In this light, the concept of “Intelligence” may be better equated to “anomaly” or, as Yermak writes, “peculiarity.” Although, I.Q. is typically referred to as intelligence, other similar concepts are used for emotions, blah blah blah, etc. In the greater context of “Intelligence,” the “great intelligences” of human history are simply vessels of information processing created by humanity for the purpose of “solving” critical new information / flaws / whatever-floats-your-boat that was required for the Vital of the macro-system of humanity.

Fundamental Concepts of Information Aspects

Although Thinking/Feeling/Sensing/Intuition are colloquially (I don’t actually know what that word means, but I am guessing it means “normally” or something, and it sounds nice) considered Matter/Energy/Space/Time, it is important to understand that these ways of processing information are just the shadows of reality that we are capable of dealing with, and not the actual Information, referred to as Information Aspects in Socionics, which has conveniently already been broken down (somewhat).

Information Aspects:
Te: External Dynamics of Objects
Fe: Internal Dynamics of Objects
Se: External Statics of Objects
Ne: Internal Statics of Objects
Ti: External Statics of Fields
Fi: Internal Statics of Fields
Si: External Dynamics of Fields
Ni: Internal Dynamics of Fields

Okay… Well that wasn’t very helpful…
To the Batmobile! No, wait… To the Batcave!

Using computing principles, I’ll try and label each…

Information Aspects Dichotomies:
External: Variable, a group of variables viewed as a single variable
Internal: Array/List, a variable viewed as a group of variables
Statics: Time Independent, Snapshot of moment, non-running program (like a pause during debugging), similar junk
Dynamics: Time Dependent, Video of some timeframe, running program (like viewing code process during debugging), similar junk
Objects: It’s an object… You can look at it… You can do stuff with it… …. It’s an object…
Fields: A comparison of objects, Boolean operators

So, let’s say you have the following…

X = [1,2,3]
Y = [4,5,6]

X and Y would both be the “External” and the “[1,2,3]” and “[4,5,6]” would be their “Internal,” respectively. Since they are both the same thing, the only difference is the frame of reference you are using. Do you view them as a single entity? Or do you view them as a collection of entities? I believe it is called “nesting” or something, but if you have the variables on one level, and the arrays on another, the only difference between the External and Internal is the level on which you are viewing. What if you choose Internal and view the numbers level? Well, what are the numbers in computing? Isn’t each one really an External on this level, and the Internal is now machine language?

Fleshing this out some more…

Bill (External) = [short,male,kind,stupid,loves music] (Internal)
Ted (External) = [tall,male,kind,stupid,loves music] (Internal)
Down a level…
Short (External) = [5’4”,5’5”,5’6”,5’7”,5’8”] (Internal)
Tall (External) = [5’9”,5’10”,5’11”,6’0”,6’1”] (Internal)
Kind (External) = [non-aggressive,charitable,seeks unity,empathetic,sympathetic] (Internal)

Moving on…

Now we have “Bill” and “Ted.”

We can look at “Bill” and have our External of Objects. We can look at “Ted” and have our External of Objects. But, what do we do with such? Well, we can compare (of Fields) them. If we do it based upon external similarities, we would be using External of Fields. If we do it based upon internal similarities, we would be using Internal of Fields.

IF Bill IS LIKE Ted THEN (External of Fields) SET SocialGroup = “Bill and Ted” (<-second half maybe External of Objects for higher level?)

IF [short,male,kind,stupid,loves music] IS LIKE [tall,male,kind,stupid,loves music] (Internal of Fields) SET SocialGroup = “Bill and Ted”

That’s about as far as I thought about it, as I don’t actually enjoy programming lol.

Static/Dynamic would just be if you were considering a moment in time, or something ongoing. For instance, when you start Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure, they are good friends (Statics of Fields); however, later on they get in an argument at some point and they are then not good friends (Statics of Fields again). Even if you went to a very small time sequence, say a single conversation, there would be ups and downs within a single minute. They could be “good friends” every time they are agreeing and “not good friends” every time they aren’t agreeing. Whichever moment in time you pick during that conversation determines which of “good friends” or “not good friends” the Statics of Fields is going to be. If we use Dynamics of Fields, though, this single conversation would still be “good friends.” If during the time period when they are not friends, you choose the point in time where Ted says “I miss Bill,” then boom! Statics of Fields calls them “good friends.” However, if Dynamics of Fields considers this same time period, then it will say “not good friends.” If the movie ended with them being “good friends” by Statics of Fields, but the rest of their unseen story had them stop being friends a year after the movie, then the Dynamics of Fields of their lives would be “not good friends.” Such is the nature of a Static Moment in Time and a Dynamic Process in Time.

