Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
You think Aushra's definitions are accurate, but your descriptions are somewhat different, right?
I kept the underlying structure of Socionics, as well as the definitions and descriptions in mind as I worked through my understanding of Socionics. To completely alter the structure and/or the definition of the elements is to turn the Socionics theory into something else. That's fine, but it is no longer "Socionics" you are talking about.

I also was keen on seeing if Socionics fit with some more modern theories on the brain and information processing. Since Socionics is a purely abstract theory (it relies on definitions and theoretical structures), without reference to anything more material (such as the nervous system, brain chemicals, etc), then it cannot be accurately tested, nor falsified. I believe(d) that if it described more material aspects of our brains, then it could eventually be tested, falsfied, proved...or at least parts of it.

For example, I prefer to deal with the Aspects (aka "aspectonics"):
  • object/field
  • internal/external
  • abstract/involved
  • static/dynamic
  • continuity/divisible (I couldn't get anyone to translate the particular words, and I never found a sufficient set of terms for this; analog/digital was the closest.)
And starting from the aspects I build up my definition and understandings of the IM Elements. This helps to remove certain terms (such as 'judging vs perceiving') that are used differently in other theories and in day-to-day language.

---

Which IM element perceives motion in your view? For example, a football flying through the air.
First, IM Elements don't perceive anything. IM elements are categories of information.

I do believe that we have systems in our brains/neurosystem that handles certain categories of information, but those systems aren't "IM Elements" themselves.

For example, our visual and auditory systems each have 2 types of information streams:
  • the Dorsal stream (aka "where" stream) handles spatial processing including location, movement, spatial transformations, spatial relations.
  • the Ventral stream (aka "what" stream) handles object processing including color, texture, pictorial detail, shape, size.
In socionics/aspects terms, the Dorsal stream is described by "Dynamics", and the Ventral stream is described by "Statics".

So, to answer your question, the categories of information that deals with motion are "Dynamic" ones (Ni/Si/Fe/Te).

IOW, the Dorsal stream lets us know that something is flying at us (Dynamic).
The Ventral stream tells us what the object is (Static).

Note: We don't process single categories of information in isolation. Even Socionics says this via Model A, in which every Socionics Type has every IM element. We just don't all process all the categories of information to the same degree nor with the same value/priority as every other type.

---

Si, Ni: "How is this TPE's actions related to that TPE's actions?" How is this related to our sensations (comfort, taste...)?
Think of Xe as nodes, and Xi as the links between nodes.

Xi=Field= Relationships between things, people, events (TPE)
Dynamics= actions/motions = what the TPE does, what it puts into effect, etc.
Xi Dynamics = How is this TPE's actions related to that TPE's action? What caused this TPE action? What effect did this TPE action initiate?

Si/Ni deal with systems. Systems by their very nature are dynamic, cause&effect, action&reaction. These systems could be cyclical (ex ecology, seasons, business markets) and they can be sequential (A causes B causes C, or A leads to B leads to C)

"Taste" is tricky. Are you referring to using 'taste' to identify an object? (Static, Xe, S)
Or are you using 'taste' to help season a dish to your preference? (Dynamic, Xi, S)

"Comfort" is a result of cause-effect (Dynamic) and orientation (Fi).
I sit in this chair (action)...
and the posture it puts me in (cause) makes certain muslces tense and sore (effect)...
I don't want my muscles to feel sore (Fi)...
so I identify this chair as having the attribute of "uncomfortable" (Static; attribute/Identity).

I sit in this other chair (action)...
and the posture it puts me in (cause) allows all my bones to feel supported and my muscles to relax (effect)...
This is what I like (Fi)...
so I identify this chair as having the attributes of "comfortable" (Static; attribute/identity)
The cause-effect part of what sitting in a chair does to my bones/muscles is Si information.

---

Are you saying that someone who is observing/seeing (i.e. perceiving) a branch, which is a part of a tree, is using a judging IM element/function?
Yes and No.
No, because that branch could also be considered a whole object itself, the leaf its own object, and the fruit its own object.
But Yes, too, in that the process of establishing what is "branch" and what is "not branch", you have to set defining boundaries which distinguishes it from other things. What makes a branch different from a leaf? or a leaf from a fruit? (Static, Xi)

A tree is also a system (Dynamic Xi). It's leaves perform a particular function (Dynamic Xe) that benefits the entire system (Dynamic Xi). Branches are formed by the leaves seeking light and heat. The fruit also performs a particular function (Dynamic Xe), and within the fruit are seeds which, when set into motion, will grow into its own system (another tree).

The trees together help create a habitat. The habitat involves other systems that together create an ecological system, and so on.


To process information, we have to break the information down (J) and build it back up (P).
To understand our world, we have to break things down into individual components (J) and build them back up into a whole (P).
Statics does this when identifying who/what and its attributes.
Dynamics does this when dealing with where, when, and how.