An alternative view on information aspects

[Petter]

ref. line 1 Overall, there are really only two controlling processes: input and output, where rationalization is part of and integral to the latter. Type reflects an operating system, on which all the apps are based. The resulting influences of this controlling kernel are what Socionics has observed. However, Socionics has yet to discover its "string theory".

Jung, Isabel Briggs Myers, Keirsey and other typologists have observed and decribed people's behavior, and then they have concluded that certain behaviors are caused by certain processes in our brains. Socionists, on the other hand, have tried to define different kinds of information that fits each process/behavior.

One cannot define an operating system from informational aspects

But that is not what we are trying to do. We observe behavior, study descriptions of behavior (Jung etc.) and observe cognitive processes. Then we try to define information aspects. I think it is very hard to define the actual processes (i.e. your method).

; Socionics is only a behavioural classification system. The classification information would likely be valid when verifying the true system. However, most seem content wallowing in their information elements, which is likely sufficient for some applications.....

We either define the operating system/cognitive processes, or we try to describe them as accurately as possible.

rf. line 3 Top-down (N, which is relativistic in the general sense) is a perspective of the exact same information that bottom-up processor (S) would see. Does one look out upon a forest or a bunch of trees. How does a type absorb information for processing? As INTj, I see integrated systems or vistas but I have to force myself to focus on the constituent parts or detail; ISTjs would likely have to force themselves to focus at a system level but they'd let no detail escape. S and N are ways of limiting information because the brain cannot process it all. N is the sum, connection and or integration of entities - the system perspective........

This is your example:

"To use a crude example, two balls are connected by a string; the balls and string each by themselves can form three entities or them combined can form one entity. N's first inclination may be toward how such a configuration would function ignoring the details of the entities as opposed to S first focusing on its physical details then moving to function; the former is top down and the latter is bottom up."

What do you mean by "function" in this example?

"the relative (N) that places each packet in context, in perhaps a multitude of ways, with every other related packet."

Are you saying that N deals with details or not?

[Rebelondeck]

Socionists, on the other hand, have tried to define different kinds of information that fits each process/behavior.

I think it is very hard to define the actual processes (i.e. your method).

We either define the operating system/cognitive processes, or we try to describe them as accurately as possible.

What do you mean by "function" in this example?

Are you saying that N deals with details or not?

Lines 1&3: The disconnect I see is that 8 independent elements (and also invented sub-elements?) are defined without considering that there is a control system on which everything rides.
Line 2: Control process structures have been studied for decades. They're more straight forward to define than information elements, which takes a lot of observation time; control system configurations are mathematically based; it's just that the theory resides in the hard science world. I think its so intuitively obvious, I wonder why it hasn't already been studied.
Line 4: Function in that example could refer to aerodynamics, limitations of the two balls, stress factors in the string, what fun could be had, etc.. The first inclination of N is to not necessarily focus on the component elements; it is to look at the system or its potential uses or its oddity.
Line 5: N can be as detailed as S but the details are relativistic. S is quantitative while N is qualitative. N may not focus on the colour of a car but would notice that all the cars in this section of the parking lot are the same colour. I find that I easily recognize individuals and know how s/he generally behaves in detail and whether or not I liked the person but I cannot easily remember things like names, where or when we met, the topics we discussed, the clothes worn, etc..

a.k.a. I/O

[Petter]

Lines 1&3: The disconnect I see is that 8 independent elements (and also invented sub-elements?) are defined without considering that there is a control system on which everything rides.
Line 2: Control process structures have been studied for decades. They're more straight forward to define than information elements, which takes a lot of observation time; control system configurations are mathematically based; it's just that the theory resides in the hard science world. I think its so intuitively obvious, I wonder why it hasn't already been studied.

Which control system/process are you referring to?

Line 4: Function in that example could refer to aerodynamics, stress factors in the string,

This is Thinking, mainly Ti.

what fun could be had, etc..

This is Feeling, mainly Fe.

limitations of the two balls,.... The first inclination of N is to not necessarily focus on the component elements; .....it is to look at the system or its potential uses or its oddity.

This is Ne.

Line 5: N can be as detailed as S but the details are relativistic.

I both agree and disagree with you here. Yes, N is relativistic and there are some details, but those are abstractions, i.e. minimum of details that is needed in order to distinguish one object from another object. As soon as you go beyond those abstractions, then you are using Sensing, S.

S is quantitative while N is qualitative. N may not focus on the colour of a car but would notice that all the cars in this section of the parking lot are the same colour.

No, that is not N in my view. It is obvious information... first Sensing, and then more Sensing.