An alternative view on information aspects

[Petter]

@Petter I can refer you to my comments C3 and C5 on my first article below. To better answer your second question, would the second article add anything to the first?

http://www.socionics.com/articles/mytake.html

http://www.socionics.com/articles/int_ext.html

a.k.a. I/O

"Extroverted output rationalizes data in real-time; Te and Fe seek to control or deal with external environments, circumstances and issues as they happen by producing immediate responses."

This is problematic since an ILI chess player would use both Ni and Te in order to visualize and calculate future moves.

[Rebelondeck]

"Extroverted output rationalizes data in real-time; Te and Fe seek to control or deal with external environments, circumstances and issues as they happen by producing immediate responses."

This is problematic since an ILI chess player would use both Ni and Te in order to visualize and calculate future moves.

You seem to be assuming that information elements are correct;one shouldn't employ them or any related model to explain a different model, which is a closed loop control system that has N and T limits. Visualizations and future projections are irrelevant at this level; one has to think of the transfer and handling of data at a CPU-like level. Information elements are higher-order observations mixed in with lower order with no particular view of actual process structure or flow.

a.k.a. I/O

[Petter]

You seem to be assuming that information elements are correct;one shouldn't employ them or any related model to explain a different model, which is a closed loop control system that has N and T limits. Visualizations and future projections are irrelevant at this level; one has to think of the transfer and handling of data at a CPU-like level. Information elements are higher-order observations mixed in with lower order with no particular view of actual process structure or flow.

a.k.a. I/O

I have discarded the information aspects in OP, Aushra's information aspects and SSS's information aspects/elements. They don't work. See my new thread: "Definitions of the Cognitive Functions (or IM elements)". And yes, I think they are correct.

My current view is that we should define IM elements/functions via eight different kinds of information. This is essentially what SSS have done, but they have presented inaccurate definitions. For example, their distinction between extroverted and introverted elements does not work, especially Te vs. Ti.

However, there is another way to define IM elements/functions (i.e. your method?). You have tried to define how the functions process information, right? Or, have you tried to define both how and what (kinds of information each function processes)?

[Rebelondeck]

........You have tried to define how the functions process information, right? Or, have you tried to define both how and what (kinds of information each function processes)?

Correct. Unfortunately as I said above, in some of my articles, I tried to explain my perspectives using IEs, thinking I could better get my point across to Socionics but that was a mistake and I could not edit or delete these articles. Yes, my objective was to show how actual movement of data and limits on processing dovetail into the Socionics observations. I thought that the IEs have yet to be studied to determine an actual physical structure/configuration that can precipitate the elements as Socionics has defined them. These structures would be more familiar to an engineer or a systems analyst than perhaps a psychologist.

a.k.a. I/O

[Petter]

Correct. Unfortunately as I said above, in some of my articles, I tried to explain my perspectives using IEs, thinking I could better get my point across to Socionics but that was a mistake and I could not edit or delete these articles. Yes, my objective was to show how actual movement of data and limits on processing dovetail into the Socionics observations. I thought that the IEs have yet to be studied to determine an actual physical structure/configuration that can precipitate the elements as Socionics has defined them. These structures would be more familiar to an engineer or a systems analyst than perhaps a psychologist.

a.k.a. I/O

OK. I think your method includes 'what' to some degree and my method includes 'how' to some degree, though.

"Temperament is the source of the above primal tendencies. Extroversion or introversion is a property of temperament - the former refers to functions that operate from the perspective of being in the external world and addressing memory from the outside, while introverted functions operate within memory and address the external world from the inside."

Let's assume you are looking at two stones, and you are trying to decide which one is bigger. Which function processes this comparison in your view?

[Rebelondeck]

......Let's assume you are looking at two stones, and you are trying to decide which one is bigger. Which function processes this comparison in your view?

You picked a good example. Rationalization with either T or F limits can compare the information because in a sense, bigger can be compared by an absolute or relative process; also, data for this scenario is in the area where S and N limits overlap.How it's processed will vary with type so a specific information element cannot be attached to this process.

a.k.a. I/O

[Petter]

You picked a good example. Rationalization with either T or F limits can compare the information because in a sense, bigger can be compared by an absolute or relative process; also, data for this scenario is in the area where S and N limits overlap.

How is this related to Intuition, N, in your view? You are just looking at two stones. This is very obvious information.

"Pure T-processes are straightforward, quantifiable and absolute like A plus B equals C, period. They will force limits on input regardless of its original state so that a quantitative result can be produced. Although setting limits will produce a concrete answer, the results will now have a T-bias. Since T processes need to operate on cold hard facts, personalities that predominantly use them will sometimes be viewed as cold and hard.

Pure F-processes operate only on association, and potential or estimated association; results can be largely indeterminate. For example, one places a value on the relationship between C and A, which depends on the various relationships among A, B and C and how the relationships would be affected by a specific decision or action. In this context, decisions also depend on potential results or an estimate of what could possibly happen (real or imagined); however, there is no way of proving the alternative reality so one may be left with a sense (a feeling) that the right or wrong choice was made. The values placed on various relationships will bias the results, which may seem to lack concreteness because many relationships are rather dynamic. Because of the indeterminate nature of the results, many will view the personalities that predominantly use these processes as soft, or warm and fuzzy. "

How is my example related to a "relative process" or a value-based judgement? 'Comparing sizes of objects' must be a quantifiable judgement, right?

How it's processed will vary with type so a specific information element cannot be attached to this process.

I disagree with you on this. All types compare the sizes of the stones by using Ti. But it is processed differently as well. A person/a type thinks this information is either interesting (3D, 4D) or not (1D, 2D). And a person thinks this informations is either important ("valued") or not ("unvalued").