An alternative view on information aspects

[Petter]

In desire to save time/energy for us both, I'm only going to address a couple of items from your post.
Regardless of the terminology one uses to refer to each level, Socionics has
1) 16 Types of Information (IM Types): IEE, LII, SLE, ESI, etc
2) Each IM Type is made up of IM Elements: Ne, Fi, Se, Ti, Si, Te, Ni, Fe
3) Each IM Element (from 2) is placed in particular Functional slots (Model A): base, creative, demonstrative, hidden agenda, etc

Yes

4) Each IM Element (from 2) is defined by IM Aspects: object/field, static/dynamic, etc

Yes and no. Aspects must match IM elements. The former is (defined) information and the latter is (eight different types of) information processing.

But to interchange the defining aspects (4) of each element (2) is to be talking of something that's not Socionics.

Is SSS theory "Socionics" in your view? They partially contradict Aushra's definitions.

For example:
"external dynamics of relationships": Socionics calls this "Si", OP calls it "Te"
"internal dynamics of relationships": Socionics calls this "Ni", OP calls it "Fe"
So when OP talks about "Te", OP is actually talking about Socionics' Si,
and when a Socionics person talks about "Si", OP thinks "external statics of objects" (aka Socionics "Se").
So one person is talking about Si, you're thinking Se, but calling it Si.

The headline is "An alternative view on information aspects". I am challenging Aushra's definitions. And Te in OP is not the same as Aushra's definition of Si. One definition of Te is right and the other is wrong (or both are wrong).

Using the same label doesn't mean you are doing Socionics.

Can you define "doing Socionics"?

MBTI uses the labels of Ne, Te, Se, Si, etc and they aren't doing "Socionics". If a person used MBTI definitions of Si when discussing Socionics Si, they're not talking Socionics, they're talking MBTI.

First of all, there are no MBTI definitions of the functions, only descriptions. Secondly, there are many different models in Socionics: Model A, Model A systemic, Model A2, Model B, Model T, Model J, Model M etc. So we have to distinguish between classical Socionics/mainstream Socionics and other versions of Socionics.

Can you imagine the confusion these kinds of things cause?

I don't think it is that hard to keep them separated.

Again, using the following terminology:
Type = IEE
Element = Ne, Fi
Aspect = internal, statics
Then yes, Socionics needs exactly 8 elements (Ne, Fi, Se, Ti, Si, Te, Ni, Fe).
Each element (Ne, Fi, etc) needs a minimum of 3 aspects to define it. For example, Se = {object, external ("explicit"), involved, static, continuity}.
Take any 3 of those 5 terms and you have defined Se...in part.

Are you "doing Socionics"?

The problem is that the eight IM elements must process ALL information, so if you are using more than three dichotomies (i.e. 2x2x2 aspects) then it won't work.

But combining different aspects helps us talk about different parts of Socionics. For example:
Alpha Quadra values {explicit fields (Ti,Si)}, {implicit objects {Ne,Fe)}, {abstract statics (Ne,Ti)}, and {involved dynamics (Fe,Si)}.
Gamma Quadra values the opposite.
Delta Quadra values {abstract objects (Ne, Te)}, {involved fields (Fi,Si)}, {implicit statics (Ne,Fi)}, and {explicit dynamics (Si,Te)}
Beta Quadra values the opposite.

I don't think the so-called Quadra values are accurate.

We can also talk about:
clubs: explicit (ST), implicit (NF), abstract (NT), involved (SF)
compare/contrast "perceiving" elements:
Ne/Se vs Ni/Si = {continuity, static, objects} vs {continuity, dynamic, fields}
Ne/Ni vs Se/Si = {continuity, implicit, abstract} vs {continuity, explicit, involved}
compare/contrast object oriented elements:
Ne/Se vs Fe/Te = {static, continuity} vs {dynamic, divisible}
Se/Te vs Ne/Fe = {explicit, objects} vs {implicit, objects}
Te/Fe vs Ti/Fi = {dynamic objects} vs {static fields}
N vs S = {implicit, abstract} vs {explicit, involved}
T vs F = {explicit, abstract} vs {implicit, Involved}
S vs F = {explicit, involved} vs {implicit, involved}
Si vs Se = both are {continuity, explicit, involved} but {dynamic field} vs {static object}
etc

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

As for whether or not IM Elements, themselves, directly "perceive information", please keep in mind that Socionics is an abstract theory made up of abstract parts and put into an abstract functional order.
None of Socionics is (currently) directly connected to any human structure/system. It is human systems that process information, not an abstract theory of an abstract structure that doesn't correlate (yet) with actual human structure/systems.

http://en.socionicasys.org/teorija/dlja-novichkov/model

"Function is that which processes (apparatus of the psyche) information."

Again, Aushra: "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."

I think Augusta may have linked Te to the gallbladder and liver somehow, but I don't believe that my neurosystem uses my gallbladder and liver as its tools to perceive motion. Do you?

What is your point?