An alternative view on information aspects

[Petter]

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 disagree with you. SSS defines the aspects (which they call 'information elements'... they also use the word 'aspekty') in a completely different way, and it is still considered as "Socionics".

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.

Good, that is my view as well.

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.)

That is 32 different kinds of information aspects. We need exactly eight aspects.

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.
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.

You are confusing aspects (i.e. information) with IM elements/functions (i.e. information processing).

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...gustinaviciute

"All eight elements of IM are located in the psyche of each individual. That is, Each of us has the same forms of perception and information processing. But in complex situations that require intellectual effort, people tend to trust only one pair of elements: one extroverted and introverted one."

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

I have also considered the dorsal stream and the ventral stream, nice. And yes, ventral is about static information and dorsal is about dynamic information.

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

How did you come to that conclusion?

You still need an IM element that perceives motion. Te evaluates motion/processes.

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.

No, we can process certain information in isolation. It depends on how much we focus on a particular activity/situation. It is not as if all eight processes always are active (consciously or unconsciously).

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)

No, Ti and Te deal with systems.

Only Ti deals with systems according to SSS.

"Taste" is tricky. Are you referring to using 'taste' to identify an object? (Static, Xe, S)

No, that is inaccurate according to Aushra (and SSS).

"Changes can be noticeable, evident. These are visible manifestations of the process. Everything that is perceived, sensed with any organs of sense, things of current importance, occurring now and here, are included here. This is the process state changing, a person’s state of health."

"Thus, sensations are evident dynamics of relationships. Why?

* Sensation is dynamics: we sense taste only when it is changing, otherwise our receptors adapt themselves to it and stop responding."

Or are you using 'taste' to help season a dish to your preference? (Dynamic, Xi, S)

And that is inaccurate according to me. We don't perceive the changes in taste, even though our sense organs react to changes in taste. Instead, we perceive two (or more) different states.

"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.

We are only interested in the chair-body interaction, the sensation.

It is about Si, yes, but it is not dynamic information. See my previous comment.

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.

I agree.

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)

Defining those boundaries is about Ti, yes. But that is a judging IM element/function, hence you are not observing/seeing/perceiving the objects. You are evaluating the objects.

However, there is another way to distinguish between branch and tree, which isn't about evaluation/logic. Instead, it is about perception and memory. This is how we naturally learn the difference between branch and tree. We experience an object, and thereby we get an image (and sound) of the object (often as a child), and then we try to match another similar object with that image. This process is Si, so Si is also about breaking the information down.

Why do I claim that Si isn't about relationships? Because you are actually not comparing the objects. The object either fits the image (and sound, i.e. word) or it doesn't. As soon as you start comparing the objects, then you are using Ti.

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.

I don't fully agree with this description. See my previous comment.