You can't handle all of it! by I/O

[Rebelondeck]

@thehotelambush The way one acquires, maps and moves raw data is fundamental and is the only true function aspects. Without information control structure, there would be no type, and structure has characteristics that influence type development. Socionics classification bins seem to be for filters. Filtering is a component (an add-on) so to group based on preferences is like putting the cart before the horse - especially when one is trying to define a system model.

a.k.a. I/O

[Exodus]

@thehotelambush The way one acquires, maps and moves raw data is fundamental and is the only true function aspects. Without information control structure, there would be no type, and structure has characteristics that influence type development. Socionics classification bins seem to be for filters. Filtering is a component (an add-on) so to group based on preferences is like putting the cart before the horse - especially when one is trying to define a system model.

a.k.a. I/O

I'm not really sure what the heck you're talking about. What is a "socionics classification bin"? Or a "filter", in terms of the socionic model? How are benefit rings "based on preferences" but temperaments not?

[Rebelondeck]

............ What is a "socionics classification bin"? Or a "filter", in terms of the socionic model? How are benefit rings "based on preferences" but temperaments not?

I should be less cryptic; being LII is no excuse. A proposed independent variable to which a bunch of observations are attached in the attempt to find some root correlation (to behaviour?) is what I call a classification bin (statisticians and psychologists have better words). A filter is a way of disregarding or accepting certain types of information or processes (resulting in F or T and S or N, which I call preferences). I question any model that uses Jung's observations as the starting point or basis for a system although the observations and classifications of behaviour by him are valid and can be used to verify a system. I think both Augusta and M-B used Jung as the starting point but failed to find (look for?) a system. Instead, patchwork was done. I was pushing further on your statement of "part of Jung and Augusta's thinking". I can now see how I lost you so I should stop here; I would need to produce another article for which I have little energy at the moment. I did not imply anything about rings?

a.k.a. I/O

[Exodus]

@thehotelambush The way one acquires, maps and moves raw data is fundamental and is the only true function aspects. Without information control structure, there would be no type, and structure has characteristics that influence type development. Socionics classification bins seem to be for filters. Filtering is a component (an add-on) so to group based on preferences is like putting the cart before the horse - especially when one is trying to define a system model.

a.k.a. I/O

ok, so I guess you're saying temperament = "The way one acquires, maps and moves raw data". This is vague ("the way" could mean a lot of things) but I don't really agree with it. As far as I can tell, temperament on its own seems to be a category that is difficult to pin down, and I disagree that it is somehow "fundamental" and "the only true function aspects." What is the proof for this? What makes it more fundamental than every other category (quadras, supervision rings, benefit rings - any of these as an example)?

Also, the way you're describing temperaments needs more explanation, like "input can be turned off while output is operating, or vice versa". Is this supposed to describe Static types? And if so, why?

[Rebelondeck]

ok, so I guess you're saying temperament = "The way one acquires, maps and moves raw data". This is vague ("the way" could mean a lot of things) but I don't really agree with it. As far as I can tell, temperament on its own seems to be a category that is difficult to pin down, and I disagree that it is somehow "fundamental" and "the only true function aspects." What is the proof for this? What makes it more fundamental than every other category (quadras, supervision rings, benefit rings - any of these as an example)?

Also, the way you're describing temperaments needs more explanation, like "input can be turned off while output is operating, or vice versa". Is this supposed to describe Static types? And if so, why?

Type has to be built on an information control system. Control systems is an engineering discipline with lots of good texts. Movement of or operating on data is function; preference describes the limitation on a function, not the function itself. I did not want to get into limits which is why I referred to preferences as filters (better visual). You as LII should know that your senses shut down when you're thinking deeply; what causes that? I bet LIE doesn't do that........

a.k.a. I/O

[Exodus]

Type has to be built on an information control system. Control systems is an engineering discipline with lots of good texts. Movement of or operating on data is function; preference describes the limitation on a function, not the function itself. I did not want to get into limits which is why I referred to preferences as filters (better visual). You as LII should know that your senses shut down when you're thinking deeply; what causes that?

Yes, this is true. inhibits , and inhibits . If you're focusing on ideas you tend to neglect physical needs. But again, this is because of how the information elements work, not types.