Because the previous paragraph requires the Routine to view dynamic processes in time simply to be able to make a conscious Statics of Fields comparison, the unconscious is necessitated to follow the viewing of the dynamic processes. On the flip side, it’s hard to even view this dynamic process movie, if you don’t have individual frames to make it up. In this way, the Static/Dynamic manifests itself in the Mental/Vital. You either consciously look at snapshots and unconsciously look at movies, or you consciously look at movies and unconsciously look at snapshots.

How does all of this fit into the TIM Routine?

EII example from PoLR (Ex dimension) through Leading:
View Externals of Object
Compare Externals of Object to other Objects
View Internals of Object
Compare Internals of Object to other Objects

Another for EII:
See how Bill looks (External Statics of Objects)
See how Ted looks (External Statics of Objects)
Compare how Bill looks to how Ted looks (External Statics of Fields)
Use this to determine “who Bill is,” his “essence” (Internal Statics of Objects)
Use this to determine “who Ted is,” his “essence” (Internal Statics of Objects)
Compare “who Bill is” to “who Ted is” (Internal Statics of Fields)
Awwww, they best fwends… (into the Vital this goes)

Leaving information aspects and going back to the information elements…

Information and Energy

For any computer to process and produce corresponding information, it requires energy. Bukalov blah blah blah with Libido blah blah blah… This is what I figure for Information and Energy.

Extroverted Elements: Energy Sender, Information Requestor
Introverted Elements: Energy Receiver, Information Supplier

Using this, we have the following for EII:
Someone: Extroverts energy to EII…
Fi: Receives Energy, Processes Information, Supplies Information to…
Ne: Receives Information, Metabolizes (Nom nom nom kind) Information, Supplies Energy to…
Ti: Receives Energy, Processes Information, Supplies Information to…
Se: Receives Information, Metabolizes (Nom) Information, Supplies Energy to…
Ti: Receives Energy, Processes Information, Supplies Information to…
Ne: Receives Information, Metabolizes (Nom) Information, Supplies Energy to…
Fi: Receives Energy, Processes Information, Supplies Information to…
Someone: I don’t know, how bout ILE since they are goofy

Taken from another post of mine, reconciling Jung chapter 10 back into everything, including Libido, and answering about Gulenko (Libido is energy, try not to make your version so goofy like Jung did)

Extrovert exerts libido on an object to receive information. Introvert accepts libido to give information. Libido (energy) is Feeling. Information (matter) is Thinking. The extroverted thinker is concerned with receiving information. The extroverted feeler is concerned with exerting libido. The introverted thinker is concerned with giving information. The introverted feeler is concerned with receiving libido. Sensing is space. Intuition is time.

Polarities and Bits and Stuff

When applying polarities and various other concepts of Socionics, it’s important to treat change as what it would be in computing: a bit change. (or whatever 0 turning into 1 is)

From Leading to Creative: + changes to -, and vice versa
From Creative to Role: + changes to -, and vice versa
From Mental to Vital: + changes to -, and vice versa
From Leading to Creative: extroverted changes to introverted, and vice versa
From Leading to Creative: energy out changes to energy in, and vice versa
From Leading to Creative: information out changes to information in, and vice versa
From Mental to Vital: extroverted changes to introverted, and vice versa
From Mental to Vital: information out changes to information in, and vice versa
Etc.

No matter what parameters you place on anything, there needs to be an appropriate bit switch upon changing locations, be it a function, a block, a super-block, (probably gender, I dunno), whatever… or there is a logic break.

Closing Thoughts

Anywayssss….. That’s my information. Use it. Derp on it. Take bits and pieces. Whatever you feel like doing with it.

Also, try not to break the universe. I’d rather not be cornholed and annihilated by a sentient robot species, or have people running around jedi mind-hacking people. Seriously, don’t jedi mind-hack people. World and people and their relationships exist for a reason. If you do it, you’re essentially corrupting data and run the risk of breaking the macro systems up to infinity. Also, the universal information paradigm, God, gets pissed and will probably delete you.